Dear Mr. Obama

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

That's a result of current Republican economic policy, which is what you get when you have free-market style economics and then the wealthy decide they want more influence in government.

The "Ownership Society" goes back to Thatcher and Reagan. The thing was that they needed to tie ordinary Americans into the interests of the wealthy which is why you've got a 401k and IRA now instead of a pension and you've got a cheap house in the middle of nowhere with a mortgage instead of a nice apartment somewhere.

Reaganomics is not exactly what comes to mind when you think of modern economic thought, and your example certainly fails to vindicate free market principles as the root cause of all this.

So basically this post is your admission that you don't even actually know what modern economic thought is?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Publius

So basically this post is your admission that you don't even actually know what modern economic thought is?

I'm talking about the direction economics is going. You obviously don't have a clue. That's what my post was about.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

This isn't the result of current Republican economic policy.

Greenspan was appointed by Reagan originally, yes, but he was also reappointed at 4 year intervals thereafter according to wikipedia.

Current republican economic policy, however, involves spending like we live in the hood. At least democrats tax before they spend, not that I'm pleased with that paradigm either.

I'm speaking of 'modern economic thought' as in Keynesian economics, not as in Reaganomics or republican/democrat policies.

It all goes back to the lack of regulation and oversight which allows people to accumulate wealth and power and subsequently capture government. It's a natural transition that the free market models can't account for. You can't assume that government will have zero effect on the market any more than you can assume that somebody will work as hard as they can for the collective good.

In theory it works. In the real world it breaks down fast, which is why no country has 100% free markets. You either need regulation to stop unethical market behavior or you're going to have to deal with powerful and wealthy people manipulating government action for their own benefit. Government and the economy are inextricably linked over any meaningful time period.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

It all goes back to the lack of regulation and oversight which allows people to accumulate wealth and power and subsequently capture government. It's a natural transition that the free market models can't account for. You can't assume that government will have zero effect on the market any more than you can assume that somebody will work as hard as they can for the collective good.

In theory it works. In the real world it breaks down fast, which is why no country has 100% free markets. You either need regulation to stop unethical market behavior or you're going to have to deal with powerful and wealthy people manipulating government action for their own benefit. Government and the economy are inextricably linked over any meaningful time period.

See, I look at the same information and see different causes for the same conclusion... Back when markets were free (at least more free), it created a situation in which people were overall made better off. Some did, in fact become very wealthy, but since everyone was doing well, that shouldn't matter. Then some people started to realize that if they could use money to affect the government, they would have an advantage over competition. That eventually turned into professional lobbies (whereas before, it was interest groups full of citizens writing their congressmen).

An easy one to show as a "success" story (successful in their fucked up way of screwing our economy) was nationalized unions. They said they would get all the workers wage increases, standard work hours, etc... and while they started off doing it on a company-by-company basis, the bigger they got the easier it was for them to just funnel money into the government and get legislation passed. So that's what they did.

And so has lots of other lobbies since then. In WW2 the Army provided their own meals, doctors, etc, etc... and now the ONLY thing the military does is hold guns and shoot guns. To get that changed, lobbies introduced the ideas and got legislation passed that allowed the outsourcing. The Energy Lobby is one of the largest lobbies (in terms of dollars spent) in DC, and they represent all the large Oil companies as well as the big electricity producers. They have been closely tied with the EPA since conception, and people wonder why the EPA sucks so bad?

But the point is that these companies and people with lots of money aren't the PROBLEM. Companies hire analysts and industrial engineers to look at their system, look at the demand, look at all factors, and come up with the most efficient way to increase profits and grow the business. An obvious solution is to dedicate a certain percentage of cash on hand to policy makers so they'll be more akin to the company's view that it needs to be harder for competition to enter into the industry or that certain foreign nations shouldn't be allowed to compete with them in America or whatever else they come up with. That is the eventuality.

However, just because companies are eventually going to start doing that (or, in our case, already do), it doesn't mean we, the voters, have to put up with it. If we were a bit more attentive, we wouldn't stand for it. But, of course, information is obscured, so it becomes difficult to see what's going on. And the lobbies don't want us to know about it, and the politicians don't want us to know about it... they're helping each other out.

One thing a lot of democrats want that I am all for is more transparency. Everything the government does, every dollar collected and spent, every decision made, every-single-thing that happens should be well documented and easily accessible for EVERYONE.

At any rate, the point is that giving the government more power... more money to spend, more the regulate, just more of everything will only result in more corruption and more of the very things that Democrats hate and more of the things that Republicans hate. By each side trying to expand government in their own way, it just makes it easier for the OTHER side to expand even more, and either way, the companies and lobbyists with all their money can even MORE easily get their own pet projects heard and passed through congress.

[bheld]

Meanwhile while you try to figure out how to separate government from the economy your economic model is no longer a model of the real world.

Those of us that realize that you can't do it have moved on and most economists today are trying to build more accurate models, not change the world to fit outmoded and inaccurate theories.

[Ardentfrost]

Intelligence is doing something that works, not continuing to use something that is broken. Your method will never out-smart the business world because they can collectively spend more money on the people doing the analyses.

The only hope to achieve a system that is fair for everyone is to sever the relationship between government and the economy.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Intelligence is doing something that works, not continuing to use something that is broken. Your method will never out-smart the business world because they can collectively spend more money on the people doing the analyses.

The only hope to achieve a system that is fair for everyone is to sever the relationship between government and the economy.

How is what you're saying any different than a socialist saying that the only way to create a truly fair system is to share everything equally and work together to make life good for everyone?

Either way you're hoping for something that is impossible.

[Ardentfrost]

What am I saying? I am talking about something to work toward that would fix the problems we both see with the system. Whereas you look at what has happened with increasing government power and think the solution is to continue increasing government power, I say that isn't working and we need to either try something else that no one has suggested, or go back to what worked before.

I think it's likely that a democrat will win come November. Between Hilary and Obama, I'm kinda pulling for Obama even though I can't morally vote for him... either way, I'm hoping they can reduce the tax burden of the middle class. I know Obama is promising that, and I think Hilary is too. That'll be nice for me personally.

But overall, for the economy and personal rights, I wish they would focus more on repealing the bad shit the Republicans have done without introducing their own bad shit. But, if they can net an overall reduction in spending even after introducing spending that wasn't there before, then I still think we've moved in a good direction. This is why I am pulling for Obama over Hilary because I think he's more likely to try to reduce spending overall.

There's so much room for improvement, I think no matter the democrat that wins, they'll be able to make something better overall. I'm actually doing some supply chain analysis for a company right now like that. What they are doing is SO bad, I could suggest they make shipments by carrier pigeon (like that FedEx commercial) and it'd make improvements.

But while making some improvements is great, I'll always want MORE optimization. It's just my nature. The nature of the system is for there to be give and take, and I expect that.