Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 175

Thread: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

  1. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mecca
    Last Seen
    01-14-15 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,426

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Having lived on South Beach, my own anecdotal experience is that there is a indeed a drug problem among the poor in Florida. Drugs hold them down. Would you hire someone who does drugs? Not if you want to run a successful business. So the fact that they're on drugs keeps them unemployed.

    Screening them for drugs would, in my opinion, help them out in the long run. If the program can get even a fraction of drug users to clean up, then it's done a lot of good.

    A lot of users can lead very successful lives, if they only can kick their drug habit. Drugs were the only thing keeping them back. Sometimes, a swift kick in the ass is exactly what's needed, for their own good.
    So then are you proclaiming to be in the dupe category?

  2. #162
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    From the OP:

    "I am thrilled for Luis and his family, and for the thousands of class members he represents, that yet another court has affirmed that all of us are protected from unreasonable, invasive, suspicionless searches," Maria Kayanan, the lead counsel on the case and the legal director for Florida's ACLU, said in a statement. "The state of Florida can't treat an entire segment of our community like suspected criminals simply because they are poor and are trying to get temporary assistance from the government to support their families."

    "Appeals court judges Rosemary Barkett, Adalberto Jordan and James Randal Hall stressed the lack of evidence for a drug problem among people applying for assistance."
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #163
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    The self-interested bankers at the Fed and politicians in Washington (the very same people who are directly responsible for all of this mess in the first place, I might add) have been selling us that load of hogwash for almost five years now. I hate to break it to everyone, but the Keynesian approach has more or less indisputably failed.
    .
    In what way? Are you saying austerity measures in European countries have proven to be a success and stimulus measures in the US have proven to be a failure? The US is performing pretty well compared to countries that have instituted austerity measures. In fact countries instituting austerity measures are finding themselves in deepening economic contractions and the very thing they are seeking to reduce (deficits, debt to GDP) are moving in the wrong direction or contractions are pretty counterbalancing any cuts. The countries that generally are performing the best in Europe are generally countries that have instituted the least in regards to austerity measures.

    Even radical Liberal publications like Rolling Stone are being forced to admit just how badly we've all been conned by Bernake and the Obama Administration. We are basically headed down the exact same road that Japan was forced to endure in the early 1990s. As a matter of fact, they STILL have not really recovered from their "Great Recession," and an entire generation of young Japanese workers and students have had their chances of ever living a normal and productive Middle Class life destroyed by it.
    The Rolling Stone article makes the argument that the US bailouts of banks was completely skewed to benefit big banks and not the majority of individuals. In fact it makes the argument that debt relief for individuals facing mortgage foreclosures were not properly instituted though they were promised to Dems in order to pass the bank bailouts.

    As for Japan...there are some major differences and criticism that Bernanke himself has made about the Bank of Japan. He did studied the "lost decade" extensively. They also suffer from a lot of problems that we have avoided due to Fed policy (deflation, price instability, systematic bank problems) as well as demographic problems like a shrinking work force.

    Austerity may cause a great deal of short term pain - in fact, it is guaranteed to - but it also tends to guarantee genuine economic and political restructuring which often allows economies to be legitimately prosperous in the longrun.
    Please expand and list some examples maybe? That's kind of a broad statement that sounds good but generally doesn't mean anything.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    In what way? Are you saying austerity measures in European countries have proven to be a success and stimulus measures in the US have proven to be a failure? The US is performing pretty well compared to countries that have instituted austerity measures. In fact countries instituting austerity measures are finding themselves in deepening economic contractions and the very thing they are seeking to reduce (deficits, debt to GDP) are moving in the wrong direction or contractions are pretty counterbalancing any cuts. The countries that generally are performing the best in Europe are generally countries that have instituted the least in regards to austerity measures.
    Austerity hasn't been truly introduced anywhere in Europe after the 2008 crisis. The EU's massive bailouts have seen to that. Besides, austerity is a long term solution, not a quick fix.

    If you want a practical example of the positive long term effects of austerity in action, you need really look no further than Sweden.

    In 1990, the the state subsidized housing and financial bubbles in Sweden burst nearly taking the Swedish economy and currency with them.

    It was basically the same sad story that took place in Japan in the early 1990s and the United States in 2007-2008.

    The only difference? Sweden, instead of going on an endless Keynesian spending spree in a vain attempt to "stimulate" the economy into recovery like the the United States and Japan did, actually took the austere approach. As a matter of fact, Swedish government spending has declined by more than 10% since the crisis and the Swedish government's total debt load has declined from 73% of GDP to 37%.

    How well have these massive and sustaned spending cuts worked for the Swedish economy? I think the following graphs more or less speak for themselves.

    SwedishSpending.jpg
    SwedishPerCapitaGDP.jpg

    The Swedish economy has rebounded with a vengence due to the budget balancing measures enacted by the (Center Right) Liberal party in the decades since the crisis. It has gone from being a virtually no growth economy under the spending centric Social Democrats prior to the 1990s to being an economy which posts at least 2-3% growth every year under the more fiscally minded coalition currently in power.

    The Rolling Stone article makes the argument that the US bailouts of banks was completely skewed to benefit big banks and not the majority of individuals. In fact it makes the argument that debt relief for individuals facing mortgage foreclosures were not properly instituted though they were promised to Dems in order to pass the bank bailouts.
    Your point? The corrupt collusion of state and corporate power inherent to Washington's highly liberal economic policy is as good an argument against the Keynesian "bailout culture" as I have ever heard.

    Corporations are no less libel to go for "free money" than your average welfare leech. That is exactly why the option shouldn't be available to them, or should be made such an overwhelmingly unpleasant experience as to render most entities unwilling to stomach the price such handouts entail.

    As for Japan...there are some major differences and criticism that Bernanke himself has made about the Bank of Japan. He did studied the "lost decade" extensively. They also suffer from a lot of problems that we have avoided due to Fed policy (deflation, price instability, systematic bank problems) as well as demographic problems like a shrinking work force.
    Bernake is a fool. End of story.

    His policies so far haven't worked, and show absolutely no signs of changing in this regard any time soon.

    His approach to fiscal policy could be rightfully described as a man pouring lighter fluid on naked concrete over and over agan, and then wondering why he is unable to start a lasting fire.

    He has recently upgraded to gasoline, because simply failing to get results isn't enough for him. Now he feels like risking his life (and yours) as well.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 03-05-13 at 01:07 PM.

  5. #165
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Austerity hasn't been truly introduced anywhere in Europe after the 2008 crisis. The EU's massive bailouts have seen to that. Besides, austerity is a long term solution, not a quick fix.

    If you want a practical example of the positive long term effects of austerity in action, you need really look no further than Sweden.

    In 1990, the the state subsidized housing and financial bubbles in Sweden burst nearly taking the Swedish economy and currency with them.

    It was basically the same sad story that took place in Japan in the early 1990s and the United States in 2007-2008.

    The only difference? Sweden, instead of going on an endless Keynesian spending spree in a vain attempt to "stimulate" the economy into recovery like the the United States and Japan did, actually took the austere approach. As a matter of fact, Swedish government spending has declined by more than 10% since the crisis and the Swedish government's total debt load has declined from 73% of GDP to 37%.
    Well first of all I would like to make some corrections regarding Sweden's bubble and actions taken after the bust. First of all the 80's in Sweden included deregulation. Second of all the main differences between Sweden and Japans handling of their collapses had less to do with austerity measures vs Keynesian spending and more to do with how the State bailed out the banks. In Swedens case they forced banks to write down losses then stepped in and nationalized failed banks. The "Stockholm Solution". They then infused the banks with capital and resold the banks to the private sector over time. In fact they still hold like a 20% stake in their largest domestic bank. Japan on the other hand recapitalized their banks like the US and continued to feed the banks capital.

    How well have these massive and sustaned spending cuts worked for the Swedish economy? I think the following graphs more or less speak for themselves.




    The Swedish economy has rebounded with a vengence due to the budget balancing measures enacted by the (Center Right) Liberal party in the decades since the crisis. It has gone from being a virtually no growth economy under the spending centric Social Democrats prior to the 1990s to being an economy which posts at least 2-3% growth every year under the more fiscally minded coalition currently in power
    Sweden recovered quickly but like I mentioned earlier it was a financial collapse and the state moved quickly to nationalize banks and have them write off losses. It resulted in a quick V shaped recovery. They made some pension and welfare reforms but any belief that they are some poster child for austerity is pretty mind boggling. If anything they represent an outlier on the spectrum of government spending as a % of GDP. They are still among the highest in the Eurozone and for modern economies as represented by how much their government spends. The reason I mention this is you're not making an austerity argument you're making a size of government argument. Sweden also cut taxes while making long term spending reforms.

    I'm not sure why using a country at the extreme end of the government spending spectrum would provide an example for everyone. If anything the US is at the other end of the spectrum in regards to government spending. Only Libertarians and fiscal hawks on the lookout for anything to prove their views would latch onto the poster child of welfare state in order to provide an example.

    I'm not sure why you mention growth when your second graph is a comparison between per capita GDP of the US and Sweden. Swedish growth has been slightly above OECD averages but it's not nearly as linear as your graph indicates. In fact the problem with what you're showing is that you could easily make the argument that the Bush years represented very mediocre growth rates in comparison to past US growth rates? Not sure how that's a function of austerity vs Keynesian approaches? It's really bizzare actually that you would use that graph because the point of inflection coincides with US balanced budgets in the late 90's. The period where Sweden is losing ground to the US actually represents periods of pretty large US deficits. Not sure the point here unless you're trying to create something that looks similar to the first graph even though it's disengenous. In fact here are Swedens growth rates post reform.

    Attachment 67143739

    Anywho I find a lot of unresolved issues for Conservatives if they chose to use Sweden as the poster child for austerity and small govenment and it should be pretty obvious why. I'm not sure how you can put them on a pedestal and ignore their large welfare state as well as equality in income distrubtion. Is the right that desparate for any real life success story for right wing policies?



    Your point? The corrupt collusion of state and corporate power inherent to Washington's highly liberal economic policy is as good an argument against the Keynesian "bailout culture" as I have ever heard.

    Corporations are no less libel to go for "free money" than your average welfare leech. That is exactly why the option shouldn't be available to them, or should be made such an overwhelmingly unpleasant experience as to render most entities unwilling to stomach the price such handouts entail.
    Nationalization of banks like Sweden works as well. Rather than letting them all collapse and suffering drastic concequences would be nice to just make the bankers and sharholders pay the price instead of all of us wouldn't you agree?

    Bernake is a fool. End of story.

    His policies so far haven't worked, and show absolutely no signs of changing in this regard any time soon.

    His approach to fiscal policy could be rightfully described as a man pouring lighter fluid on naked concrete over and over agan, and then wondering why he is unable to start a lasting fire.

    He has recently upgraded to gasoline, because simply failing to get results isn't enough for him. Now he feels like risking his life (and yours) as well.
    Actually I completely disagree with him being a fool or failing.
    Last edited by iliveonramen; 03-05-13 at 03:07 PM.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Well first of all I would like to make some corrections regarding Sweden's bubble and actions taken after the bust. First of all the 80's in Sweden included deregulation.
    They have deregulated a lot more since the 1990s.

    The Economist - Sweden, The New Model: A bit more unequal, but a lot more efficient

    Second of all the main differences between Sweden and Japans handling of their collapses had less to do with austerity measures vs Keynesian spending and more to do with how the State bailed out the banks. In Swedens case they forced banks to write down losses then stepped in and nationalized failed banks. The "Stockholm Solution". They then infused the banks with capital and resold the banks to the private sector over time. In fact they still hold like a 20% stake in their largest domestic bank. Japan on the other hand recapitalized their banks like the US and continued to feed the banks capital.
    I don't have any problem with that. Banks or corporations that cannot run themselves should either be allowed to fail, so that the market can crash and reboot itself, or, if bailout is considered to be the right option, censured so that the state can recoop its losses and there is no possibility of the same mismanagement taking place again.

    However, the point you are ignoring here is that Sweden also never jumped on the "stimulus without end" bandwagon embraced by Japan, or more recently by Bernake. They made use of some minor stimulus measures, and then promptly switched into austerity mode and began making meaningful cuts in government spending, followed by enduring liberal changes in the fundamental structure of the Swedish welfare state and economy in general.

    They also raised interest rates by more than 500%. No Keynesian economist in their right mind would have supported such a move! That doesn't change the fact that it absolutely worked

    What has the Fed done by way of contrast?

    united-states-interest-rate.jpg

    What did Japan do?

    20050613b.jpg

    Again, I'm sorry, but things aren't exactly looking good for the Keynesian model of economic recovery here.

    Sweden recovered quickly but like I mentioned earlier it was a financial collapse and the state moved quickly to nationalize banks and have them write off losses. It resulted in a quick V shaped recovery. They made some pension and welfare reforms but any belief that they are some poster child for austerity is pretty mind boggling. If anything they represent an outlier on the spectrum of government spending as a % of GDP. They are still among the highest in the Eurozone and for modern economies as represented by how much their government spends. The reason I mention this is you're not making an austerity argument you're making a size of government argument. Sweden also cut taxes while making long term spending reforms.
    The simple fact of the matter is that Sweden's situation improved only after they rearranged their economy away from the Keynesian/Socialist stimulus centric model. The same thing happened in Finland. You cannot deny this.

    While yes, the Swedish government still spends quite a lot, it is a far cry from days gone by. It is no coincidence that the Swedish economy has seen a renaissance over the last few decades just as it has deliberately moved to cut back on the scale of government involvement in the market, and bring the country more in line with the liberal economic model.

    If anything the US is at the other end of the spectrum in regards to government spending.
    No, we're really not.

    I'm not sure why you mention growth when your second graph is a comparison between per capita GDP of the US and Sweden. Swedish growth has been slightly above OECD averages but it's not nearly as linear as your graph indicates. In fact the problem with what you're showing is that you could easily make the argument that the Bush years represented very mediocre growth rates in comparison to past US growth rates? Not sure how that's a function of austerity vs Keynesian approaches? It's really bizzare actually that you would use that graph because the point of inflection coincides with US balanced budgets in the late 90's. The period where Sweden is losing ground to the US actually represents periods of pretty large US deficits. Not sure the point here unless you're trying to create something that looks similar to the first graph even though it's disengenous. In fact here are Swedens growth rates post reform.

    Attachment 67143739
    I don't see why it should be an issue. The later half of the 1990s were a period of great growth and prosperity for both the United States and Sweden.

    Anywho I find a lot of unresolved issues for Conservatives if they chose to use Sweden as the poster child for austerity and small govenment and it should be pretty obvious why. I'm not sure how you can put them on a pedestal and ignore their large welfare state as well as equality in income distrubtion. Is the right that desparate for any real life success story for right wing policies?
    Again, it is not the size of their welfare state or government spending that we would emulate, but the manner in which they have been able to bring their once ludicrously overbloated welfare state and spending problems under control through the use of austerity and legitimate reform.

    The Swedes recognised that they had a problem, and they set about fixing it. They didn't sit around screaming insults at one another and throwing temper tantrums any time one side or the other proposed making even the slightest cuts or structural readjustments to any single government program.

    They shrank entitlements and deficits in response to government overspending, they didn't make the problem worse.

    Actually I completely disagree with him being a fool or failing.
    That's nice, but we are frankly well beyond the point of mere "agreement" or "disagreement."

    The simple fact of the matter is that he's had 5 years under a sympathetic president to try his hand at fixing the economy his own way and he has failed to produce much of anything other than a truckload of new debt that (as things currently stand) we are never going to be able to pay off.

    Unemployment is still ludicrously high and actually seems to be trending upwards once again.

    It has been doing the same thing off and on for the last five years.

    Gallup%u00252BUnemployment%2B2012-02A.png

    The same goes for economic confidence.

    Gallup Economic Confidence 2008-2012

    Bernake has done absolutely nothing but keep the United States on the slow road to mediocrity for the duration of this crisis, while racking up unpayable bills the whole way.

    As if that weren't enough, it actually looks like we might be gearing up for a double-dip recession.

    US Economy Shrinks by 0.1%

    You will have to excuse my lack of faith in the abilities of our illustrious Fed Chairman.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 03-05-13 at 05:41 PM.

  7. #167
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Sure but there's still the question of degree. The Swedish example doesn't prove "deregulation good, regulation bad". A lot of their deregulation already exists here in the states. Deregulation of telecomm? check the US did it in the 80's. Allow for private competition with their state run healthcare system? We don't offer state run healthcare except to seniors and the poor and for the most part there is private competition. Aviation deregulation? Check. The US did it in 78. Deregulation of the Railway system? Check US did it in 1980. Deregulation of energy? Remember Enron...check. One thing they have the US beat in is they've eliminated all farm subsidies.

    They've also made regulation changes to the Labor markets but they are now more inline with US labor policies. If you're making a case that we need to emulate Sweden...well the reality is that in most senses they've dregulated markets that the US has dregulated for 3 decades or more.

    I don't have any problem with that. Banks or corporations that cannot run themselves should either be allowed to fail, so that the market can crash and reboot itself, or, if bailout is considered to be the right option, censured so that the state can recoop its losses and there is no possibility of the same mismanagement taking place again.
    l.
    I don't agree with the first part. A banking run/collapse has a tendency to spread as one stable banks/investment banks find their capital vanishing as the other banks/investment banks start declaring bankrupcty. There is a domino effect and it has impact well beyond the banks. There's a reason the government had to step in and start guaranteeing short term credit (as Sweden did in the 90's). I definately agree with your second part though.

    However, the point you are ignoring here is that Sweden also never jumped on the "stimulus without end" bandwagon embraced by Japan, or more recently by Bernake. They made use of some minor stimulus measures, and then promptly switched into austerity mode and began making meaningful cuts in government spending, followed by enduring liberal changes in the fundamental structure of the Swedish welfare state and economy in general.

    They also raised interest rates by more than 500%. No Keynesian economist in their right mind would have supported such a move! That doesn't change the fact that it absolutely worked
    Once again there are major difference. Sweden was facing inflationary pressures and a devaluation of their currency. Japan was experiencing deflation. Sweden had a growth in exports due to their devaluation of currency compared to the adopted Euro , Japan was seeing more competition from other South East Asian countries coupled with a rise in the value of the Yen further eroding their competitiveness. Not all recessions are the same and call for the same remedy. It's not always "austerity and deregulation and call me in the morning". The remedy should try and treat the problem. . High inflation...like in the 80's under Volcker or in Sweden higher interest rates may be the remedy. Deflation? Lower interest rates. Deflationary pressure even after low interest rates? Stimulus or you're heading into a deflationary spiral. In both cases doing the opposite remedy compounds the problems.

    Again, I'm sorry, but things aren't exactly looking good for the Keynesian model of economic recovery here.
    I would like to make the obvious point. The changes in money supply is monetarism and Bernanke's response of increasing the money supply when faced with deflationary pressures is exactly what Milton Friedman suggested. In fact Paul Krugaman warned against Bernanke's "fiscal stimulus". I'm not sure if Milton Friedman is now a hardcore leftist or not to the right but at least be accurate on your school of thought. Keynes actually said the money supply doesn't matter. Milton Friedman stated it did matter and in fact could be used to influence demand and that inflation/deflation were a result of expansionary or contractionary monetary policy.


    The simple fact of the matter is that Sweden's situation improved only after they rearranged their economy away from the Keynesian/Socialist stimulus centric model. The same thing happened in Finland. You cannot deny this.
    Ummm...you're conflating a lot of different thing. Keynesian economics is an attempt to increase aggreagate demand and a remedy for an economic problem. Socialism is an economic system. Sweden was able to decrease government spending due to a growth in exports and not experience a decrease in aggregate demand. Aggregate demand is aggregate demand. It doens't matter if the government buys the goods, Swedish citizens, or Estonian citizens. In 1993 due to a devaluation in their currency (as earlier mentioned) Swedish trade balance went from -2% of GDP to as high as 4% of GDP in 97. That's essentially a large boost in aggregate demand which is exactly what stimulus measures are for. 1994 is the first year of positive growth for Sweden after their recession and low and behold...it was the year they went from next importers to next exporters.

    While yes, the Swedish government still spends quite a lot, it is a far cry from days gone by. It is no coincidence that the Swedish economy has seen a renaissance over the last few decades just as it has deliberately moved to cut back on the scale of government involvement in the market, and bring the country more in line with the liberal economic model.
    It's not a renaissance. Sweden comparable to other countries was richer in the 70's. Sweden was not some backwoods economy that exploded on the scene. Sweden benefited by keeping their currency instead of switching to the Euro. They were able to go from net importers to net exporters virtually overnight due to the adoption of the Euro by their competitors and neighboring markets. They are still a massive welfare state. Government spending still makes up a large % of their GDP. They are still more socialist in any measure than the US.

    That's nice, but we are frankly well beyond the point of mere "agreement" or "disagreement."

    The simple fact of the matter is that he's had 5 years under a sympathetic president to try his hand at fixing the economy his own way and he has failed to produce much of anything other than a truckload of new debt that (as things currently stand) we are never going to be able to pay off.

    Unemployment is still ludicrously high and actually seems to be trending upwards once again.

    It has been doing the same thing off and on for the last five years
    Bernanke is in charge of monetary policy. His monetary policy is pretty much by the book on what a Fed chairman should do when faced with the situation he's in. Thank God some ****ing idiot like Rick Perry isn't President and put in charge some numbnut that would push constractionary fiscal policy right now. It's not the fact that increasing interest rates is some possible remedy it's like ****ing chopping off someone arm when they have a splinter in their hand and not treating it and allowing gangrene to set in...well you get the picture.

    The same goes for economic confidence.

    Gallup Economic Confidence 2008-2012
    Bernake has done absolutely nothing but keep the United States on the slow road to mediocrity for the duration of this crisis, while racking up unpayable bills the whole way.

    As if that weren't enough, it actually looks like we might be gearing up for a double-dip recession.

    US Economy Shrinks by 0.1%

    You have to excuse me lack of faith in the abilities of our illustrious Fed Chairman.
    I'm curious...what do you think would happen if Bernanke did nothing and increased interest rates? I guess I'm completely shocked/confused/amazed that anybody thinks that in our situation decreasing the money supply is the answer.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure but there's still the question of degree. The Swedish example doesn't prove "deregulation good, regulation bad". A lot of their deregulation already exists here in the states. Deregulation of telecomm? check the US did it in the 80's. Allow for private competition with their state run healthcare system? We don't offer state run healthcare except to seniors and the poor and for the most part there is private competition. Aviation deregulation? Check. The US did it in 78. Deregulation of the Railway system? Check US did it in 1980. Deregulation of energy? Remember Enron...check. One thing they have the US beat in is they've eliminated all farm subsidies.

    They've also made regulation changes to the Labor markets but they are now more inline with US labor policies. If you're making a case that we need to emulate Sweden...well the reality is that in most senses they've dregulated markets that the US has dregulated for 3 decades or more.
    I never claimed that Sweden was any kind of "Free Market" paradise. I simply pointed out that it was a good example of (comparative) austerity and domestic spending reform leading a nation out of a sustained fiscal crisis. A fiscal crisis, I might add, which was very similar to our own.

    In any case, it is certainly a blow to the common viewpoint among the American Left that any kind of domestic spending reform or deregulation will inevitably result in the sky falling in on the entire US economy.

    I don't agree with the first part. A banking run/collapse has a tendency to spread as one stable banks/investment banks find their capital vanishing as the other banks/investment banks start declaring bankrupcty. There is a domino effect and it has impact well beyond the banks. There's a reason the government had to step in and start guaranteeing short term credit (as Sweden did in the 90's). I definately agree with your second part though.
    Even if there is a domino effect, the market will eventually rebuild and recover. In situations where the entire system has become so rotten as to be rendered unsalvageable, there might very well be no other choice.

    At a certain point, you simply have to pull the plug.

    At a certain point, nature pulls the plug for you regardless of what you do to try and stop it.

    Once again there are major difference. Sweden was facing inflationary pressures and a devaluation of their currency. Japan was experiencing deflation. Sweden had a growth in exports due to their devaluation of currency compared to the adopted Euro , Japan was seeing more competition from other South East Asian countries coupled with a rise in the value of the Yen further eroding their competitiveness. Not all recessions are the same and call for the same remedy. It's not always "austerity and deregulation and call me in the morning". The remedy should try and treat the problem. . High inflation...like in the 80's under Volcker or in Sweden higher interest rates may be the remedy. Deflation? Lower interest rates. Deflationary pressure even after low interest rates? Stimulus or you're heading into a deflationary spiral. In both cases doing the opposite remedy compounds the problems.
    Which again begs the question of how exactly Bernake or the Japanese thought that the combination of low interest rates and inflation (which drive up the costs of living and basic goods and services) were good ideas when facing jobless recoveries which affect personal incomes and consumer spending more than anything else.

    I would like to make the obvious point. The changes in money supply is monetarism and Bernanke's response of increasing the money supply when faced with deflationary pressures is exactly what Milton Friedman suggested. In fact Paul Krugaman warned against Bernanke's "fiscal stimulus". I'm not sure if Milton Friedman is now a hardcore leftist or not to the right but at least be accurate on your school of thought. Keynes actually said the money supply doesn't matter. Milton Friedman stated it did matter and in fact could be used to influence demand and that inflation/deflation were a result of expansionary or contractionary monetary policy.
    Puh-leez!

    Krugman's only major complaint with Bernake's version of economic stimulus since day one has been that it "isn't big enough" to suit his absurd Keynesian delusions.

    Where Bernake wants to use gasoline, Krugman wants to go with an A-bomb instead. I would hardly consider that to be an improvement.

    Ummm...you're conflating a lot of different thing. Keynesian economics is an attempt to increase aggreagate demand and a remedy for an economic problem. Socialism is an economic system.
    Democratic Socialists are huge supporters of Keynesian economic theory and always have been.

    Sweden was able to decrease government spending due to a growth in exports and not experience a decrease in aggregate demand. Aggregate demand is aggregate demand. It doens't matter if the government buys the goods, Swedish citizens, or Estonian citizens. In 1993 due to a devaluation in their currency (as earlier mentioned) Swedish trade balance went from -2% of GDP to as high as 4% of GDP in 97.

    That's essentially a large boost in aggregate demand which is exactly what stimulus measures are for. 1994 is the first year of positive growth for Sweden after their recession and low and behold...it was the year they went from next importers to next exporters.
    The Swedes did not use Keynesian policies to achieve this result, so attempting to chalk it up as a victory for Keynesian economic theory is massively dishonest to say the least.

    According to most Keynesians, higher interest rates and reduced government spending are exactly the opposite of "stimulus."

    It's not a renaissance. Sweden comparable to other countries was richer in the 70's. Sweden was not some backwoods economy that exploded on the scene. Sweden benefited by keeping their currency instead of switching to the Euro. They were able to go from net importers to net exporters virtually overnight due to the adoption of the Euro by their competitors and neighboring markets. They are still a massive welfare state. Government spending still makes up a large % of their GDP. They are still more socialist in any measure than the US.
    All true, but... None of that changes the fact that the Swedish Economy has become infinitely more productive and stable since cutting back on government expeditures and welfare costs.

    By moving to be more in line with "Free Market" ideals, the Swedes have prospered.

    Bernanke is in charge of monetary policy. His monetary policy is pretty much by the book on what a Fed chairman should do when faced with the situation he's in.
    I'm sorry, but the "book" is wrong.

    Bernake's ineffectual floundering has more than proven that. All he is doing now is reaffirming Rita Mae Brown's definition of insanity.

    Our system has very nearly been broken beyond what stimulus can repair. If we want to avoid the same fate as Japan, it is time to seriously consider making fundamental changes to how our nation in run.

    Thank God some ****ing idiot like Rick Perry isn't President and put in charge some numbnut that would push constractionary fiscal policy right now. It's not the fact that increasing interest rates is some possible remedy it's like ****ing chopping off someone arm when they have a splinter in their hand and not treating it and allowing gangrene to set in...well you get the picture.
    Gangrene is already setting in. It is simply the case that no one has to intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade yet.

    Japan has been rotten from the inside out for more than a decade now, and we'll soon be joining them.

    I'm curious...what do you think would happen if Bernanke did nothing and increased interest rates? I guess I'm completely shocked/confused/amazed that anybody thinks that in our situation decreasing the money supply is the answer.
    I think the economy would crash, restructure, and eventually rebound. It is not a "pretty" opinion, but it might very well be the only option available to us before too long.

    Hell! If Bernake's latest bit of fiscal idiocy fails (and it almost certainly will) the market will probably crash regardless of interest rates. You can only push the limit so far.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 03-05-13 at 09:18 PM.

  9. #169
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Not in Texas, they can't. When I was on probation for my DWI, I saw lots of dumbasses get their probation revoked and sent to jail becuase they tried to beat the system. Yes, there are lots of things out there you can use to try to beat a piss test, but they don't work. The best ones make you piss clear, and that will automatically get you in trouble, because the authorities know that, if there is NOTHING in your piss, not even the normal stuff, then you have used one of those products.
    Freeze dried.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  10. #170
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    I never claimed that Sweden was any kind of "Free Market" paradise. I simply pointed out that it was a good example of (comparative) austerity and domestic spending reform leading a nation out of a sustained fiscal crisis. A fiscal crisis, I might add, which was very similar to our own..
    Well that's pretty much the point I made in the first response. The reforms taken by Sweden...a country on the extreme end of the spectrum regarding government spending and regulation is not a good example to use. Sure Sweden dregulated, sure Sweden made pension reforms and other tweaks to their spending, sure Sweden cut tax rates but they were operating from a situation that is more comparable (and even a too a much larger degree) to what the US looked like in the 1970's.

    In any case, it is certainly a blow to the common viewpoint among the American Left that any kind of domestic spending reform or deregulation will inevitably result in the sky falling in on the entire US economy.
    Which is just not true. Once again using a country on one side of the spectrum isn't really useful when solving the problems on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.

    Even if there is a domino effect, the market will eventually rebuild and recover. In situations where the entire system has become so rotten as to be rendered unsalvageable, there might very well be no other choice.

    At a certain point, you simply have to pull the plug.

    At a certain point, nature pulls the plug for you regardless of what you do to try and stop it.
    The markets operate under the legal and policy structure provided to it. Any collapse and rebuild would eventually look exactly like the system we currently have. The only result would be a long term economic depression.

    Post Great Depression policy and laws created the 40 years of banking stability and the deregulation of the banking sector has created the current environment. I'm not sure exactly what you think would happen after how many decades it would take for wealth creation to reach the levels it did before a banking collapse.

    Which again begs the question of how exactly Bernake or the Japanese thought that the combination of low interest rates and inflation (which drive up the costs of living and basic goods and services) were good ideas when facing jobless recoveries which affect personal incomes and consumer spending more than anything else.
    Increasing the money supply was to combat deflation and achieve some level of price stability. Even after quantitative easing and low interest rates inflation for 2012 the US is still under it's target of 2%. Even after the loose monetary policy of Japan they had years of deflation. Japan doesn't have an inflation problem nor does the US.

    Puh-leez!

    Krugman's only major complaint with Bernake's version of economic stimulus since day one has been that it "isn't big enough" to suit his absurd Keynesian delusions.

    Where Bernake wants to use gasoline, Krugman wants to go with an A-bomb instead. I would hardly consider that to be an improvement.
    What gasoline is Bernanke throwing on and what exactly is the fire? Krugman is pushing for higher inflation in order to provide an incentive for businesses sitting on cash to use it now since it will devalue but that's not really delusional. That's pretty much how things work. I guess I'm on the side of Bernanke in this aspect that the fed Reserve has created during the past 30 years and expectation of price stability and throwing that to the wind isn't necessarily good long term policy.

    I'm not sure exactly where Bernanke is some hardcore leftist. In fact I don't understand any of the rants on the right regarding Bernanke. Their views seem to be taken from a page in economics written 200 years ago with no revisions.

    Democratic Socialists are huge supporters of Keynesian economic theory and always have been.
    I'm not sure what your point is. Every modern Republican president has operated on the idea that during times when aggregate demand drops the government steps in and in some way allevates that drop. Republicans typically give tax breaks on the credit card and Democrats believe in stimulus spending. I'd argue that the Republican method is the least effective.

    The only Republicans that believe in austerity are Republicans in safe districts dominated by idiots that have no idea what they are talking about. As seen in pictures of elderly people holding signs telling government to get out of their Medicare or cheering as Rick Perry talked about stringing up Bernanke. Idiots all of them.

    The Swedes did not use Keynesian policies to achieve this result, so attempting to chalk it up as a victory for Keynesian economic theory is massively dishonest to say the least
    .
    I'm not making that claim. I'm making the claim that austerity in the middle of recession doesn't typically result in what occured in Sweden. From the argument that they operated on the side of the spectrum of the largest welfare state in the world to the argument that increasing exports offset decreases in government spending. Not everyone can export their way out of recession! Not everyone can be net exporters! We're facing a downturned economy on a global scale. This isn't the same as a Swedish domestic recession.

    According to most Keynesians, higher interest rates and reduced government spending are exactly the opposite of "stimulus."
    Ummm yes....regarding the reduced government spending you are correct. The fact is less government spending was alleviated by an increase in exports for the Swedish economy. Once again another reason that it's not a good example. That's the problem with economics, there's no easy "test subject" where you control for all variables except for 1 and test what changes to the 1 variable results in. If you look at Sweden and say that cutting government spending doesn't result in decreased demand and lower economic activity you would be wrong. If you said that cutting government spending can be alleviated by higher exports you would be right. In fact that's not new. It's the reason there were currency wars during the depression era. Everybody traying to "export" their way out of the depression.

    All true, but... None of that changes the fact that the Swedish Economy has become infinitely more productive and stable since cutting back on government expeditures and welfare costs.

    By moving to be more in line with "Free Market" ideals, the Swedes have prospered.
    Sure I can agree with that. A country like Sweden which represented one of the most regulated and largest government welfare states has benefited by deregulating and cutting back expenditures. I'm not sure what lesson they have for the United States unless you believe that it somehow provies that dregulation and smaller government is the cure for every malady. In that case I would say you're dead wrong due to multiple reasons I've listed.

    Our system has very nearly been broken beyond what stimulus can repair. If we want to avoid the same fate as Japan, it is time to seriously consider making fundamental changes to how our nation in run.
    Our banking system is absolutely nothing like Japans. You might want to read up on "Zombie banks" and their root problems. Japanese banking system operates completely different than a Western arms length transaction style. In the west, a bank makes decisions based on a companies balance sheet. In Japan their banking system operated on personal relationships. It's representative of two completely different cultures.

    The bailout of Japanese banks just resulted in banks continuing to loan out to corporations or borrowers that they had long term relationships with regardless of their credit worthyness. The problem is they bailed out but didn't reform. The US has at least attempted reform of the banking system to correct problems but of course Republcians have watered down those reforms.

    Gangrene is already setting in. It is simply the case that no one has to intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade yet.
    The US has recovered some worse recessions and situations than this.

    think the economy would crash, restructure, and eventually rebound. It is not a "pretty" opinion, but it might very well be the only option available to us before too long.

    Hell! If Bernake's latest bit of fiscal idiocy fails (and it almost certainly will) the market will probably crash regardless of interest rates. You can only push the limit so far.
    Actually most measures are pointing to some level of recovery. Ultimately the history books will prove him right or wrong
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •