Why is /pol/ so economically retarded?
http://theweek.com/articles/624334/how-world-war-ii-reveals-actual-limits-deficit-spending
>Huge deficit spend creates full employment
>Ended the great depression
>Lead to the greatest period of growth in modern history
Why are social conservatives so tied to economic retardation? You have been conditioned to accept a poor economic system because of your social beliefs.
>Rused
>>74244776
>Huge deficit spend creates full employment
If the government opens up ditch digging companies where everyone is paid minimum wage 8 hours / day to dig a hole and then fill it back up, sure.
>>74244952
Are you suggesting there arent worthwhile investments that the government can be making?
What about science? Government has a risk tolerance that private enterprise does not.
What about nation building infrastructure? Hyperloop, Full FTTH internet etc
>>74245040
The absolute necessary investments of a government are infrastructure, military, and emergency services.
Everything else becomes increasingly inefficient and senseless.
>>74245164
But the private sector will only invest if it ca see a ROI, government has almost limitless risk tolerance. Private enterprise can enter later. one the risk has diminished.
>>74245478
>limitless risk tolerance
Passing laws to keep allowing yourself to dig a deeper hole of debt isn't limitless. It will collapse sooner or later.
Besides what are you advocating here? The government just blindly burn money?
The government's job is to secure a relatively free economic environment for its citizens by ensuring sovereignty.
Private sector will fall more into debt without deficit spending. Mainstream economics is a ruse by the banks to collect interest and scrape productivity from the economy.
>>74244776
>shmookey.net
>software developer website
>remove two lines from shmookey
>shmooley
>>74245564
There are limits of course. If real resources in the economy are fully utilised then crowding out becomes an issue along with inflation.
The eurozone could save itself by adopting these ideas. It will crash and burn in the next 10 years though.
>>74245693
What are "real resources in the economy"?
>>74245738
Labour mainly. Capital assets in the short term. Possibly resources if supply could not keep up.
>>74245040
They already do that but the corporations like Apple on the private sector just don't want you to know that.
>What would the iPhone be worth without the internet, GPS and touchscreen technology? All these components didn’t originate from Apple, but from research institutes, universities and government-funded companies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_hwmapWFFw
>>74245786
Once the stimulative spending is made by government private enterprise will increase investment to match demand. Over time Government spending will reduce as the demand for resources from the private sector crowds out government spending. That is when government will see a surplus.
>>74244776
While interesting, I'm not sure it's safe to compare the WW II era world monetary system to the modern one. If the USA begins deficit spending to the tune of a trillion a year, it directly goes against the value of the US dollar, which would cause a combination of inflation AND dollar devaluation.
When this happens, you don't magically get paid more money when you go to work the next day, everything costs more in the entire supply chain, prices for ALL goods and services go up, jobs are lost, and civilization has a bad time.
>>74244952
fix'dt
> Huge tax on wealthy creates full employment
If businesses and wealthy are forced to spend what they earn, you'd see a lot less of the cash hoarding which has caused the last few stock bubbles.
>>74245873
That is my point though. Initial government spending stimulates private enterprise. Why are we not investing in opportunities that the private sector is afraid of?
>>74245952
>If businesses and wealthy are forced to spend what they earn, you'd see a lot less of the cash hoarding which has caused the last few stock bubbles.
Good point! Much of the problems could be solved by decreasing the inequality across society right now. Negative interest rates don't seem to be encouraging spending though, More redistribution will increase demand and decrease the deficit that governments would need to run.
>>74245786
So you're shilling to me that wealth is created indirectly by massive government debt spending instead of directly by labor itself.
This is how you fuck your country up before you even start.
>>74245883
The only place the government needs to stimulate is healthcare to make sure enough doctors are available for the general population. If the only regulations on your economy are income taxes and environmental rules (e.g. no direct dumping of toxic sludge) then the free market will move in where demand is profitable.
>>74245952
>has caused the last few stock bubbles.
>not using a separate fiat currency for retarded speculative markets
a) stock markets are retarded
b) I would never allow my "real" economy (construction jobs, automotive industry, etc) to be linked to the "artificial economy (all this finance sector nonsense based on securities)
>>74245985
>Why are we not investing in opportunities that the private sector is afraid of?
Possibly because they are wastes of money.
>>74244776
This was based on the model that American dollars will still be valued as a reserve currency.
If this were indefinite, we could just keep printing money, regardless of actual production, to inflate our wealth.
Couple this with most oil being sold in dollars, and you have a strong reserve currency that other nations will hungrily buy up.
However, there is a growing trend showing nations selling off their dollars and buying up other potential reserve currencies, most notably china.
When we start seeing more states sell oil in other currencies, we will no longer be able to print our way out of financial trouble, and doing so would make our currency Weimar levels of inflated.
tl;dr your model only works if dollars remain the world's reserve currency, and things are trending in the other direction.
>>74246151
>So you're shilling to me that wealth is created indirectly by massive government debt spending instead of directly by labor itself.
No the wealth is still created by the combination of resource inputs, government just utilises resources that are currently stagnant.
>Possibly because they are wastes of money
How much progress has bee made because of government investments in science? Where would the private sector be without many great inventions that the government took on the burden of risk for?
>>74245985
Because even the government doesn't like risk.
For every dollar spent on NASA historically, Seven have been generated by their technology. It's literally a investor's wet dream, but no one knew that at the time and no one is talking about upping NASA budget now.
Government research dollars don't just go to things like GPS either, they go to dumb shit like giving bunnies LSD and social engineering of alcoholism in eskimo communities.
If you were asking the average /pol/ack, we'd want everything to be going to cool shit like laser sex monkey robots that mine asteroids.
The rest of the world has dumb ideas and stuff like GPS are special things that are the result of this huge mess of funding that gets a bunch of intelligent people in a room working on something actually useful.
Private enterprise can't afford to do that as much as government as they run on unicorn farts. However, they also have dumb shit to fund like medicare. If you look at our debts, its mostly trying to shovel money into the medical industry using old dying voters as an excuse.
You can be fiscally responsible and have room for innovation. You can fiscally irresponsible and spend it all on cool research. It doesn't matter when the electorate really just wants other peoples money right now.
>>74246341
>government just utilises resources that are currently stagnant.
Why?
Just to keep money moving?
To create an illusion of economic activity?
I'd rather the demand stays the same and the supply increases dropping prices than having the government needlessly stockpiling 100s of tons of steel bars or whatever.
>science
a) the biggest boosts to science come from war
b) science is different from the biggest government sink of resources, welfare programs
I don't mind government spending on science as long as very little or none of the money is being lost to corruption. Science is relatively cheap and ultimately in a real minarchist society citizens could choose themselves to donate to science rather than the government allocating that money for them.
You keep talking about risk.
Maybe we should take extremely high risk factors as bad omens for a certain market and have no one sink money into it?
Ever wondered why there aren't private unemployment insurance companies?
Because the RoI doesn't exist.
>>74246282
Would the loss of demand for $US externally not drive domestic investment as the dollar depreciates and production becomes more competitive? In this case government deficit spending would not be as necessary due to the naturally stimulative effect of a decreasing dollar
>>74246637
It would most definitely result in domestic investment, and probably war.
There are a few other ways out of such a situation, but one is just a pet idea of mine that isn't fully fleshed out.
War works pretty much every time. When you back your currency with 12 supercarrier groups you can dictate world economic policy.
>>74245985
Because companies often fail to pay back for the technology and benefits they use through taxes.
>>74245786
Steve keen? Is that you? Yes taxes can drive growth the idea of 'skin in the game' is a joke. And yes reserve currency's have to run at deficit but you are talking to poltards so expect a lack of logic.
>>74246834
Yes but that war is more geopolitically related in terms of the US retaining its global hegemony.
War works as an economic stimulant specifically because it results in the need for full utilisation of resources.
>>74244776
>finance in economic boom by passing on the debts of it to the next generation
>next generation thinks that surely they can fix their economic problem which arose from exactly this in the same way
>>74246998
Steve keen is a bit wishy washy for me.
I read bill mitchell and study in his program at uni. Check his blog out
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/
He is a full blown lefty and i don't agree with his policy proscriptions but I find his arguments compelling.
>>74247002
Considering most "wealth" created in the US is in the financial sector, I'd say that would be a good thing.
>>74247099
>Germany complaining after they were one of the greatest beneficiaries of hitlers massive spending.
How is that working out for you now as the biggest power in Europe?
>>74247204
Yes, definitely one of the biggest problems right now is the way that the finance sector has built itself to scrape most of the production surplus from the economy via interest, then gambling with it. They don't add value just steal it.
>>74247410
Foam pls respond to my post.
We are having a nice conversation.
>>74245478
>what is greece?
This "poor economic system" has worked well for me so far.
Pic related, you fucking socialist alternative scum.
>>74247410
I need to take a quick break, but if the thread is still up, I'll go into detail about eliminating fiat currency and instilling a long term solution that promotes technological advancement in energy production.
Energy=potential to do work, whether it's through oil, natural gas, human labor, etc.
>>74244776
>Why are social conservatives so tied to economic retardation
Because they have their story and they don't want facts to get in the way.
To be fair to conservatives, they rely on "common sense". Unfortunately, economics is counter intuitive, if you apply "common sense" you end up misunderstanding the basics. Economics, and the modern World, requires critical thinking. This isn't something conservative want to understand because it undermines their belief systems.
>>74244776
Yep, you got it right. We believe in lots of dumb shit out of contrarianism too.
>>74247450
Greece doesn't have control of its monetary supply and is restricted by the rules of the Euro monetary union (can't run fiscal deficits below 3% or something). If the EU finded investment in greece with the euro then they wouldnt be in the predicament they are today. That is why they should have left the eurozone and regained control of their fiscal policy.
When the next economic crash happens in the next year or so you will see another 10 greeces because of the bad policies and then the Eurozone will start to fail.
>>74247514
Cool personal anecdote.
You know our current system works well for Bill Gates too? You and Bill are in the same boat, you are the winners!
Fuk Year!!!!
\sarcasm
>>74247514
Nice man, It works for me too but that doesnt mean it can't be better. Shit I sit at home and make a few hundred dollars a day trading futures while I study and a crash would make me a fortune but that doesn't mean the system is right just because we are comfortable.
>>74247804
And how is socialism working out for Venezuela?
>>74247804
It's called hard work mate. It doesn't matter what "system" we are in or not in. You put the hours in and you get the reward.
>tfw 28 years old, 2 whips 2 properties, gonna retire before I'm 40.
>>74247824
Barring those with severe disabilities, anyone who is not successful is because they don't work hard. When my mates were out getting blind, I was in the library. Didn't get my first gf till 25 but all the hours add up eventually.
Those blaming the system are looking for something/someone other than theirselves to blame.
>>74247868
>Venezuela?
How's you capitalism working out with your $20+ Trillion debts?
Or, are your great, great, great grand children picking up your tab?
>>74247186
He's a math geek who also looked at economics I made the joke because Aussie. But I subscribe to MMT as well. I do not expect rational thought and usually just lurk here to laugh at lack of reason. I do not understand why you bother with a topic that is beyond the capacity of the herd to understand. But kudos for trying to educate the mob.
>>74246613
>To create an illusion of economic activity?
What is the illusion? If the money is being spent on projects that will boost the economy over the long term then that is a good thing. Private businesses won't invest in long term projects that offer an overall economic benefit but not a specific benefit. Government can fill this gap and stimulate the economy. Also money multiplier means that for every dollar spent on projects there is a 1.xx return overall that results in INCREASED private enterprise and reduces the need for government.
>as long as very little or none of the money is being lost to corruption
Yes this is a good point. This will create a great incentive for business to latch onto the government teat. It will definitely require some well thought out legislation to prevent corruption and theft.
>>74248026
It was working pretty well before social welfare. Then we stopped being a capitalist nation, and became some sort of bastardization.
>>74248080
Creating artificial demand isn't a good method of stimulating the economy. Its a good method of writing red numbers.
The only place the government should create artificial demand is in healthcare to make sure there's enough doctors for the citizens.
>>74248016
>t doesn't matter what "system" we are in or not in. You put the hours in and you get the reward.
You were born into privilege.
Idiot.
>>74248016
>You put the hours in and you get the reward.
Easy to say when you have gotten your reward, but the fact is that it is simply not true. Someone always gets the shit end of the stick and if we can use those people to build a greater society then why would we not do it?
>>74248117
>social welfare caused the international financial crisis...
haha
>>74248236
Not a refutation. You asked how it was going back when we were capitalist. The number of people living in poverty dropped roughly 1 percent of the population per year. Anything that happened after social welfare began is irrelevant to my argument, because that's not what I'm arguing as a model.
>>74248340
>Not a refutation
Do you really believe the US has $20 Trillion+ debt because it gave food stamps to Tyrone?
HAhaahahahahahah
Silly cunt.
>>74248199
Nope, try again commie
>>74248205
I got my reward because from age 19-28 (and onwards) I put anywhere from 70-100 hours a week in my work. I deserve my reward. Those that were out socialising at uni and having their time of their lives, that's great. More power to them. But there's a cost to every decision. Every hour they were out partying was every hour I was in the office or library. And now cos I've got a fuckload more, they want some of mine.
No fucking deal.
>>74247868
>Le socialism meme
The world is not black and white my friend
>>74247643
>Conservatives don't want facts to get in the way
>>74248437
>Resorts to strawman argument when proven wrong
>>74247804
>>74248026
>Capitalism has risen millions out of poverty
See, this is the problem with socialism and communism or whatever you want to believe in. When it fails, you all claim that "OH NO, THIS IS THE WRONG ONE! ITS NOT REAL!"
But with Capitalists, we see where the system went wrong, and improve it. This is why Capitalism continues to reign supreme. Well, except the part where it becomes Crony Capitalism and Corporatism.
I know a fair few people that are around 22 (aren't white), and already driving around cars worth more than $45,000. Why? Because they have well paying jobs. If you work hard, you get the rewards. But "muh fucking privilege" right?
>>74248472
>Nope, try again commie
Yep.
If you'd really worked for your money you'd know how hard life is for the "have nots".
You're a trust fund kid.
>>74248472
Why would a change to the system diminish your hard work?
Putting people back to work rather than relying on welfare is a good thing and encourage people to engage more. Why is this not a good thing?
>>74248437
Well, our welfare spending makes up ~50 percent of federal government spending.
Our spending as a percentage of GDP is around 40 percent. Our taxes as a percentage of GDP is about 26 percent.
So yeah, I do.
>>74248472
Also this isn't about taking more from the rich, this is about utilising the resources that government has at hand to build a greater society. It does not require taking from the wealthy, only ensuring that money does not stagnate in the hands of the extremely wealthy.
>>74245985
>Initial government spending stimulates private enterprise
no, market demand does
>>74248626
Wait, it's 50 percent now? It was around 25% in 2010. Can you post a source for me?
>>74248505
>strawman
So, food stamps don't count as welfare?
The US is fucked because it changed from the American School of Economics to the Chicago School around 1980, with the election of Reagan.
The new Neoliberal economic system has been in place ever since, and it is killing the US economy.
If you're curious to know what the American School of Economics is, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29
>>74248626
If you want people off welfare then why is government spending with the goal of full utilisation of capable labour a valid goal? Reduce welfare burden and create a much more productive society with faster progress.
>>74248626
Social Security is covered by 100% by Payroll Tax. The working poor pay for themselves.
>>74248595
Sure, but find the initiatives putting people back into work by cutting welfare state.
Don't touch taxes unless you are lowering them.
>>74248720
But the assumption that it's "stagnating" is inherently ridiculous. There's far more economic mobility in the higher economic strata than the lower strata. That's common sense. The wealthy are constantly investing into the stock market and seeking to "spend money to make money".
>>74247514
Well I guess money can't buy taste.
>>74248747
Let's use your graph:
>Social security is about 19.5 percent.
>Unemployment/welfare is about 16 percent.
>Medicare is about 13 percent.
>Medicaid is about 9 percent.
I'll let you add those up.
>>74248737
Government spending = demand
Money multiplier means decreases in necessary government spending as supply builds to match demand.
I don't see how that could not make sense.
>>74248532
>This is why Capitalism continues to reign supreme
It's apparent you don't know what "Neoliberal Capitalism" is. Here's a clue: it's our current system. It's the system that caused the biggest financial disaster in history.
> Capitalists, we see where the system went wrong, and improve it.
Capitalists do not learn from their mistakes, they rely on Government to rescue them.
Same as it ever was.
>>74248769
You've tried to deflect my accusation of strawman with yet another strawman. You responded to a post claiming that the economy was doing well before social welfare by asserting that he was accusing social welfare of being the cause of the international financial crisis. When he called you out on this strawman, he reiterated his claims. Then you tried to insinuate that he was blaming the entire US debt on welfare. Now that I've called you out on that strawman, you're trying to make yourself believe that I'm insinuating that I object to what you define as "welfare". You're the most hilariously inept arguer I've ever met on /pol/.
>>74244776
>New Deal
>ended the Great Depression
oy kangaroo plz
>>74248803
No arguments from me.
>>74248815
That's funny, because Social Security is becoming insolvent, because the government borrowed the money, put in IOUs, with no plans on how to repay what they owe.
>>74247804
salty Mohameddan who needs everything served on a silver plate detected
>>74248830
Taxes only act as a brake on the economy and should only be increased when inflation becomes a risk.
Reducing taxes serves the same effect as government spending, but is less targeted. No reason why both can't be done at the same time in a time like now where the economy is sluggish.
>>74248890
Good one fsggot. Show me a picture of your shitbox Toyota and we'll compare who has taste or not.
>>74248929
Why include Medicare and Medicaid as welfare?
>>74248987
>Neoliberal Capitalism
>Not calling it by the original name Ordoliberalism
>implying you know any of that and aren't just spouting nonsense
>>74249121
Because that's what it is. It is taking money from some people, and giving it to other people. Arguing that they pitched in doesn't negate the fact that its welfare. There have been people on both who never paid a dime into either.
>>74249119
Nissan, actually
>its worse because it worth less!!!
>>74249016
>croatia pls
I said WW2 ended the great depression.
Glad you and your little pic agree with me
>>74249188
By that logic all government spending is welfare.
>>74249139
"Neoliberal Capitalism" refers to the Neo-Classical synthesis that ocurred during late '60s and '70s within feild of economics.
>>74249231
No, some government spending is providing a universal good, like laws, law enforcement, and military protection.
>>74249089
Tax breaks for certain spending.
I can dump 500k into ASX/S&P and most Likely the company will spend that money on buybacks and money that does fuck all for the economy.
Or government can offer me very good tax breaks to invest in capital intensive startups/companies. Larger impact across the economy.
>>74244776
>MMT on /pol/
At last!
>>74244776
Huur duur Keynesian bullshit
>>74249295
But it's all "taking from one and giving to another", assuming that it's done through tax. It's arbitrary to just imagine that anything is welfare unless it contributes to a "universal good". Why isn't healthcare a universal good?
>>74249296
Good point, the structure of the tax system is important in terms of the incentives that it drives. This should be a key argument between parties rather than about who is going to make a surplus.
Demand must also be recognised though because those investments wont be made unless there is demand there to incentivise or respond to the supply.
>>74249391
>Huur duur Keynesian bullshit
/thread
very clever argument friend
>>74249393
No, it isn't. Everyone uses the law, the law enforcement, and military defense.
Not everyone makes it to retirement. Not everyone utilizes medicaid or medicare.
That said, I am in favor of a flat tax, so that everyone pays an equal percentage of their income.
>>74249473
That's as deep as the "opposition" goes.
>>74249393
>taking from one and giving to another",
Not true in the technical sense.
Taxes takes money out of the economy. It just disappears and does not fund spending.
Spending is funded by bond sales (or by the central bank as some would have it).
Taxes should be more about controlling the flows of money in the economy and preventing the hoarding by the uber wealthy.
>>74245478
>government has almost limitless risk tolerance.
This why US have this. Government literally bullies people out from the market and force them into student debt and overeducation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2015/07/09/why-college-costs-hurt-schools-use-fed-aid-to-hike-prices/#5bc12ca25958
>>74249591
Whatever you say, comrade.
>>74249217
>WWII is a metric
oy koala, pls
>>74249495
But then you're just arguing that the issue is that some people don't make it to retirement or don't use medicaid and medicare. Attacking Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare for that is inherently ridiculous unless you're also going to prove that people aren't enjoying these benefits precisely because of these benefits.
>>74249591
Show me any example of "hoarding by the uber wealthy". Then justify the use of government as a moral enforcer and mandatory economic advisor.
>>74249716
No, I don't. I only need to prove that they aren't universal goods that are promised to be provided and defended in the blueprint that is the United States Constitution, which explicitly states the only things that the Federal Government should provide and do.
>>74244776
I don't understand any of this but it sounds like some "free energy" bullshit.
>>74245040
Like our government pushing lightwater reactors, over safer molten-salt reactors? Probably set back Nuclear power several decades. They are clueless and fuck up far more often than I am comfortable with.
>>74249259
wikipedia is your friend i see
Reminder that there is literally nothing wrong with giving a minimum wage job to anyone who wants one.
>>74249810
Don't excuse deliberate ignorance by appealing to the Constitution. Common sense is more valuable than precedent.
Even then, the Constitution outlines that the government is meant to "promote the general welfare". If it can do such a thing through Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare then you have no argument.
>>74249931
You're implying that the government owns all jobs and bequeaths them to anyone that earns its favor. Typical Australian cattle.
>>74244776
It was not the deficit spending but the de facto wage ceiling that created full employment. Check out Thomas Sowell on this.
>>74249990
No, the government doesn't own all jobs, but it has unlimited capacity to create them. The only questions are:
>What should these basic jobs be?
>How much should these basic jobs pay (in other words what should the minimum wage be)?
>>74249942
No, it isn't. The Constitution was written to explicitly limit the federal government's power, intending to give most of the power to the state. If a state wants to provide free healthcare to everyone, they are free to do so, and free to reap the consequences, both good and bad, of that, on their own. This way the Union as a whole would survive, even if poor economic decisions were made by even a majority of states. The federal government would still be able to defend the land, and the successful people from the successful states would be able to salvage the land via purchasing the land for dirt cheap, and nearly-immediately changing the laws.
>>74249789
Don't bother, he's communist. The fact that he can follow Marx's teachings, despite how the man lived, is telling.
>>74248199
> privilege
People hire on merit, always have, always will.
>>74250098
Being born in Australia puts one at an advantage over someone born in Somalia, right? So the privilege argument isn't completely baseless.
>>74249789
The asset bubbles of the last 2 decades? When there is excess capital accumulation and no demand in the economy then assets inflate (real estate, equities etc) If this money had productive investments to be made then bubbles would not form because demand would be there to match the excessive supply. If you like a bomb and bust economy then good for you. Give it another year and the next crash is going to fuck the world harder than the last.
>>74250312
You could say the same thing about India and China, but because of this, the government is able to bid for lower wages (clothing used to be made in China, now it's India dominating the textile industry, because China used the money to become better educated, and became able to do more skilled work, like electronics, and dumped the textile trade).
So if you want to be successful, wherever you live, you need to find a need and supply it. Enough people doing this can revolutionize a country so quickly that the people of that country still shit in the streets while making more money than the average American family did 100 years ago.
>>74250097
>Don't bother, he's communist
Fuck you yanks are the dumbest cunts. I'm literally arguing for a free market economy with a government only stepping in at times when private enterprise cant fully utilise resources and can't handle the burden of risk for certain investments.
get a fucking grip m8
>>74250429
Don't tell me about the last 2 decades, tell me about now. Where is this "hoarding" you're so upset about?
>>74250312
Of course, life is shit in Somalia, but somalian workers also don't have the same skills as australian workers. Otherwise Australia would outsource more or import somalian workers. Don't get me wrong, there is inequality and sad stuff in this world, but if you have a computer, you have access to the knowledge of the world. Make something out of it.
>>74250610
Ok i'll put this more simply. If there is an accumulation of money that people want to invest, but there is not a matching amount of dollars that people want to spend then the "investment money" will flood into assets that don't have a demand to match it. This will result in bubbles and crashes.
>>74250444
>So if you want to be successful, wherever you live, you need to find a need and supply it. Enough people doing this can revolutionize a country so quickly that the people of that country still shit in the streets while making more money than the average American family did 100 years ago.
Whether or not your country is managed and populated by intelligent, hard-working people is outside of your control. A hard-working person in India will earn a fraction of the income of a "lazy" Australian (even without getting into the argument about welfare etc.)
>>74250641
>Of course, life is shit in Somalia, but somalian workers also don't have the same skills as australian workers.
Mostly due to factors that an individual born in Somalia has zero control over, right? I think that's what the other guy meant when he used the word "privilege".
>>74250575
You are arguing for something that isn't an issue in the states. 90% of all familial wealth is spent and gone within 2 generations. The leftist Brookings Institute has come out stating that if you don't want to be permanently poor, you need to do 3 simple things:
>1. Graduate High School
>2. Get a job, any job, and keep it.
>3. Don't get pregnant until after marriage
>3.5 (optional) If you want a greater likelihood for your marriage to be successful, don't get married before age 21.
>>74244776
>Huge deficit spend creates full employment
toplyl, it's also made sure that everyone except the already obscenely rich are poorer.
What do you think deficit spending does? It increases inflation.
What do you think inflation does? It makes your money less valuable.
>>74250097
The Constitution was also written to outline the general structure and responsibilities of the federal government. It makes use of vague clauses in order to allow the government to legislate in the interest of common sense. If you accept that it's true that Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare will promote the general welfare, you don't have any argument. Saying that the Constitution prevents it is to say that the Constitution is flawed. I don't think that Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are wise, but merely entertaining the idea that they are has caused your arguments to collapse.
>>74250710
Considering that the federal government has already appropriated the right to print money, I don't see your point.
>>74250719
>Whether or not your country is managed and populated by intelligent, hard-working people is outside of your control. A hard-working person in India will earn a fraction of the income of a "lazy" Australian (even without getting into the argument about welfare etc.)
Who cares? They are improving, aren't they? The Industrial Revolution isn't an overnight phenomenon, and every country needs to go through it voluntarily if they want to have any measure of long-term success.
Furthermore, when you look at the States (can't speak for Straya), industry is leaving, and the US is having a rough time adjusting to this, because they aren't competitive. This means that, just like familial wealth can be spent in 2 generations, so, too, can national wealth, if the citizens can't/won't be competitive.
>>74250747
No I'm arguing that booms and busts created by the disparity of supply and demand in the macro economy and the resulting transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich are avoidable. A society where people aren't reliant on welfare and are incentivised to be productive rather than just subsist.
>>74244776
>It was the deficit goy
>not the fact the USA was literally 50% of the remaining GDP of the world and it's production feed everything inside and out of the country for decades until the economic issues in the 70s and 80s
Australia, never stop shitposting
>>74245040
Wait, so your logic is that because government is more willing to waste money, it's a good thing they like to waste money?
>>74250817
>If you accept that it's true that Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare will promote the general welfare, you don't have any argument.
Good thing that I don't, and the evidence of that is on my side. The boomers invested in SS, but then took it out and spent it on other things, but still feel entitled to the payout. That is the most "universal" of the three goods you listed (even though it is far from universal).
This seems to reinforce the ideas of Thomas Jefferson:
>"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."
>>74250940
If you just take welfare out of the equation, the people won't be reliant on it.
>>74250867
Because the printing of money by government is constrained?
Government should ideally redistribute money to more closely match supply and demand, before excessive printing/borrowing.
>>74250992
Foreign dependence wasn't the cause of our prosperity. We had the same thing going in World War 1, but all that happened was that the Germans couldn't pay the British who couldn't pay us.
>>74250719
a privilege is some kind of special right, immunity, permission or benefit granted by someone or something. Life is tough in Somalia and I thank God every day for my life in Europe, but capitalism is the best system to improve life.
Here's hoping OP dies in a fire car crash so ford can make another shitty vehicle therefore stimulating the economy and keeping a middle aged life insurance assessor that refuses to retire because his life savings evaporated during the stock bubble and with the cash interest rates now too low can't afford to retire thus helping to keep youth unemployment high and that's why it's your fault you still live with your parents op.
>>74251099
Well, yeah, but this entire time I've been holding you to the premise that it does work. You never rejected that premise until now, which is why you've been suffering. I'm not very well versed in economics, so I would have immediately folded if you had just ignored my sophism. The only reason that I kept responding was because you kept giving me sure-fire victories. Food for thought.
>>74251123
So you're suggesting that the government doesn't have the ability to print money properly? What does that have to do with what I said?
And can that talk of wealth redistribution if you're really so sure that you aren't a communist. Sheesh. Wealth redistribution in the name of "supply and demand" is little different from wealth distribution in the name of "equality".
>>74251124
I didn't say economic dependence, you cretin, I said economic survival. The USA emerged in the 50's and 60's as the global economic superpower because there was no one left (and a similar, but smaller thing happened in the 20's, where were referred more often than not as... roaring), with this absolute economic dominance and good fortunes dying off once everyone else recovered (again, the economy went to shit on the 70's and 80's despite all the keynesian bullshit for a reason).
One would think Reagan, stagflation, and the oil shocks would have shown people what op has on top is a load of bullshit.
>>74251124
Foreign countries were dependant because they were fully utilising resources rebuilding.
Why can we fully utilise resouces during war but not during peace?
>>74251342
Are you suggesting that we should club the rest of the world to death in the interests of prosperity?
Besides that: The same situation was going on in the time after World War 1. Why did this lead to the Great Depression and not prosperity?
>>74251342
By the end of the 1950s, European manufacturing and industrial capacity had exceeded their prewar peaks, thanks largely to the Marshall Plan and significant American investment. Yet America's position wasn't threatened by this rise of European business.
If you can explain why this is without referring to East European Communism, you'll understand why deficit spending is only sometimes the worst thing in the world.
Key words: Balance of payments, current account, capital account.
>>74250992
>Implying the US was the only country to benefit from post-war full employment policy
http://www.billmitchell.org/White_Paper_1945/index.html
I wonder what explanation you will come up with for Australia's success. Magic?
>>74251265
I never explicitly stated either way. I said that it was outside of the federal government's jurisdiction, which it is. Why discuss whether something works or not when it shouldn't exist in the first place?
But one would think that all the arguments that I've been putting forth, including your own spending chart and my poverty chart, that I was putting forth the argument that it doesn't work.
But again, that wasn't the argument I was making, and for me to make that claim would mean that I would have to provide proof for that claim, which wasn't what I was interested in talking about.
>>74251123
How do you redistribute money to match supply and demand?
Those are abstracts defined by market activity, redistribution necessarily distorts the market since it necessitates the use of an external system of incentives (the tax code).
>>74251336
And what is the natural distribution of wealth dictated by?
There is a whole system that decides who takes what out of the system. It is not simply "I did this and earned this and therefore this is a result of what I did". It is much more complex than that and understanding how wealth is created and distributed is key to understanding the capabilities of society to fully engage its resources and be much more productive. I don't believe in equality, I believe that hard work gets you to where you are, but I also believe that the opportunities presented to people dictate their ability to achieve that success. All I am suggesting is that we create employment opportunities for every able bodies person with no effect on whether somebody can rise above due to their own hard work. Shit, this system can allow for huge manipulation of the tax system and spending and should allow substantive debate between politcal parties on what their goals are and what they can achieve. Stop trying to write me off as a socialist/communist because this system offers a realistic view of what governments can do and provides scope for debate from all sides of politics on what the goals should be.
>>74251411
No, foreign countries were dependent because foreign countries were incompetent. As is standard American practice, we took advantage of World War 1 in order to ensure that the zealous warring powers would be indebted to us. This would have worked perfectly well, had we not allowed them to decide their own futures. Because of this blunder, the Allies chose to extort the Central Powers for all that they were worth. Hence that the Central Powers entered economic misery and the whole system collapsed. World War 1 was not like World War 2. After World War 2, we did not make the mistake of letting you barbarians have any input. We immediately set extreme economic aid policies in motion in order to stimulate the reconstruction of the defeated powers. We literally air-dropped care packages using the bombers that had obliterated the very same cities. We did it all while keeping the foreigners in debt, creating the nice situation where they were obligated to pay and yet still had the power to do so. The prosperity after World War 2, in the outside world, is entirely due to us. It's especially due to the prosperity that occurred during the war, which is what you should be focusing on.
>>74251584
I guess that's true. But the point is that you were roped into an argument that you couldn't possibly win. Trying to save face now is like trying to win a battle after your troops are already dead.
>>74251700
None of this has anything to do with what I've said. If you're really so butthurt about being called a communist, don't suggest that it's the government's role to redistribute the wealth.
>>74251594
>redistribution necessarily distorts the market since it necessitates the use of an external system of incentives (the tax code).
Well that is the whole purpose of taxes. Create and destroy incentives. Take money from the economy so it can be spent in more productive areas.
If there were no taxes there would still be distortions in the market because the accumulation capital necessarily distorts the market in itself.
>>74245786
>Labour
So what you're saying is, in the 70s, the USA became Marxist.
>>74251824
Once again, before you can talk about whether something is good or not, you need to talk about whether it should exist or not.
Take the government being responsible for killing its constituents that break the law in an egregious way. Before we can talk about whether capital punishment is good or not, we need to decide whether that power should exist at all. The state having the power to kill its one of its own tax payers is far from a black and white issue.
Then, IF we decide whether it should even exist, we can discuss whether it existing is a good thing.
Reminder that deficit spending is non-government saving. For every dollar you earn but don't spend, someone else has spent a dollar over their income.
Governments being in deficit is therefore the natural state.
>Will /pol/ deny basic facts?
>>74244776
>Deficit spending creates full employment and growth and prosperity, I swear!
You mean like how British state control of the economy during the second world war and after led to economic ruin and rationing never seen under pre-world-war free market conditions, leading to full employment, but only on the two productive days of the week where there's electricity running?
You mean like how Venezuela has been doing, similarly, where even toilet paper has become a valuable black market commodity?
Where they have, get this
Run out of money
To print more money
And what about Weimar Germany?
>>74251927
Ok I won't say redistribution then. But to suggest that the government has no role in determining incentives in the economy is foolish.
If there were no taxes and free enterprise was allowed to thrive then we would see a concentration of capital and the exploitation of labour.
>>74251469
Essentially. Rome is a good example to follow in that regard.
And it did lead to prosperity, known as the Roaring Twenties, just after the recession of 1921 which fixed itself by the way. When the roaring Twenties were at their peak, the fed tried a bit of it's magic by expanding the money supply artificially to generate even more growth, eventually leading to the RTs to balloon even further with worthless inflation money, until 10 years later everything collapse as the ghost growth caused by this money became apparent. I will leave to your own reasoning what similar event occurred recently with very much the same result.
And, very much like recent events, attempts at inflating it even further to fuel yet another boom through inflation money made the problems that the economic contraction would have fixed by, essentially, allowing the same economic issues to continue for roughly 10 years (check the data, there was no improvement through FDRs action) until the war came along and burned every other competitor to the ground.
>>74251493
Which would be relevant if the European production and markets weren't intrinsically linked to american economic system and that the USA didn't use that period of time. Also, note that there was no real deficit in that period of time. Between 1947 to 1954 the USA actually had a supervatit, and this was before the accounting wizardry of the Clintons. The Marshall plan wasn't funded by loans because, well, there was no one to ask a loan from.
>>74251508
>claim countries which weren't destroyed managed to have economic booms
>country has a boom because it wasn't destroyed
>>74252170
Are you talking about the private sector? If so, the private sector sells their items at the cost they sell it at with the mentality that not all of them will sell, but that they will still be able to afford to keep their businesses running and their workers paid.
>>74251959
None of this matters. Were it not for the fact that I decided to break the argument off and reveal what had gone wrong for you at its very beginning, we would still be talking about whether it's right to use the Constitution to suppress common sense. I'm done with this point. I'm not going to make any pretension about knowing the truth about whether Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are useful or not. You've only allowed your own bias about what the 'right side of the issue' is that you won't acknowledge the fact that you were fighting an untenable position. You think that you could have fallen back to other points on the topic that would really prove you right, but the fact of the matter is that I wouldn't have allowed you to. Out of respect, I can't allow the conversation to continue.
>>74252271
What if there were a system in which there were no taxes and the only laws against free enterprise were ones that specifically prevented monopolization and exploitation?
>>74244776
Evangelists are the reason neocons were able to take power. Jesus freaks are literally retarded.
You need enough economic protectionism to ensure local manufacturing exists and to protect local labor so that way consumers actually have money to spend. Then you gotta tax the richfags enough to pay for the government.
The working class will always spend 100% of their income.
>>74252214
>venezuela
>weimar republic
Honestly your arguments are weak. Do some basic research and you can see the factors that drove the breakdown of these economies.
>>74247410
Ok, I'm back, and sorry to say the thread went to shit.
Peg your currency to the most prevalent energy commodity available. Every nation needs energy to function, whether it comes from oil, natural gas, manual labor, or eventually fusion.
The US has seen unquestioned economic dominance arguably because of the petrodollar, and third world nations industrializing. Unfortunately, this is unsustainable in the long term. Either oil will run out, or states will favor local sources of energy after industrializing enough to allow utilization.
If all other countries pegged their currency to their best source of energy, then even underdeveloped nations with high populations can compete on the global market by selling their currency (backed by labor.)
We already do this. China effectively sells us their labor, and we sell them petrodollars in return. I'm proposing that we cut out the middleman of fiat currency and instead allow the potential for a country to do work act as a representative for currency.
Speculation would even be encouraged, as volatile energy prices would allow more technologies that require too much capitol up front to be explored.
Example: fraccing became highly popular even though it's a more expensive extraction method because of oil that was hovering near $100 a barrel.
My system relies on people's self interest to guide the market to an eventuality of technological advancement and proliferation of energy technology.
The only other examples of a work or energy backed currency are nazi Germany and the modern petrodollar. Although I will admit, the dollar's status as a reserve currency has a larger impact on its value. Please correct me if there are other examples.
>>74252283
>claim countries which weren't destroyed managed to have economic booms
>country has a boom because it wasn't destroyed
30 years of full employment as a direct result of government policy direction and you give me "ya well its bcuz you didnt get pwnd in ww2 lol"? Try harder m8.
>>74252583
Pt 2.
The short term goal would be a major market correction after the values for each currency are determined. We know this is a long time coming anyway. The bandaid needs to be ripped off. Then wealth is more accurately described as capacity for production and work. Increasing capacity means developing more inexpensive energy.
Long term is a bit trickier, and I will admit it relies on technology that is not currently viable.
Precious metal resources will become scarce. Thorium, uranium, platinum, and rubidium will eventually become too scarce to be used industrially, and the market will require new sources in order to remain profitable.
Nations (or more likely, private companies) will turn to asteroid mining, and eventual colonization of local planets, within reason.
The last part was a bit of a pipe dream, but I'm talking very long term. We need to start thinking of energy as the only real resource. Gold and silver are finite and are routinely destroyed by speculation. Printing more fiat (usually) leads to inflation. Producing more energy only leads to a surplus of what every nation requires to function in the modern world.
This is still a work in progress, and any criticism is appreciated.
>>74252298
I'm talking about the fact that people pretend the deficit is bad, or it's too big, etc. yet they don't realise what it actually is. That is, private net saving.
>>74252622
So basically "I don't like your explanation, even if every other country followed the same pattern".
Hell, even Argentina and Brazil were on their way to superpower status by everyone's measurement until the 70's when the leftist took over and everything went to shit.
>>74251928
Market activity that isn't coercive or artificial is inherently not a distortion though, simply a feature.
Also what is it that defines a productive area of the economy?
>>74244776
The fallacy of the centrally planned economy. Sure deficit spending may lead to an initial period of higher growth however as it dislodges investment into productive resources in the long run it proves to be destructive. The UK continued on the same path for a couple decades after the war and it lead to nothing but stagnation. The business cycle is natural and there is no way of avoiding the troughs, government stimulus only delays the inevitable and makes the coming downturn worse.
>>74252626
To be clear, the gold and silver isn't physically destroyed by speculation. I was suggesting the etf and gold market is highly manipulated and the price is not accurately reflected by quantity.
>>74244776
if all you had to do was spend money you dont have every nation would be a 1st world nation
deficit spending decreases GDP growth in the same quarter debt is incurred
your currency value is going to be affected by this if its not backed by a precious metal. its just a matter of time. while some might try to cite wallstreet or the feds version of the value of the dollar you might be shocked to find out almost nobody considers the dollar worth that much and america is dependent on them for stuff
>>74252874
You should look into something called Freigold. Basically, interest free money printed with demurrage (aka, your money loses value unless you pay a certain amount less than the amount lost), making the effects of inflationary money and the usage of money as a storage medium (which is less than ideal) be reduced. Experiments using it showed long-term positive effects on the economy, not including that the interest based money scheme was eliminated to the benefit of everyone, as the demurrage payment were supposed to be like the Alaskan fund where everyone benefits from it.
>>74252862
Why do you say that deficit spending deters investment into productive resources?
Nice time-quads, by the way.
>>74252862
>Sure deficit spending may lead to an initial period of higher growth however as it dislodges investment into productive resources in the long run it proves to be destructive
That is why you have automatic stabilisers that prevent the crowding out of private enterprise. It smooths out the business cycle rather than enhancing it.
>>74253174
No, it just causes the boom bust cycle by thinking no one will realize that the demand is artificial. Which is why the cycle arises: you cannot keep deficit spending forever, but the instant you stop it starts tumbling down until it collapses.
>>74253001
>if all you had to do was spend money you dont have every nation would be a 1st world nation
Because the ability to create wealth is determined by the resources that countries have available. Labour and capital. A country can only produce what it is capable of in terms of the capital it has at hand and the labour it has to utlilise its capital stocks. Thats why Western nations can produce great value because they have the necessary capital to produce high value goods, while poorer nations simply don't have the capacity to match them. What they do have the capacity to do though it maximise the use of the resources that they do have, for example manufacturing in poorer nations.
>>74253071
Interesting. I'll definitely look into Freigold.
Thanks anon.
Any thoughts on what I proposed? Human expansion will only see an increase in energy demands over time, and uses the inherent self interest of speculators to spur growth. Instead of eliminating greed, I suggest we take advantage of it.
>>74244776
* extended the great depression
>>74253276
That is demonstrably false though. Historically deficit spending is normal and only in times of boom are surpluses achieved.
>>74253085
Dislodges investment via wasting real resources and affecting the real interest rate .As a general rule the government is a bad picker of winners. The drivers of private enterprise (profit and competition) that allow for efficient allocation of resources are not present. A good example is the government backed solar companies (Solyndra for one) that went bankrupt as well as the first transcontinental railway. inefficient allocation of resources also occurs with monetary stimulus as the money generally flows to stock and property.
>>74252797
>Hell, even Argentina and Brazil were on their way to superpower status by everyone's measurement until the 70's when the leftist took over and everything went to shit.
Brazil's economic miracle in the 1960s was funded on the backs of households and was pretty much the epitome of state-capitalist faggotry, fampai. Germany, Japan, China, and South Korea are all doing the same stupid shit Brazil did then (technically Japan is in the end stages of its faggotry: Massive Debt:GDP, and Brazil's at it *again*) and the same outcome is occurring. Debt is on the rise in all four countries and most importantly, debt-servicing capacity is not rising as fast as credit growth.
>>74252797
You're dodging the point.
>1945
>Australian government commits to full employment as outlined in that paper I linked
>Full employment continues into peacetime
>1975
>Australian government chooses to stop following the policy outline of that full employment document
>Full employment in Australia ends
GEE WHIZ IT MUST BE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T DESTROYED IN WW2 WHILE EVERYONE ELSE WAS
Pro tip, even if every other country's productive capacity were decimated by the war, it wouldn't give the US/Australia some amazing benefit that it doesn't already have. Demand from overseas or from the government is still demand. In fact, the boom would effectively be bigger if the war had been less devastating because there would be more goods & services to import from those countries.
It's amazing how easily people forget that economics is about allocation of REAL resources not competition in a zero-sum world.
>>74244776
Depressions are normal, and so is recovery.
The great depression was special because it just hit harder for longer.
A lot of things contributed to that.
The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act for example contributed to the severity and duration.
By increasing tarrifs, you increase prices which decreases spending which worsens the depression.
The US trade balance also managed to go from 1.1 billion surplus to a smaller 0.6 billion surplus.
Deficit spending can work to get out of a depression because spending gets promoted/forced that way.
But deficit spending can also increase a bubble and make the next crash harder.
It's important to stop deficit spending once the depression is over and the boom is going. But that can be hard to achieve in a democracy.
Austerity is the right way during a economic hightide, during a depression spending should be promoted.
Though lower taxes also promote spending.
Things like raising tarrifs does not and helped worses the depression.
>>74253174
it honestly sounds like you have taken econ 101 at uni and think that its a simple equation. Your god like policy makers would have to enact a stimulus policy at exactly the right time in exactly the right amount and the benefits would have to flow to exactly the right places for it to ensure the efficient allocation of real resources. The problem with that is that Government cannot ensure that resources are allocated anywhere as efficiently as the free market as the drivers of efficient allocation are not present. essentially as public debt climbs (and it has continuously using a system of activist fiscal policy) the marginal benefit of using debt as well as fiscal maneuverability reduces and the threat of fiscal fatigue increases. Central planning does not work, activist fiscal policy does not work and we are seeing that now.
>>74253276
No, it just causes the full/hungry cycle by thinking no one will realize that the food is artificial. Which is why the cycle arises: you cannot keep eating forever, but the instant you stop you start getting thinner until you die.
>>74253985
>Implying he's wrong
Notice that he doesn't say that it's the solution he would use. Just that it, as bad as it is, would still be a better-than-nothing solution to unemployment. Take the concept of banknotes buried under some kind of work task and apply it to something that benefits society, and you have the job guarantee / buffer stock employment / employer of last resort scheme.
Is that not better than the status quo (welfare)?
>>74254493
Time and resources are finite. You might as well improve infrastructure if you're just digging for banknotes in a mine. Just tell them the banknotes are at the other side of a river, and they need to build a bridge to get across.
Suckers.
>>74255003
Easier to build a boat
>>74255102
Or just sell the river.
>>74253427
I'll be honest and simply say I don't quite understand what you are getting at other than some sort of weird certificate based barter system, with a deadfall on possible technological advancement, which makes me think that could end up being very, very volatile and thus unlike to catch on as currency. But that's just me, maybe I'm just misunderstanding everything you wrote.
>>74253467
Well, sure, deficit spending is normal and it's ultimate result are always Disastrous. Just ask Rome, Spain, Netherlands, the Venetians, and the Ottomans, all civilizations which met their demise after being unable to find colonies or new lands to fund their spending and once that occurred collapsed in quick or protracted manners.
As for the matters of surpluses, of what? Or are you talking about a supervatit? Because post war USA had surpluses while having a recession due to the end of the war, as did Canada just recently just after the Oil price began to tumble. Other examples exist. This argument surpluses only occur in times of boom is nonsense.
>>74253703
That's not true, though. Brazil's population before the "Miracle" was a basically all rural and lacked any serious amount of capital, something which three out of the four examples clearly weren't on the time of their growth, with the fourth being so large even just the urban population they had was far larger than the population of those countries you mentioned. A period of economic liberalization (but not political or social) allowed foreign money to start to come into Brazil in the early 60's and soon transformed the rural into urban and resulted in unprecedented growth as the foreign money bought everything from steel mills to dams. It wasn't until 1973. when the leftist side of the government got enough influence over policy that the Brazilians decided that they would borrow themselves into super power status (aka, deficit), borrowing more money than they had in essentially all the existance of the country.
>>74255003
Bingo. Pay them to do something useful that private enterprise doesn't give a shit about, and you've killed two birds with one stone.
But importantly make sure they can shift back into private employment at any time. The idea is to make a fluctuating pool of employed workers that businesses can dip into rather than the current system which is a pool of unemployed workers.
>>74255265
The costs of that liberalization were borne by households in the form of higher taxes. Higher taxation reduced real household income and the government eventually couldn't create more productive investment to offset its debt. What happened to Brazil in the 60s and 70s ought to be a cautionary tale against forcing households to bear too much of the economic burden. Alas, nobody seems to have paid attention, including you. The leftist government was a symptom of greater economic decline, not a cause of that decline.
In fact, as a debt crisis lurches forward, radicalized politics is a known and expected effect of that crisis; workers seek to capture benefits and business seeks to reduce benefits, and the result is that workers vote in people who promise to capture benefits on their behalf i.e leftism.
>>74255265
You might knows this as deficit spending, and in 10 years the economic miracle was over and Brazil entered into a horrible recession it has never properly recovered from as the debt payments became too large and the inflation became too much. Similar patterns occurred in your four examples, sure, but their loans weren't international, they were internal as you said and the same result followed. The so called lost decade of Japan followed this whole "growth without deficit until a huge deficit was incurred and when it ran out the amazing growth collapse" model, and China and South Korea might have the same fate if they still think they can make GDP growth come from deficit.
>>74253785
First of, Australia didn't have full-employment. It's unemployment spend swinging between 2-4 for all those years, with it having a growing trend the farther away you get from 1945 even if it was yet to be repealed, which is definitely low, but essentially the same to the USA, which didn't engage in no full-employment policy of it's own after the war. That should tell you a lot of the effectiveness of the program.
>>74254313
I am not sure if you are just trying to change the words in my post or what, but that's essentially it. Deficit spending is an unnatural economic growth that disappears once the false money goes with it. You can't spend yourself rich.
>>74255544
>economy is still growing before leftist come to power
>leftist decide they want to spend more money than it's being taken in, like the military had been doing before
>economy continues to grow until the 1980's, despite these policies, until it was unsustainable to continue to borrow to fund the leftist governments programs
>this is somehow indicative of an economic collapse occurring before, even when not incurring in a budget deficit showed no signs of economic slowdown
Yeah, nah.
>>74255802
>First of, Australia didn't have full-employment. It's unemployment spend swinging between 2-4 for all those years,
You mean 0-2% except for one or two occasions when it briefly went higher. Maybe not perfect but it certainly beats "leave unemployment at 5%+ and pretend there's a NAIRU stopping us from going further" like we currently have.
>the USA, which didn't engage in no full-employment policy of it's own after the war.
Yes they did. They might not have called it that like Australia's government did, but they definitely used what we would call Keynesian policy to (attempt to) get the economy to full employment during the post-war period.
>Deficit spending is an unnatural economic growth that disappears once the false money goes with it.
Oh so the government should run balanced budgets or should it also run surpluses when it can? Please tell me what you think the norm should be.
>>74255802
>Worker's Party isn't even formed until 1980
>they don't have leadership until 1985
>le leftists fucked up Brazil meme
But then, how could Brazil have bounced back even to the minor extent it did, given that the leftists fuck everything up?
>>74256219
No, 2-4, with an increasing trend as they went further away. This is using your governments own numbers they have in a nice little excel table. And unemployment wasn't 5% before that policy, so I don't know what you are talking about either.
No, they did not. The closes you can describe to that might be the GI bill and that pretty "limited" in scope. Large scale public works investment was mostly a FDR thing.
Surpluses are preferable because it means you can pay for debts incurred in case of a national emergency (wars, catastrophic natural disasters, etc). And ever growing debt eventually chokes even the most power of empires, as history has shown us. Eliminating the debt is, therefore, an important goal as it prevents the inevitable decay that comes with it.
>>74256511
>leftist only belong in the worker's party
I would give you thumbs up, but that might encourage your lack of research about this.
>>74256745
The Democratic Socialists was formed even later than the Worker's Party, you retard.
>>74256745
>Surpluses are preferable
So, who will go into debt to finance those surpluses? Also why do you believe public debt is toxic but private debt is hunky dory?
>>74256889
I am not the one who is trying to tell a guy with Brazilian descent the history of the country's political parties while showing he knows so little he thinks all the leftist are socialist or the worker's party.
>>74257163
>I have family there and they would never not be objective about the history of their country
Uh huh.
>>74257277
My grandfather was killed by the Military dictatorship for helping the maoist rebels, so perhaps you might be right. It still doesn't change the fact you are an ignorant buffon who doesn't know any of the political parties of the 60's and 70's enough to know that the Worker's party is an offshoot of a sindicalist party from the 50s and 60s, and that the democrat socialist is a revival of an older party born in the 70's.
>>74257563
None of which had power until well after the Brazilian ""miracle"" had peaked, and accordingly, their policies couldn't have caused that miracle to end. Though, they could certainly have caused the depression which followed to be worse than usual.
>>74257710
I think you missed my point: you are so out of your league in regards to these parties you are unable to know their stories so you can know which party they both acquired their voting based from.
A simple google search would have told you the leftist party which was part of the government while the miracle was occurring, but you are so stupidly stubborn about not recognizing you are wrong you haven't bothered and just further prove you know nothing of Brazil between 1950 to 1980.
>>74257855
Is this some kind of reverse white privilege thing? Like a "Dumb norteamericanos could never understand our rich history" sort of thing?
I've experienced that a few times when I beat an Chinese guy at Mahjong.
>>74244776
Yeah, this is because GREECE, JAPAN OR ARGENTINIA ARE DOING IT SO WELL, RIGHT FUCKING NEOKEYNESIANISTFAG
>>74258100
I don't think you actually understand that Greece is a result of pursuing libertarian-like economic policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-vqlzvBds
>>74258096
Nope, it's the run of the mill "I don't know, but if I continue talking about related things I do know, maybe people won't notice I don't know."
The military dictatorship of brazil was marked by a bipartisan system which, again, a simple google search would have revealed. At this point, not being able to name it is just too egregious. No point you have about brazil's economic or political policy can be taken seriously if you don't know one of the most basic facts of the political landscape. Name the party, or I will feel comfortable ignoring you about anything related to Brazil.
>>74258100
Wouldn't Spain count as well?
>>74244776
Why do people ignore that ww2 got a fuck load of the workforce killed? Yeah no shit unemployment was low and people got payed a ton with job security
>>74258287
>the military dictatorship ran things
>there was an economic miracle
>but then the leftists got in and ruined it
>except the leftists were also jointly in power when there was an economic boom going on
>it's the leftists' fault that things turned bad
>it's not the leftists' fault that things were good
This is why I think your reasoning is flawed, fampai.
90% of people are economically retarded.
The other 10% work in finance/accounting/economics.
>>74258242
That's some amazing act of mental gymnastics to declare a country whose clearly non-libertarian polices got it into a hole as a libertarian wet dream because it now has to reduce public programs and sell assets because it incurred so much debt to fund said policies.
>>74258326
Because it doesn't fit the narrative.
>>74258542
There must be plenty of crosspolination, because there is clearly plenty of retarded economist.
>>74244776
I actually think Spross is usually pretty right about most things. He's right for all the wrong reason, being a commie Jew and all at heart, but what he says is usually pretty applicable and correct in the vein of national socialism.
>>74258608
This is the reality of the libertarian Utopia Butt Munch! A deflationary spiral with a soaring debt to GDP! (How is it that people can't accept the facts!)
Deflationary spiral is to due to shrinking Gov't , lowering wages, and raising taxes to pay down a fictitious debt. Best part is they expect economic growth! LOL! 50% unemployment under age 25 and 27% total. Libertarian pipe dream! You idiots believe this is the best way to maximize the productive output of an economy. It's Black and white you live in lala land! Now fuck off and go back to fairy tale land with Schiff, Ron Paul and Alex Jones. When you retards start your own economy that deflates to prosperity let me know BYE!
>>74258783
The reality of the libertarian Utopia is massive social programs, extremely ridiculous labour laws, and enormous deficits? Yeah, those sounds like very libertarian things. What's the phrase? Oh, right:
All good things are socialism, all bad things are capitalism.
Own up to your own disaster and stop trying to blame others which clearly have no polices in common because you think they'll make a nice scapegoat.
>>74259081
LOL! Hardly. I am projecting reality to you. What is self evident facts.
You don't know what Rwanda Somalia, Darfur is suppose to mean?? Okay I am more than Happy to help educate you in quantifying your libertarian. Does Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur meet every aspect of libertarian ideology?
Limited Gov't? Check!
Free Market? Check!
No Free Lunch? Check!
No Social Security? Check!
No unions? Check!
Charity will take care of the poor, sick and elderly! Check!
People can trade in any currency they wish? Check!
Limited regulation to allow the Job Creators to create more jobs? Check!
No Minimum Wage Law? Check!
Free gun Laws? Check!
No environmental laws? Check!
Freedom to purchase your own police and Firefighters?
Check! No Income Tax? Check!
Will the boot stomping Gov't come in and force to pay taxes at gun point? No! Check!
Free to choose to Practice The Non Aggression Principle? Check!
Court system to uphold the social contract? Check!
Everyone is free to do what is in their best interest? Check!
No public healthcare or Rotten Obamacare? Check!
Freedom to teach creationism in schools? Check!
Employers will compete for employees because are free to negotiate contracts which will raise wages? Check!
Businesses are allowed to fail without Gov't intervention? Check!
Business are allowed to pick and chose if they want to Serve Blacks, Gays, etc..? Check!
people Have Freedom not to wear seat belts, Forced to buy car insurance, inspect cars, emissions, Vaccination etc...? Check! NO FDA? Check! Etc... Etc..... Etc.... Every single ideological bullschitt the libertarians want is clearly found in Rwanda, Somalia and Darfur. Thank you for playing Stomp the Chump!
LOL! They are poor, because they are libertarian! Don't try to weasel out of it. These are the results of your ideology. I am sorry they do not agree with your fantasies.
>>74259420
I am not sure if you are trolling or not, considering Rwanda was controlled by a socialist tribalist government until Kagame took over and no works under a quasifascist economic regime. Darfur, on the other hand, is islamic conflict area with little in the way of freedoms from part of the military dictatorship currently fighting the government of sudan. Again, neither of those are libertarians in any significant meaning of the word, and actually have multiple things of what you just described. In particular, riots have occurred because of the Rwandan income tax. So that's out.
And, while Somalia was a socialist country which failed so completely warlords eventually took over (note socialism is not libertarianism), now the central government has basically disappeared they are better off economically, and better of than all their neighboors by high margins, and are currently the country in Africa with the largest coverage percentage of cellphone, internet, and mail. Still not libertarian, due to local warlords not respecting any of the things mentioned, but it improved leaps and bounds beyond that of it's still socialist or out right dictatorship neighbors.
So, yeah, try again, at this point the single one where libertarianism is even applicable in any meaningful way has benefited enormously from a rather small implementation of it.
