how is this fair?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

No, it doesn't.

There will never be a price someone isn't willing to accept for a given resource. It doesn't matter how much of it is left.

That is, of course, until our nation is left with no resources whatsoever and money is worthless. Even your precious gold isn't worth anything in a total economic failure.

In fact, gold isn't worth anything, PERIOD. It's no more a conception of existing value than fiat currency is. The only difference is how much we dig out of the ground, or synthesize in labs, versus how much we have the treasury print.

Disregarding your opinions on the value of gold...

Of course there will always be people willing to pay any price for something, but currently we use X barrels of oil a day. If it goes up to $200/barrel, how much will that decrease. If it goes up to $300/barrel, how much then?

The point is, as supply is constrained and price raises, the rate of use drops off significantly. The prices may increase, but people's average willingness to pay for the product doesn't change (it's important to note that someone's willingness to pay over time should be measured in wealth, not dollar price since dollars inflate). This is why public transit demand and demand for hybrids and compact cars with really good gas mileage increased dramatically the past few years.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I chose 1946 because the Financial world has been relatively stable since that time, and the degree of government involvement in the free market had fluctuated wildly in pre-WW2 times. Not to mention the major period of technological innovation in America was ushered in in 1946 with the creation of ENIAC, the first computer, which I think is a good symbol of the dawn of a new American economy.

I would like to see an example that illustrates your point that isn't archaic, economically-speaking. Things that happened 100 years ago don't evidence a good picture of current conditions and what regulations (or lack thereof) might do to them, since we do live in a different financial world than we did years ago (globalization, among other things).

I don't think that's too much to ask. I also see your contention that since people are now dependent on government, there can be no examples, as a complete and total cop-out. If, as you say, the free market can act proactively to stave off certain economic problems, surely in the 60 years of history I'm discussing, you can find one or two examples? If not, I'd have to just say that you're wrong.

edit: I'm not going to go search for year-old posts because you can't think of any good examples off the top of your head.

I gave good examples, but seriously, I'm not going to do the leg work on something that isn't going to change anything anyway. If you're REALLY curious about examples that counter your position, you'd look them up. I'm well aware of popular examples that attempt to counter my position and all of them suck balls.

As for an example in the past 60 years, I'll use a real simple one: the price capping of gas prices at the pump in the 70's that caused shortage. They were reacting to the increasing prices, which was the market's way of trying to save supply. But instead, thanks to government intervention, no one had gas.

How about government's involvement in the current "credit crisis" or "housing correction" or whatever you want to call it. They needed more money so they dropped rates through the floor, thereby creating a shit ton more cash to use. This created an unrealistic situation in the housing market where people could make poor choices with little risk until we are where we are now.

How about the bailing out of specific airlines, where the market was naturally going to edge out for being inefficient, allowing us to have overall cheaper air fare. Now we have to spend tax dollars to still keep two airlines alive (was 3 until Delta dug itself out of the hole).

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You realize this, yet you label yourself as a democrat? Doesn't that imply that you are FOR the government spending?

Thanks for blowing my mind

i am for the right govt. spending. The govt. has its place in the daily lives of its citizens. Thats why we elect them. Its about spending money in the right sectors, and spending it in the right amounts while not providing a net negative affect on our country. It happens when you have Katrina visa gift cards or billions in bloated defense contracts. It happens when you give millions in food stamps or millions to bail out a major corporation. It is all welfare regardless if it helps poor people or rich business owners that fear the loss of their fortune. I have not lost faith in government and i have not lost faith that they could actually correct themselves. This is not a democrat or republican issue, but an american issue. If anyone has been paying attention they would see that both parties have alienated the 'people'. The upper 1.5% that pay 18% taxes vs. the rest of us that pay 30%+...the rest of us that suffer from government generated inflation...the rest of us that see our jobs send elseware because of trade policy.

I am a democrat because i believe in sound responsible government that truly represents the people. i believe government will work and has worked. I dont want govt controlling lives...but i want govt. to represent me and you. I can't put my faith in a republican party that claims big government is never part of their work..yet a party that has seen 7 of our 9 trillion in debt established under their terms...and has over seen some of the largest govt. growth ever in the history of our country. I can't put much faith in a party that caims govt. would never work...but runs and spends hundreds of millions to be part of this government they claim will never work...mainly because they fuck it up. I dont say "hey this idea will never work" then fuck it up and say "see i told you that would not work". Thats what i get from republicans. Libertarians are correct to certain extents but when you have a country of 300 million people some of their ideas are just not possible. Thats why Ron Paul is riding the FailBoat Express. His shipment of fail arrived a long time ago.

So what is the answer? A government that represents the people without corruption. Is that possible? If not, I would question democracy as a legitimate form of representative government. If it is possible, I think a reasonable democratic party is the answer. One that respects the constitution...the 2nd and owning guns...or staying out the private life of women who choose abortion. A government that does not base foreign policy on geopolitical/globalization agendas.

Thats all i want. If it can't happen...democracy has failed on this large scale...and only works on small scales.

[nbiggershaft]

I'm actually half with ArdentFrost on this one. There is no reasonable way for senators to keep up on the possibility and implications of new technology. If you want to take a proactive approach, fund the shit out of university study, they will figure out what research. But mandating and subsidizing alternative energies is inefficient and often leads to years of developing dead technology. How many billions have we spent on corn ethanol that will go nowhere while they are making sugar cane ethanol a few hundred miles away that is cheap and efficient?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I can't believe I have to hear someone say (paraphrasing)

"It's great us working people are helped by Paris Hilton pouring her money into the market which helps keep us employed and take out loans"

Instead of "Isn't it great all those WORKERS who clean the rooms, wash the sheets, greet and settle the guests, take up the luggage, maintain the outside...and many more who work their asses off and with whose work gives people like Paris Hilton a fortune to spend for her latest party cruise"

Oh. Perhaps you'd like to be unemployed instead.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's not true either. People make so much money out there speculating where the market is going so that companies can invest in the future long enough in advance to get a head start on the competition.

Well it is true, but I think we are arguing about scale. It happens now but at a very small scale. As the price of oil gets higher and higher the scale gets bigger. It's an eventual gradual process that we can actually look into the future and really predict with a reasonable level of certainty. Given that, we can pump significant amounts of money into the research, multiplying the current level of spending 100 fold, putting us ahead of the curve. It's a risk yes, but there is no reward without risk. We would be betting that "green" technology will be a profitable industry 10 or 20 years from now, and with that in mind, investing money now. If we just let the market take it's course we may very well lose that advantage to other countries.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Oh. Perhaps you'd like to be unemployed instead.

Trickle down economics for the lose. It doesn't work.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Trickle down economics for the lose. It doesn't work.

If you repeat "x economic system doesn't work" enough times, it might even become true.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well it is true, but I think we are arguing about scale. It happens now but at a very small scale. As the price of oil gets higher and higher the scale gets bigger. It's an eventual gradual process that we can actually look into the future and really predict with a reasonable level of certainty. Given that, we can pump significant amounts of money into the research, multiplying the current level of spending 100 fold, putting us ahead of the curve. It's a risk yes, but there is no reward without risk. We would be betting that "green" technology will be a profitable industry 10 or 20 years from now, and with that in mind, investing money now. If we just let the market take it's course we may very well lose that advantage to other countries.

But dude, alternative solutions have been researched since at least the 1970's independently by car companies. Remember all the concept electric cars in the late 80's and early 90's? Hell, I think they even had electric cars in the mid-90's.

Hybrids, although not an alternative solution since they still use gas, have been researched and developed since the 70's with no government help.

And look what's happening now with more electric and hydrogen technologies coming out from all around the world. The companies are seeing this demand and want to jump on it.

And we've HAD the demand for decades. People don't WANT to use gas if possible. But the research has been slowed by the government more than it has been promoted by it. They'd rather throw subsidies to corn, which has been a huge mistake. Even if ethanol was the way to go, which it isn't, sugar creates more of the substance per acre than corn does.

The government getting involved RARELY makes the situation better.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

If you repeat "x economic system doesn't work" enough times, it might even become true.

2+2 = 4. This is true. I only have to say it once. Supply side economics was a failure. Regan tried it and it failed. The wealth never tricked down.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=001...3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z


Daily Kos: The Complete Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Charlie Cray: From Bolivia to Iraq, "Trickle-Down Economics" a Total Failure - Politics on The Huffington Post

‘Trickle-down’ a failure as the rich get richer « The Dog’s Bollocks




Will it be better if other people say it was a failure as well?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

2+2 = 4. This is true. I only have to say it once. Supply side economics was a failure. Regan tried it and it failed. The wealth never tricked down.



Daily Kos: The Complete Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Charlie Cray: From Bolivia to Iraq, "Trickle-Down Economics" a Total Failure - Politics on The Huffington Post

‘Trickle-down’ a failure as the rich get richer « The Dog’s Bollocks




Will it be better if other people say it was a failure as well?

31 million jobs were created while Reagan was president.

Average wage increased 33%

Unemployment halved.

What more do you want out of the economy in the 80's? Jeez

[thewise1]

First of all, I wasn't talking about supply side economics.

Second, no, it won't be better. How many people told me I was wrong, wrong, wrong about debt problems in this country, and yet here we are facing exactly that - the fruits of our debt.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

31 million jobs were created while Reagan was president.

Average wage increased 33%

Unemployment halved.

What more do you want out of the economy in the 80's? Jeez

Because we were coming out of a serious recession with 17% interest rates. The Fed cutting rates and oil getting cheaper was responsible for most of that growth.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Because we were coming out of a serious recession with 17% interest rates. The Fed cutting rates and oil getting cheaper was responsible for most of that growth.

Interest rate cuts do have an immediate effect on the economy, but we're talking YEARS here. If the trickle-down method doesn't work, then we'd have seen adverse effects because of it.

Instead, the thing that gets people's panties in a bunch over it is that it requires a decrease in tax revenue. People and the economy are better off, but the government can't spend as much. If you think that's a bad thing, then sure, cutting taxes for the reasons Reagan wanted to is a bad thing.

[lew]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Because we were coming out of a serious recession with 17% interest rates. The Fed cutting rates and oil getting cheaper was responsible for most of that growth.

\

The Fed cutting rates is also what is responsible for our current crises.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by lew

\

The Fed cutting rates way too much is also partly what is responsible for our current crises.

fixed.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

\

The Fed cutting rates is also what is responsible for our current crises.

GOP Iraq War plus GOP lack of regulation are the causes of our economic problems

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

GOP Iraq War plus GOP lack of regulation are the causes of our economic problems

You don't think it had anything to do with cutting rates to their lowest levels... ever?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You don't think it had anything to do with cutting rates to their lowest levels... ever?

I think the fact it rained today somewhere might be "anything" that contributed

But the main causes have to do with GOP policy of the past 8 years