TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- capitalism vs communism
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What do you mean by faulty Keynesian economics? I don't think it is faulty at all in theory. It is only faulty in practice because the political envrionment for a fiscal policy that follows Keyens will almost never exist (well actually maybe it can in Europe, I forgot you guys like tax raises ) However, in naitons like the US, monetary policy can be controlled and is done very nicely for the economic cycles. However, taxes and government spending are not (altough Bush has done a wonderful job on his share of the cycle). For instance, had Clinton raised taxes (a very unpopular move) during the dot.com boom, it would have detered the boom, and also lessened the collapse.

Milton Keynes economics depended on the ideal of 100% employment and ideal govt intervention. Thats something dumped by almost all Euro economies recently and killed in the US with Reagan. It may have worked alright after WWII, but otherwise I would consider it faulty. If you have a more sound solution or more to add I would be happy to listen. I have some experience with the discussion but I am no economist|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Milton Keynes economics depended on the ideal of 100% employment and ideal govt intervention. Thats something dumped by almost all Euro economies recently and killed in the US with Reagan. It may have worked alright after WWII, but otherwise I would consider it faulty. If you have a more sound solution or more to add I would be happy to listen. I have some experience with the discussion but I am no economist|

I wasn't aware Keynes had anything to do with full employment. I thought this was a natrual process in the economic cycle. His aim was to balance this cycle via fiscal and monetary policy chiefly.

I mean, if the economcy is in a recession, there will be more unemployment, hence the government should give tax cuts (fiscal) or increase spending and create jobs (by government works, fiscal again) and lower interest rates (monetary). By this process job levels should return to their normal full employment levels.

I agree with you on the bit of "ideal government". As I said myself, I don't think any government can be disciplined enough to control fiscal policy in such away they have achieved in the control of monetary policy. Here in lies the problem.... but I'm not sure if this is what you meant also?


Don't worry I'm no economist either and its been two years since my macroeconomics class so you don't have to worry ,you won't have a "college-degree touting I know best and surely better than-thou" rival in this debate

(although on second thought I do tout a college degree )

CAPITALISM = peurf

Communism =
-no big truck
-no big house
-no liberty
-not good...

la gauche ca crone
donc le communism ca crone
pi le socialism aussi ca crone

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze la gauche ca crone donc le communism ca crone pi le socialism aussi ca crone

"the left ca crone therefore the communism ca crone pi the socialism also ca crone"

that is the translation i get

pleeeeeeeeeease at least try to say it in english!

Keynesian manipulation of the business cylcle while sound in theory is a difficult undertaking in practice. Simply put, it is hard to predict what fiscal policy a government shoud utilize, when it should utilize this, and how far it should go. On top of this there are recognition lags, impact lags, etc., all of which make fiscal policy all the more difficult. Monetary policy is a better manipulator imo, however, at times it may not be enough.

Btw Yoepus, Clinton DID raise taxes during the boom (as he should have), and the economy still grew. Remember Keynsian economics is designed to limit the fluctuations of the business cycle up AND down to create a standard level growth ... a booming economy that continues to boom ultimately leads to upwards inflationary pressures. Furthermore, in theory one is to take the surpluses gained during the boom to fund the tax cuts granted during the bearish times. If one continues to keep taxes low, how are you going to pay for your expansionary fiscal policies?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Btw Yoepus, Clinton DID raise taxes during the boom (as he should have), and the economy still grew. Remember Keynsian economics is designed to limit the fluctuations of the business cycle up AND down to create a standard level growth ... a booming economy that continues to boom ultimately leads to upwards inflationary pressures. Furthermore, in theory one is to take the surpluses gained during the boom to fund the tax cuts granted during the bearish times. If one continues to keep taxes low, how are you going to pay for your expansionary fiscal policies?

No I agree.
The argument is that Clinton should have raised taxes more.
Had he done so, as you suggest, we might not be experincing the debt we face today.

I believe had he done it the economy would have been better off.

Of course my point was that it is impossible, politically to ever do such a thing (for instance, we all know where I stand on taxes ), hence the inherient flaw.

However, Europeans societies tend to "welcome" tax increases for some reason, so they don't necessairly face the same theoritical pitful, they should have the ability to keep their economies fairly steady (all though maybe they face the exact sam political challenges in "lowering taxes" as the USA does in raising them).

Also, it is noted that we'll probably never be able to achieve a pure linear Keynsian line. However, we will be able to get a' quiet a smooth line' if we manage our fiscal policy like we do our monetary policy, this is my argument.


Now that is aside form that, the low-tax argument.
I think the US would have no problem paying more taxes if it knew they were being used to preserve a steady economic state. However, this is not the case. I want to keep taxes low because I know that if the government raises tax they will not "save" the money, as they never do, they will simply spend it - which further fuels the economic cycle upwards to a negative effect.

The solution therefore is for business and consumers of all size to accomadate for these trends by themselves, instead of getting tax 20% more say during a boom, you should self-impose 20% of all revenues into a savings account, and use that money to sustain your services during recessions. This is such a policy I hope to undertake with my own business.

I would prefer to pay 20% of my revenues during a boom however to the government with the garuntee that this money would be saved to keep the economic cycle table however. As this would increase consumer and business spending, something that even if I save and accomadate for economic cycles I can not control, but the government can.


I would not like however this money (and it will) to be used for more police, or for more schools, or for more fbi, or for more healthcare, or for more roads. I am for low taxes because I am against high government spending (if I wanted socialism I'd move to Europe). But I have no problem paying the government money if it were to control the economic cycle - no business that plans to be in business for at least five years would really mind that I think. (afterall the condition is you are getting 20% tax decrease, or say 10% and heavy government spending during recessions).

Re: Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by arctic No, that makes you a gothic satanist. http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html - scroll down to the mac section.

LOL you've made my day, thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Personally, I'm all up for socialism, you get the best of both worlds Heh, about the lack of motivation, there was a saying in ex-Yugoslavia that went something like "They can't give me low enough amount of wage to compensate for my even lesser amount of work" Bah, that one's a bitch to translate.

hahaha, man, we have the same saying in Bulgaria, but it sounds like this: "As long as they pretend to pay me, I will pretend to work."

As for the equal opportunity, this is complete bullshit, there is no equal opportunity. Here it's the same as communism, as a friend of mine told me, here it's not what you know, it's who you know that matters.

That is why socialism is the best , no surprise that many of the top 10 countries ( for quality of life ) have left governments.

Re: Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by arctic No, that makes you a gothic satanist. http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html - scroll down to the mac section.

That article is a pure lolocaust.

Mac Rules!

quote:

Originally posted by arctic No, that makes you a gothic satanist. http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html - scroll down to the mac section.

quote:

ADDENDUM III (4/20/2002): Another reader (it has been busy today!) has informed me of another link between Apple and the forces of darkness that my initial research missed. Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork (pictured right). This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism.

The logic in this statement is breathtaking

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.