Is more debt worth Keynesian policy?

Has anyone posted these here before?

[video=youtube;d0nERTFo-Sk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk[/video]

[video=youtube;pZNCj2EcTCM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZNCj2EcTCM[/video]

 

Subjective, really? Country Wide disclosed they "bribed' both sides of the isle with sweetheart home loans. Is that subjective? Congress has convienently exempted themselves from insider trading regulations, subjective? Politicians have clawed their way to power in much the same way corporate executives have.

The difference with corporations, is every greedy exec, has other greedy exec's ready to steal their market share. The only way to stay on top is to win my business (or cooperate with politicians and regulators to create a defacto monopoly).

And, you already agree with that. With competition effectively limited to two parties, there is no real competition. This isn't a new condition, one of the 60's protest songs contained the line "how come in a so called democratic society, we're always picking between the lesser of two evils".

Property rights? In market socialism, government redistributes the means of production. Because the powerful always rise to the top, that redistribution has to be repeated, over and over.

?!? I'm continuing my reasons why government isn't the best place to hold power, not how to convert the world to market socialism.

 

You only show you don't understand market socialism. The only redistribution required would be a straight forward non-discretionary policy aimed at reducing the negative effects of inequality of opportunity. In Austrian terms see it as a means to exploit tacit knowledge (and allow for greater firm creation through entrepreneurial behaviour). In terms of the means of production it is very much focused on protecting property rights: worker ownership ensures that value created goes to those who have created it.

 

How do you redistribute without violating property rights?

With all the steps between identifying the customer need to selling the product, how is the value for each person determined?

Who makes that valuation?

 

You asked me if government has "pure" motives. The question is inherently subjective.

Do you not know what it means? It's politics as usual and the actors behaving in their best interests, our value judgments of these happenings is completely irrelevant.

Ok, so you please go lookup the difference between subjective and objective because it's making this conversation very tedious.

Bologna, executives don't buy ad time and pander nearly as much.

The full product of your labor etc etc...

I'm not sure that means anything, governments exist for a reason and in a democracy will always have substantial amounts of power.The notion that government = bad, is a very childish one.

 

Individualism informs us that we should minimise the damage generated by inequality of opportunity. And its not a simple redistribution either (such as the use of unemployment benefit to maintain the physical efficiency of the mass unemployed in capitalism); it generates public good characteristics as opportunity creates economic activity which we all benefit from.

All up to the firm (and therefore the workers). With division of labour we'd naturally expect a distribution in compensation (but that is not for us to decide)

 

Please provide a link to your definition of individualism.

What do we do about inequality among those with equal opportunity?

Describe how this utopia is achieved.

The firm is as motivated by politics as this forum. Would you rely on the forum members to vote you an appropriate salary?

 

Know I understand, it doesn't matter how corrupt government is, without value judgements, it is all subjective.

Do you know any executives? Ad time on TV, not as much (but some). Pandering, that is mostly what they do, the rest is demanding.

In capitalism, there are 3 things that decide what I'm worth. Me (I can leave if I believe the pay is too low), other companies that need my talent (I can go there), and what others, doing what I do, will work for (if they are cheaper, they get hired, not me).

In market socialism, who decides how much I'm worth?

 

I deal in political economy. Clearly a class based system is kicking individualism in the knackers..

Socialism doesn't deliver equality of outcome. You again ask stupid question.

Everything said has been compatable with Hayekian information problems. Referring to utopianism is just cretinous

I would certainly democracy within the firm. Perhaps youra an elitest and prefer authoritarianism?

 

I don't even know what your prattling on about anymore. Sure governments are corrupt, but it's nothing unique to government.

Unfortunately.

Those same things. It's still a free labor market, except I don't think you'd be able to sell your labor... frankly idk, I'm not a socialist.

 

I can choose not to buy from a corrupt company. If a company is corrupt enough, it will go out of business. Power is limited.

But, shy of leaving the country, I don't have any way to avoid a corrupt government.

No matter the definition, market socialism require the government to have more power to enforce redistribution.

 

And you can pack up your bags and leave and live basically anywhere you like. Or you can vote in new people. In either case, you have choices.

If you think the ability to levy taxes and disperse benefits is a lot more power... then I suppose, but virtually every government on earth is already capable of that.

 

Yet you made the statement above.

 

They aren't contradictory, what's your point?

 

Wow...

 

It would be difficult to compete with the hierarchy in the firm and the coercion it generates in day to day bobbins

 

... ''deficits don't matter'' ...


~ Republican Dick Cheney

 

Why do you think there is a Tea Party? Obama didn't create it, he, Pelosi, and Reid just galvanized it.

 

We ought expect better from public servants​. I also get many more opportunities to vote with my wallet than I do at the ballot.

 

But there is a self-selection with the public sector (such that you're more likely to see altruistic behaviour). The same hierarchies also aren't observed

 

The service itself must count for an awful lot then because in terms of real dollars they're lagging far behind. Probably not a fair measurement given the income differentials, but private sector leaders also don't have the power of redistribution to wield.

Only restrained by the number of appointable positions. So basically... apples vs. oranges.

 

Hierarchy within the firm has an additional 'divide & conquer' role. No such beast in the public sector

 

In a recession, i agree. But Keynesian ideas would be to pay down the debt during years of growth and run (relatively) balanced budgets, only running up debt during recessions.

Bush ran up debt during years of growth (even if the growth his and the GOP's housing bubble).

 

Public servants are no different than executives in any large company. They seek power, and use the same skills.

They will lose any idealism / altruism they had to please the powers behind the throne. If not, they won't advance.

They avoid making enemies in their peers and below lest their weaknesses be leaked to their opponents.

They are good communicators that say what people want to hear, no matter what they believe.

The one major difference is when you make a promise in business, it is expected you keep it (usually by contract). When you make a promise in politics, and don't keep it, we don't even get upset, let alone fire them. In fact, when they tell the truth, we don't elect them.

We have trained politicians to lie to us.

 

Add in the perks they get from the job, their retirement package, the perks they get from lobbyists, and the income from being a lobbyist after they leave office. Politicians make a good amount of lifetime income.