Tax burden

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Taxing the wealthy and expanding government is not the way to prevent economic problems. The government can do little to prevent most economic issues and when it does act it acts in partisan and not in the best interest of the people. The market if left alone could correct more issues before they became problems than we could ever hope the government would solve. And the market would do it a hell of a lot cheaper and efficiently.

You're using theory and "what ought to be" to argue with reality. If the market corrected issues before they became problems we wouldn't even be discussing it right now. In no way does government prevent the private sector from fixing things that need to be changed.

The thing is that the market represents a aggregate of individual needs and desires instead of societal needs. You can't argue that bare fact away. When societal needs are at odds with individual needs a free market system is going to go with individual (read: self-centered) needs every time.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

No, government gives us a chance to prevent problems instead of reacting to problems. The market absolutely has NOT shown that it fixes problems or does anything near a satisfactory job when they feel like they have to. If you look at all the pathetic attempts to fix problems the private sector has done in the recent past it's all been because they were scared of government intervention in the first place.

Please give an example. And you saying "recent" makes me really think you're probably going to give a bad example... like one where the government had the need to expand on previously fucking something up.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Please give an example. And you saying "recent" makes me really think you're probably going to give a bad example... like one where the government had the need to expand on previously fucking something up.

Its so easy to say government fucks everything up because they fuck up a lot of things - but that's because it needs reform, not an overhaul. Truly if you start a business with a poor plan it will do bad or fail but that does not mean the free market sucks, because the same person can learn from his mistakes and created a successful business. Government is the same way - its only as good as how much we put in to it (not talking about money).

The truth of the matter is that government regulation in this state is realitivly new. For most of our (US) history government effectively stayed out of businesses way - Hamilton's America was winning - it was as close to a free market as one could get but what happened?

The free market showed itself for what it was - an economic system which by its very nature cannot protect a persons liberty. While free marketers preach that the right to own property is a natural right, they fail to realize that they only have that right because government set up laws and regulations so that they can safely and legally own property without fear of someone taking it. In fact all our so called natural rights are predisposed to government (or a body that can enforce its rules, which the free market cannot always do so) rules acting to protect it - government can enforce it, the market cannot. An economic system is a poor substitute for representative government.

It has its place and it is important for freedom, but its not a substitute for it.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Please give an example. And you saying "recent" makes me really think you're probably going to give a bad example... like one where the government had the need to expand on previously fucking something up.

Well one great example is big pharma sending Montel around on a big purple bus and going around on TV talking about signing poor people up for prescription drugs in a desperate attempt to stave off government intervention into healthcare. That's an attempt at placation instead of responding to the actual problem.

[Ardentfrost]

None of us that tout free market economics are promoting anarchy. The government is needed to protect us from each other. It has never been and should never be legal to FORCE someone to work somewhere or buy something or whatever. Force is not a part of the free market, then it's not very free.

You look at something like the decreasing work conditions of the late 1800's and early 1900's, where some people were working shit jobs for shit pay in shit conditions, and sure, it's a bad thing... but it changed. It changed LONG before the government got involved. The government got involved AFTER unions nationalized, which were formed originally to fix those problems. The unions spawned because of the need for them, and they were the free market answer to the problems.

Now, we can talk all day long about why the situation got so bad and how the government could have done more to curtail the insane immigration rates when they saw it happening and how that could have prevented the situation from the beginning... which I would agree with. It is the government's job to watch immigration and make sure the rates at which people come to this country isn't too great. That's a national issue that is the responsibility of the government and has always been.

But anyway, the point is that the government is there to protect our rights, not take them away willy nilly. That can completely work in conjunction with a free market economy. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well one great example is big pharma sending Montel around on a big purple bus and going around on TV talking about signing poor people up for prescription drugs in a desperate attempt to stave off government intervention into healthcare. That's an attempt at placation instead of responding to the actual problem.

Big pharma is so bad because of the actions of the FDA. The FDA makes it impossible for smaller independent groups to be able to R&D new drugs because they make it so expensive. There is too little competition in the pharmaceutical industry, even with the occasional no-brand drug (which itself takes years to make)

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You look at something like the decreasing work conditions of the late 1800's and early 1900's, where some people were working shit jobs for shit pay in shit conditions, and sure, it's a bad thing... but it changed. It changed LONG before the government got involved. The government got involved AFTER unions nationalized, which were formed originally to fix those problems. The unions spawned because of the need for them, and they were the free market answer to the problems.

Yea it only took a few generations for the free market to have an answer. But I guess that is fine with you just as long as eventually, sometime in the future, somewhere, there is an answer? Oh and lets not forget that during the early days of unionizing there was much violence against those that were joining and fighting for better conditions - more free market goodness eh?

But anyway, the point is that the government is there to protect our rights, not take them away willy nilly. That can completely work in conjunction with a free market economy. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive.

I never claimed they were mutually exclusive, mine is that people put way too much blame on government and way too much confidence in the free market, there should be more of a balance.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea it only took a few generations for the free market to have an answer. But I guess that is fine with you just as long as eventually, sometime in the future, somewhere, there is an answer? Oh and lets not forget that during the early days of unionizing there was much violence against those that were joining and fighting for better conditions - more free market goodness eh?

A few generations? What are you talking about. The problems spawned from immigration problems due to people needing to escape their various Euro countries in the late 1800's. Within 10 years people started unionizing because the problems became more and more apparent, and by 10 years later all the growing pains were sorted out and the market was well on its way to recovery (so much so that it eventually resulted in the Roaring 20's, which was partly helped along by the immense production America was then able to achieve). Government didn't step in to "help" until decades later, and even then child labor wasn't abolished solely because people thought kids SHOULDN"T work... they were mad because kids were taking jobs from adults during a time when unemployment was high.

And again, violence is illegal, so the government was more than welcome to police people being threatened or hurt. That IS their job.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

A few generations? What are you talking about. The problems spawned from immigration problems due to people needing to escape their various Euro countries in the late 1800's. Within 10 years people started unionizing because the problems became more and more apparent, and by 10 years later all the growing pains were sorted out and the market was well on its way to recovery (so much so that it eventually resulted in the Roaring 20's, which was partly helped along by the immense production America was then able to achieve). Government didn't step in to "help" until decades later, and even then child labor wasn't abolished solely because people thought kids SHOULDN"T work... they were mad because kids were taking jobs from adults during a time when unemployment was high.

And again, violence is illegal, so the government was more than welcome to police people being threatened or hurt. That IS their job.

So what happened after the roaring 20s and how was it the government's fault? I'm interested to see this revisionist history carried out through the depression.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Big pharma is so bad because of the actions of the FDA. The FDA makes it impossible for smaller independent groups to be able to R&D new drugs because they make it so expensive. There is too little competition in the pharmaceutical industry, even with the occasional no-brand drug (which itself takes years to make)

What exactly does the FDA do that you disagree with?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

None of us that tout free market economics are promoting anarchy. The government is needed to protect us from each other. It has never been and should never be legal to FORCE someone to work somewhere or buy something or whatever. Force is not a part of the free market, then it's not very free.

You look at something like the decreasing work conditions of the late 1800's and early 1900's, where some people were working shit jobs for shit pay in shit conditions, and sure, it's a bad thing... but it changed. It changed LONG before the government got involved. The government got involved AFTER unions nationalized, which were formed originally to fix those problems. The unions spawned because of the need for them, and they were the free market answer to the problems.

Now, we can talk all day long about why the situation got so bad and how the government could have done more to curtail the insane immigration rates when they saw it happening and how that could have prevented the situation from the beginning... which I would agree with. It is the government's job to watch immigration and make sure the rates at which people come to this country isn't too great. That's a national issue that is the responsibility of the government and has always been.

But anyway, the point is that the government is there to protect our rights, not take them away willy nilly. That can completely work in conjunction with a free market economy. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive.

So you agree with the unrestricted flow of capital but not the unrestricted flow of labor? How does that jive with your whole theory?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

So what happened after the roaring 20s and how was it the government's fault? I'm interested to see this revisionist history carried out through the depression.

You seriously don't think that it was FDR's New Deal shit that exacerbated the situation and made it last for a decade? And the situation was largely created by a deflating fiat monetary policy.

So, yes, government was very much involved, not only in creating a volatile situation, but in prolonging the hardship.

Also, please tell me you don't think it was WW2 that got us out of the Depression.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

What exactly does the FDA do that you disagree with?

They are the biggest restricter of research in the world. They won't let any supplements be recommended despite independent research that touts their effectiveness. They create a situation in which it's so difficult to make a new drug that it takes MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars of initial capital to even hope to jump into that market.

There's 3 things that come to mind quickly. And that doesn't begin to breach the issue of corruption and payoffs.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

So you agree with the unrestricted flow of capital but not the unrestricted flow of labor? How does that jive with your whole theory?

Where do I not agree with unrestricted flow of labor? I think immigration is important and a good thing, but immigration is a federal government issue. And if an immigration RATE is too high, then we have a problem, as proven by the issues of the afore mentioned time period. Markets grow fast, but people can walk across the border (or walk off a boat in this case) faster potentially. The government SHOULD have slowed immigration so that our labor force didn't become saturated so quickly. Right now there's no reason to restrict immigration as it's not happening too fast and our unemployment is still low enough to be considered to be zero unemployment (an economic term that simply means there are more jobs than people looking for jobs).

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You seriously don't think that it was FDR's New Deal shit that exacerbated the situation and made it last for a decade? And the situation was largely created by a deflating fiat monetary policy.

So, yes, government was very much involved, not only in creating a volatile situation, but in prolonging the hardship.

Also, please tell me you don't think it was WW2 that got us out of the Depression.

We didn't have a fiat monetary policy.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

We didn't have a fiat monetary policy.

whaaat??? We have since 1913. You're talking about what caused the GD right?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

whaaat??? We have since 1913. You're talking about what caused the GD right?

yeah, we were still backed by gold at that time.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

A few generations? What are you talking about.

What are you talking about - revisionist history? The problems were apparent and immense during the 1800s but unions didn't really gain any type of control or power until the twentieth century - that is a few generations and a failure of your vaunted free market. And government did play a role, passing mediating laws, work place regulations etc all throughout the early twentieth century - the free market was fighting all the way and to not see that is quite silly.

And yes violence is illegal - we agree there, but it the cause of the free market or more precisely those in the free market that didn't like what was going on, again government had to step in to stop what the market cannot.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

yeah, we were still backed by gold at that time.

Yeah, sorry, I had misremembered some stuff I read by Milton Friedman. He was talking about deflationary practices of the Fed in relation to the Gold Standard. So not only did they create the volatile market leading up to the crash, but they also made the gold standard unacceptable anymore.