• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For

Verax said:
Is there something wrong with you? Where do you get your information? What are you basing this on? You have to be joking, right?
Click to expand...

I already told you specifically what argument I was referring to in a previous post. You apparently ignored it or refused to respond to it.

Do you think spending trillions on defense and a broken healthcare system is Keynesian economics?
Click to expand...

If its intent is stimulus, then possibly. Keynes didn't use his theory to dictate how government should fiscally stimulate, he just said that they should when it's bad. But he also indicated they should go more conservative when we're booming, which we don't do in practice.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I already told you specifically what argument I was referring to in a previous post. You apparently ignored it or refused to respond to it.



If its intent is stimulus, then possibly. Keynes didn't use his theory to dictate how government should fiscally stimulate, he just said that they should when it's bad. But he also indicated they should go more conservative when we're booming, which we don't do in practice.
Click to expand...

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Just forget it. This is why you shouldn't listen to Republican talk radio because they confuse you to death and convince you everything is backwards, up is down, left is right.

What we've been doing since the 70's is not "Keynesian", I cannot stress this enough yet you keep harping on it. You're comparing supply side economic fiscal conservative failures during boom times as a product of improper Keynesian application. This is the most bizarre logic I have ever seen. You're running from Reaganomics while trying to pin it on anything you can grasp at. Why so intellectually dishonest? You harp on spending that has nothing to do with economic theory and everything to do with our massive defense budget and healthcare failures, everything else is a drop in the bucket.

Let me guess, you're going to complain about spending again as a Keynesian failure during boom times? LoL
 
Verax said:
You keep saying the same thing over and over. Just forget it. This is why you shouldn't listen to Republican talk radio because they confuse you to death and convince you everything is backwards, up is down, left is right.
Click to expand...

You need to drop your little zingers as I have never listened to talk radio. Stick with the topic. You're repeating your sarcasm over and over and it's misdirected.

What we've been doing since the 70's is not "Keynesian", I cannot stress this enough yet you keep harping on it. You're comparing supply side economic fiscal conservative failures during boom times as a product of improper Keynesian application. This is the most bizarre logic I have ever seen. You're running from Reaganomics while trying to pin it on anything you can grasp at. Why so intellectually dishonest?
Click to expand...

We have claimed to embrace a Keynesian approach, especially after Humphrey Hawkins, but since then we can never seem to stick to the playbook.

You harp on spending that has nothing to do with economic theory and everything to do with our massive defense budget and healthcare failures, everything else is a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to discuss the ridiculous defense budget and healthcare failures, but that's a bit of a tangent to this.

Let me guess, you're going to complain about spending again as a Keynesian failure during boom times? LoL
Click to expand...

Well you have yet to respond to it without going into personal attack/sarcasm mode, so…

What would the appropriate Keynes school course of action look like during our strongest years (e.g. mid-late 90s, mid-2000s, etc.)?
 
Verax said:
Sure this would be great if we'd actually do it. The problem with the Libertarian / conservative ideas here of individualism and less government control is that they have always been used as a bait and switch tactic. I supposed you could say the same thing about lefty better government lies that propose to fix our problems as well.

In practice less government control has been advocated as increasing individual rights but it always ends up doing the opposite. You have to factor in the powerful private sector and how good they are at manipulating whatever system is in place to their advantage. Look at how the average man is completely dominated by the actions of the financial markets. Your "inner circle of control" is equal to absolutely zero if you get laid off and can't get a job.

I used to call myself a Libertarian until I found out its just a bait and switch tactic pushed by massive corporations, the business lobby. They crush small business and they crush individuals who aren't part of the power structure all under the guise of "freedom" and "individualism".
Click to expand...


I think we too often confuse rights with outcomes. Bigger government results in fewer rights, smaller government results in more rights. More rights doesn't guarantee better outcomes, only greater opportunity for better outcomes.
 
US Conservative said:
Perhaps its from this, where Friedman absolutely owns those nordic socialists.
So smug, they'd like to be.
Click to expand...


Great Stuff! Thanks for that, and you summarized the outcome correctly! Especially profound was his statement that the growth of Welfare State in the US would become more dangerous than the threat from the USSR.
 
Verax said:
Yeah Friedman is a well respected economist, however things have evolved since his breakthroughs and better ideas have been discovered.

So I guess it doesn't matter what system we use huh? Since ethnicity is all that matters?
Click to expand...

Did I say that "ethnicity is all that matters"? Little wonder that your leaping to false conclusions has led you to regurgitate theories that were rightfully discarded decades ago.

What "better ideas" are you referring to. This should be good!
 
Verax said:
What?

This is why its pointless to "debate" any of your righties on this site. You mostly aren't even coherent.
Click to expand...

Then come out and say what you mean rather than just hinting around at it. Show us "righties" what you got!
 
Verax said:
I used to call myself a Libertarian until I found out its just a bait and switch tactic pushed by massive corporations, the business lobby. They crush small business and they crush individuals who aren't part of the power structure all under the guise of "freedom" and "individualism".
Click to expand...

It's usually comes back to this.
 
Verax said:
Yeah Friedman is a well respected economist, however things have evolved since his breakthroughs and better ideas have been discovered.
Click to expand...

What would those "better ideas" be?
 
lizzie said:
You mean the state? I mean, if there are no property rights, no ownership, and we are supported by Uncle Sugar Daddy, then there are no wealthy- just one big happy family. ;)
Click to expand...

Remember though, Lizzie, it's not that communism doesn't work, only that the right uncorruptable people have never been in charge. ;)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Remember though, Lizzie, it's not that communism doesn't work, only that the right uncorruptable people have never been in charge. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...

A great leader like Barrack Obama could have made it work!!:peace
 
Verax said:
Grant said:
"A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%".
Click to expand...
Yeah Friedman is a well respected economist, however things have evolved since his breakthroughs and better ideas have been discovered.

So I guess it doesn't matter what system we use huh? Since ethnicity is all that matters?
Click to expand...

There's also this to think about:

How we’re supposed to read this [State of Working America report from the Economic Policy Institute] is that the USA has a very uneven income distribution, that the poorest 10% only get 39% of the median income, that the richest 10% get 210%. Compare and contrast that with the most egalitarian society amongst those studied, Finland, where the rich get 111% and the poor get 38%. Shown this undoubted fact we are therefore to don sackcloth and ashes, promise to do better and tax the heck out of everybody to rectify this appalling situation.

But hang on a minute, that’s not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It’s not worth quibbling over 1% so let’s take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don’t you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely … nothing. (Source: America has Less Poverty than Sweden)
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
I do think the job guarantee is something that needs to happen, along with universal healthcare.

I also find it intellectually dishonest to just label something "communism" and hope to get a visceral reaction opposing it. How about you attack the man's proposals on the merits?
Click to expand...

Job guarantee? If you want a job you can get one today. The problem is people don't want just any job, they want a job that they feel they are worth.
 
d0gbreath said:
The millennials have a very stark view of capitalism. There just doesn't seem (to them) to be any way to succeed. If you're not well versed in 'puts' and hedge fund gambling, it's harder and harder to find suitable work.
Click to expand...

They were conditioned to have this view, by neo marxists pushing discredited leftist dogma.

And as is SOP with critical theory-they dont have any insight or context about the failings of socialism, and many werent even born when the USSR dissolved.

There is no greater vehicle from poverty than capitalism, for all its quirks. Its not perfect-its just superior to the alternatives.

The baby-step fabian socialists can pound sand.
 
Verax said:
Still stuck in the 80's? LoL, things have changed quite a bit since then. Not to mention the Nordic countries are doing absolutely fantastic right now compared to the U.S. Well at least the people are, the ultra wealthy in the U.S. are doing better than anyone... if that's what you want then by all means congratulate yourselves. Although I must say... I don't think anyone on this forum belongs to their club so I'm not sure why we'd support it.
Click to expand...

The ideas and subjects are STILL 100% topical. Ideas matter, not dates, if they did you wouldnt be a fan of marxism and your class struggle silliness, would you?
 
Grant said:
Great Stuff! Thanks for that, and you summarized the outcome correctly! Especially profound was his statement that the growth of Welfare State in the US would become more dangerous than the threat from the USSR.
Click to expand...


Ironically even George Orwell would have made the same claim.

Friedman is exciting.
 
US Conservative said:
[/U]

Ironically even George Orwell would have made the same claim.

Friedman is exciting.
Click to expand...

George Orwell once argued that the state should provide everything to the people except money for entertainment that would include such things as movies and books. George Orwell was a novelist. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
George Orwell once argued that the state should provide everything to the people except money for entertainment that would include such things as movies and books. George Orwell was a novelist. :lol:
Click to expand...

He argued that those freebies would be the biggest threat to their freedom, and he was right.

Orwell was highly influential, and as a Marxist knew exactly how bad it could get-he'd seen it with his own eyes.
 
US Conservative said:
[/U]

Ironically even George Orwell would have made the same claim.

Friedman is exciting.
Click to expand...

So is de Tocqueville.

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?" ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
 
Grant said:
So is de Tocqueville.

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?" ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Click to expand...

Agreed. Very insightful as well.
 
The biggest problem with writers like the sniveling putz that wrote that Rolling Stone drivel, is that they don't realize, or understand what they are advocating. This particular weasel said elsewhere that he would like to see all the wealthy killed and their assets taken. What kind of loser, wallowing in jealous inadequacy, and self loathing looks at someone else's success and holds that against them. He is a socialist loser, the kind out Universities are churning out at record rate, and unchecked by rational people...

We'd better get a handle on these people, or the predictions of American decline is all by assured.
 
TurtleDude said:
I would suggest a library but I guess we cannot accuse you of getting your stuff from liberal talk radio-it all went bankrupt. Maybe too much Rachel Madcow?

Have fun-SYL
Click to expand...

He's got his yoga class.
 
hjl1991 said:
Job guarantee? If you want a job you can get one today. The problem is people don't want just any job, they want a job that they feel they are worth.
Click to expand...

People want a job that provides them a living wage, which I think is something society should guarantee.
 
Peter Grimm said:
People want a job that provides them a living wage, which I think is something society should guarantee.
Click to expand...

That's impossible. If you want a good job, get one that adds more wealth to a country. As it stands, working at McDonalds does not add more wealth to a country, and raising prices to accommodate a living wage would turn millions of people away from the store, thus resulting in stores losing profit, then closing, then losing jobs.

If you want a better job, work hard, be honest, stay sober, and get more education. In the real world, not everyone is willing to do what it takes to move up in the world, thus you see 40 year olds working at McDonalds and doing a poor job at it.
 
hjl1991 said:
That's impossible. If you want a good job, get one that adds more wealth to a country. As it stands, working at McDonalds does not add more wealth to a country, and raising prices to accommodate a living wage would turn millions of people away from the store, thus resulting in stores losing profit, then closing, then losing jobs.

If you want a better job, work hard, be honest, stay sober, and get more education. In the real world, not everyone is willing to do what it takes to move up in the world, thus you see 40 year olds working at McDonalds and doing a poor job at it.
Click to expand...

I think you assume a lot about workers that I don't know is true. There are many reasons someone may be working at McDonald's other than laziness, dishonesty, being high, or not trying to be educated. I know people want simple answers, but the fact remains people work there at sub living wages. Is this desirable? That's the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom