+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74

Thread: Is it sick that I kind of want to see the Tea Party's plan put to work??

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by venik View Post
    Austrian economics, it's not a made-up fairy-tail it's been around for 100s of years, adam smith is arguably it's creator. And it's basic premise is one that everyone knows, you cannot learn if you never see the consequences of your failures. So, let them fail. In the great depression, the companies which survived it are almost entirely still alive today, they are the best companies. And they caused the economic boom of the 50's shortly after.
    Have you ever even read Adam Smith's work? He would definitely not be an Austrian if he were alive today. He preached a well-regulated system to promote the free market, but he was very adamant on the limitations of a free market. Everything from being against inherited wealth, to being for stronger regulations as economies became more complex, etc.

    You have to realize that we live in a new world outside of 18th century Adam Smith reality.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowden Clear View Post
    Hate to burst your bubble there bub, but you ain't one of the brightest people you like to talk about. You talk about decades, I'm talking about how we were founded. We take a risk, we live or die by it. I hope you don't need a chart for that. This country grew because of the pioneer spirit, not because of the guidance of liberal chart drafters. It is the individual who built this country, not bureaucrats. And like anyone with common sense, you must balance your business so that the ink at the bottom is black, not red. Hope this helps.
    You are not saying anything of substance. Come talk to me when you are educated enough to have a serious conversation about real world economics.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maat View Post
    Are you expecting the local charities, churches, red cross, united way, etc.. to just stand by and watch?

    Of course, there would be a correction in the free market shorterm, but the longterm would be prosperous and much less toxic.
    Got any mathematical analysis to prove that?

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akphidelt View Post
    Have you ever even read Adam Smith's work? He would definitely not be an Austrian if he were alive today. He preached a well-regulated system to promote the free market, but he was very adamant on the limitations of a free market. Everything from being against inherited wealth, to being for stronger regulations as economies became more complex, etc.

    You have to realize that we live in a new world outside of 18th century Adam Smith reality.
    Yes and if you think he preaches regulation you are reading it entirely wrong.

    I.e. when he says "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    Although this can be taken out of context to say he is for regulation, reading it as a whole he is saying regulation is often a venue of oppression.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran
    Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.

  5. Default

    How you have unfortunately been schooled into the wrong idea of thinking by reading theories by elitists/statists.

    http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html
    Synopsis - federal spending actually decreases private growth..by Harvard.

    Here you go, another Keynesian-ish thinker burying Krugman in the mud of statist economics:
    http://modeledbehavior.com/2009/09/1...man-full-text/
    Synopsis- Krugman is a statist moron who does not consider all of the factors involved with central government spending.
    Last edited by NetworkCitizen; Sep 08 2011 at 09:54 PM.
    The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

    -Rothbard

    .

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by venik View Post
    Yes and if you think he preaches regulation you are reading it entirely wrong.

    I.e. when he says "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    Although this can be taken out of context to say he is for regulation, reading it as a whole he is saying regulation is often a venue of oppression.
    You have to at least try to imagine where Adam Smith came from and his inherent mistrust for regulatory control by corrupt governance. But this does not mean he was against regulation.

    I have the book in front of me right now.

    "It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people"

    Adam Smith was for capitalism, but for a regulated system of commerce to allow people freedom of trade. He wasn't against Government what so ever. And he was from the 18th century. It's not like he understood our absolutely complex banking/fiat/global economy we live in today.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akphidelt View Post
    You have to at least try to imagine where Adam Smith came from and his inherent mistrust for regulatory control by corrupt governance. But this does not mean he was against regulation.

    I have the book in front of me right now.

    "It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people"

    Adam Smith was for capitalism, but for a regulated system of commerce to allow people freedom of trade. He wasn't against Government what so ever. And he was from the 18th century. It's not like he understood our absolutely complex banking/fiat/global economy we live in today.
    I have no quarrel with that quote, but you're misusing it if you think he means we need to regulate via i.e. the EPA.

    There's regulation which makes the government smaller, and there's regulation like the FDA, EPA, CRA etc.

    When you speak of any regulation we have today, 99% of it is restrictive and 1% of it is freeing. Regulations which protect rights are freeing, but those regulations are few and far between. Regulations which enforce that there is only one cable company in my area, are not freeing.
    Last edited by venik; Sep 08 2011 at 10:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran
    Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by venik View Post
    I have no quarrel with that quote, but you're misusing it if you think he means we need to regulate via i.e. the EPA.

    There's regulation which makes the government smaller, and there's regulation like the FDA, EPA, CRA etc.

    When you speak of any regulation we have today, 99% of it is restrictive and 1% of it is freeing. Regulations which protect rights are freeing, but those regulations are few and far between. Regulations which enforce that there is only one cable company in my area, are not freeing.
    It's restrictive specifically because of our intensive legal system. Because of our legal system everything has to be put down on paper whether it should be legal or not. Does it provide really tedious and sometimes unnecessary regulations. Of course. But there is no way around it. If it is not spelled out in English, then there is no repercussions for your actions.

    I work in the oil industry and we have some of the most tedious and ridiculous safety regulations in any industry in the entire world. I mean it seriously eats up almost 15-20% of our budget. But you gotta understand why. If some guy slips because his shoes don't provide enough protection, he sues and gets $400-$800k. It is an absolute pain in the ass.

    But the EPA and other regulations stem from the legal system, not necessarily from Government control. Many of the oil field regulations outside of where they can drill and some environmental concerns are actually created by the oil industry themselves just because of all the legal ramifications.

    The EPA is a necessary evil as much as you hate it. The environment can not protect itself and I have no faith that the private sector would give a rats ass about it if it meant they could profit.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akphidelt View Post
    It's restrictive specifically because of our intensive legal system. Because of our legal system everything has to be put down on paper whether it should be legal or not. Does it provide really tedious and sometimes unnecessary regulations. Of course. But there is no way around it. If it is not spelled out in English, then there is no repercussions for your actions.

    I work in the oil industry and we have some of the most tedious and ridiculous safety regulations in any industry in the entire world. I mean it seriously eats up almost 15-20% of our budget. But you gotta understand why. If some guy slips because his shoes don't provide enough protection, he sues and gets $400-$800k. It is an absolute pain in the ass.

    But the EPA and other regulations stem from the legal system, not necessarily from Government control. Many of the oil field regulations outside of where they can drill and some environmental concerns are actually created by the oil industry themselves just because of all the legal ramifications.

    The EPA is a necessary evil as much as you hate it. The environment can not protect itself and I have no faith that the private sector would give a rats ass about it if it meant they could profit.
    I thought this was about adam smith.

    The EPA is a waste of money. We live in the evironment, destroying it is infringing on anyone who lives in it's natural rights. We do protect it with or without the EPA, we don't need the EPA to do it for us let alone without any congressional process. No matter how many regulations the EPA put in place, accidents are going to happen, and they are going to only make oil more expensive which hurts every aspect of the economy. Without the EPA we still have the court system to rule civil cases. The only thing they need to do to prevent accidents is for the companies to be subject to penalties for mishaps. The EPA isn't the only venue for this.
    Last edited by venik; Sep 08 2011 at 11:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran
    Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by venik View Post
    I thought this was about adam smith.

    The EPA is a waste of money. We live in the evironment, destroying it is infringing on anyone who lives in it's natural rights. We do protect it with or without the EPA, we don't need the EPA to do it for us let alone without any congressional process. No matter how many regulations the EPA put in place, accidents are going to happen, and they are going to only make oil more expensive which hurts every aspect of the economy. Without the EPA we still have the court system to rule civil cases. The only thing they need to do to prevent accidents is for the companies to be subject to penalties for mishaps. The EPA isn't the only venue for this.
    Bull crap... we would not protect the environment if it wasn't for legal penalties to do so. If that is your position than we should just stop talking since you obviously have no sense of reality. Companies will stretch the law to every means possible until they reach a breaking point where they are losing profit. If they can destroy the environment and make money doing so, they would do so in a second. That is absolutely ridiculous to think otherwise.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks