Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2013, 09:17 AM  
gblowfish gblowfish is offline
Be Kind To Your Pets
 
gblowfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Glorious Independence, MO
Casino cash: $9746
VARSITY
Uncle Lamar Wants to Abolish the Minimum Wage

Because those Wal Mart workers are overpaid, damn it! This guy is the ranking GOP member of the Senate Labor Committee. Wow....

http://tinyurl.com/omaxldm

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate's labor committee, said in a hearing Tuesday that he would prefer to see the minimum wage abolished.

Alexander's declaration came amid a back-and-forth between a witness from the conservative Heritage Foundation and Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The trio had been debating what kind of impact a higher minimum wage would have on a theoretical worker, and it seemed Sanders wanted to know whether the witness opposed raising the minimum wage or having a minimum wage at all.

"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.

"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."

The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.

"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.

"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"

"That's correct," Alexander responded.

"You would abolish the minimum wage?"

"Correct."

"And if someone had to work for two bucks an hour," Sanders continued, "they would work for two bucks an hour?"

Alexander went on to compare a higher minimum wage to a form of welfare. Instead of boosting it, as Congress is now considering, he suggested a common conservative alternative to a federal wage floor -- a higher earned-income tax credit.

"No, I would go for a much more targeted approach," Alexander said. "The question I want to ask, if we are interested in social justice, and we want to honor work instead of getting a welfare check, then wouldn't a more efficient way to help people in poverty be to increase the earned-income tax credit rather than do what we always do here, which is come up with a big idea and send the bill to somebody else? What we're doing is coming up with the big idea and sending the bill to the employer.

"Why don't we just pay for the big ideas we come up with," he continued. "And if we want to create a standard of living for people that's much higher than what they have today, then let's attach the dollars to the job and everybody pay for it. I don't want to do that. But if we were going to do it, then I think that's the way we should do it."

"That's a very interesting discussion for another time," Sanders said with a slight laugh.

Sanders then turned back to Sherk and asked him if he'd support a bill sponsored by Alexander abolishing the minimum wage.

"I believe the minimum wage hurts its intended beneficiaries," Sherk responded. "I do not support the concept of the minimum wage."

"I appreciate your honesty," Sanders replied.
Posts: 27,481
gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 11:54 AM   #106
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins View Post
The same thing happened in the 1873 and 1893 panics, actually. Speculative bubbles inflated, a few reaped the rewards, they popped, almost all of the population suffered.

That's precisely why the economy was designed to avoid speculative bubbles until the 80s. As the regulatory framework became defanged, the number and depth of bubbles and the resultant crises became larger, ultimately culminating in the subprime crisis.
NOPE!

All those banking panics were related to a central bank activity and have been documented earlier in forum as well— going all the way back to Hamilton's First Bank of the United States... which was immediately followed by inflation and speculative markets which then burst causing a depression, including a real estate bubble/bust. These were just called panics in the 19th century, then we called them depressions and now we call them recessions or great recessions.

The speculative bubbles get induced by central bank policies. They should be named banksters and some do.

I have to go but I will see if I can find the lost of those incidents and what preceded them.
It's the same old crap with a new name and different face. You've drunk the Kool-Aid deeply on it.
__________________
Posts: 57,544
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 12:00 PM   #107
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins View Post
By lowering the federal funds rate continually to pump up the economy after the tech bubble burst.
This is what causes the bubble and they just create a new bubble by doing this. The tech bubble was caused by the same thing with Greenspan.
__________________
Posts: 57,544
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:49 AM   #108
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
I have to explain the point? You said that my point companies don't let valuable people go was "not even close to true". So I pointed out the facts. 98% of Americans didn't lose their jobs this month, and the 2% who did likely were re-absorbed.
A company never wants to fire an employee. That opens the company up to lawsuits and unemployment insurance.

A company, instead, will find ways to make a person quit. Cut back on hours, refuse a wage, continue to give reasons not to let someone have time off or a vacation.

Most employers of low end jobs would rather a good employee walk away instead of giving them a raise. With unemployment as high as it is (which these types of companies enjoy), they know some other desperate chap will apply.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Stating facts is now judging? You liberals sure get your feelings hurt easily.
Do you have any evidence for your view that 73 million Americans are there because of their own life choice?
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:53 AM   #109
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
All such banking crisis are due to govt have too cozy a relationship with banks ever since the first Bank of the United States. They get banking holidays when they've behaved badly. This is called moral hazard because is leads to more bad behavior. Bank runs should be allowed to happen. This way people will take more care with how any bank, or warehouse really, handles money. Those who act responsibly will remain in business and attract more customers. The bad guys go out of business.


Yes, bank runs are great for a minor percent of people. Everyone else gets screwed. That is great!

You have zero evidence that Canada's banks don't act responsibly.
What is so bad about Canada's banking system?
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 08:02 AM   #110
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Are you seriously using this for a refutation? This is economic ignorance on display.

I said inflation is more money ( including expanded credit) in the supply. There is a ton of more money in supply today, compared to those earlier dates. By 2001, the dollar was worth about .40¢ in it's original buying power. This extra money in supply, will eventually be reflected in higher prices that are not supply/demand related.
Duh, Inflation means more money. We know what inflation is.

I said it has remained steady. Which it has.



That chart does not show the massive inflation you are claiming.


Perhaps you need to study math and how things get larger when you continue to multiply them by a percent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
It's no different than when the Roman govt would clip coins. Sellers would then ask for two coins to compensate for the lost value. More money in the supply, you see it in increased prices that are not supply and demand based.
No, it is nothing like that. People shaving coins actually decreased the value of that coin. Gold coins are valued by weight, so shaving off a little amount of gold does decrease the value of that single coin. Adding more coins doesn't matter, you still have to equal the weight in gold. Which is why people would shave coins, so they can save up the shavings into a gold pile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post

This enables reckless govt spending, allowing govt to borrow beyond it's means because if spending were all paid for with taxes alone there would have been a revolt. So it works as a hidden tax eroding the buying power of the masses. Govt gets paid for with taxes, borrowing and inflation. This is FACT.
Government spending has gone done since Bush. Try again.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 08:07 AM   #111
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
NOPE!

All those banking panics were related to a central bank activity and have been documented earlier in forum as well— going all the way back to Hamilton's First Bank of the United States... which was immediately followed by inflation and speculative markets which then burst causing a depression, including a real estate bubble/bust. These were just called panics in the 19th century, then we called them depressions and now we call them recessions or great recessions.

The speculative bubbles get induced by central bank policies. They should be named banksters and some do.

I have to go but I will see if I can find the lost of those incidents and what preceded them.
It's the same old crap with a new name and different face. You've drunk the Kool-Aid deeply on it.

There is evidence that a strong regulator system eliminates banking boom and busts in other countries.

Do have any actual real life examples of this mythical free market ideology being in practice that stops the boom bust cycle as well?

Perhaps you could point us to a country that has successfully done so?
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 09:22 AM   #112
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The Bitch is back
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $10049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
A company never wants to fire an employee. That opens the company up to lawsuits and unemployment insurance.

A company, instead, will find ways to make a person quit. Cut back on hours, refuse a wage, continue to give reasons not to let someone have time off or a vacation.

Most employers of low end jobs would rather a good employee walk away instead of giving them a raise. With unemployment as high as it is (which these types of companies enjoy), they know some other desperate chap will apply.

What's your point? That employers hire and fire? Of course they do. If they're cutting back John Doe's hours it's because they don't believe he is providing value to the company. If John provided more value he would have more hours. These are simple concepts.




Quote:
Do you have any evidence for your view that 73 million Americans are there because of their own life choice?

Of course. The labor market pay and education are directly correlated. Surely you know this.
Posts: 13,881
Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 09:34 AM   #113
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
There is evidence that a strong regulator system eliminates banking boom and busts in other countries.
You need to actually understand what I wrote and learn how a free-market system works. Once you get that down, my posts will make sense. At least there will be a meeting of the minds on what we disagree with.

Quote:
Do have any actual real life examples of this mythical free market ideology being in practice that stops the boom bust cycle as well?
Yeah, I just provided how it happens, why it happens, and how it has historically happened referring to all the earlier booms/busts and the connection to a central bank. Your point?

Quote:
Perhaps you could point us to a country that has successfully done so?
The periods of time in America when such policies were not in use, mostly in the 19th century. Like after the first Bank of the US was done away with. ( Hamilton's Curse provides excellent examples of what happened.) If you want more, and it will take a lot more to educate you, or re-educate you, go to Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the Mises website. They even have classes.

I see my points went over your head again.
__________________

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 06-29-2013 at 09:43 AM..
Posts: 57,544
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 09:40 AM   #114
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9017
It all started with this guy.



Review from the Mises Institute
I will underline the relevant parts to this part of our discussion

He shows that Hamilton is the architect of most of today's failed economic policies: protectionism, central banking, and debt. His core principle is that government should be used to benefit the rich and privileged, mostly through its power to print money and run financial scams. In this sense, Hamiliton's Curse has been visited upon the United States in the 2008 bailout of powerful investment banks.

Hamilton was the master of the political lie. He used his rhetorical powers and elite connections to invent the myth of the Constitution’s “implied powers.” He established the imperial presidency. He devised a national banking system that imposes boom-and-bust cycles on the American economy. He saddled Americans with a massive national debt and oppressive taxation. He pushed economic policies that lined the pockets of the wealthy and created a government system built on graft, spoils, and patronage. He transformed state governments from Jeffersonian bulwarks of liberty to beggars for federal crumbs.

Moreover, DiLorenzo shows that Hamilton, as compared with Jefferson, was an economic ignoramus. Whereas Jefferson was schooled in a classical liberal tradition and revered the legacy of A.R.J. Turgot, Hamilton was an old-fashioned mercantilist who thought that barriers and debt were the keys to prosperity.

By debunking the Hamiltonian myths perpetuated in recent admiring biographies, DiLorenzo exposes an uncomfortable truth: The American people are no longer the masters of their government but its servants. Only by restoring a system based on Jeffersonian ideals can Hamilton’s curse be lifted, at last.

Thank goodness that a master economic historian has finally answered all the hysterical pro-Hamilton propaganda that has been inflicted on us. This is a book that every believer in American liberty must master.
https://mises.org/store/Hamiltons-Curse-P534.aspx


Spare me your canned, knee-jerk response that this was written by a hack, loneiguana. The author is one of the FEW who is an economic historian.

You make the mistake Marx made, which the left has carried on until today—you confuse mercantilist policies with free-market capitalism. They are NOT the same things.
__________________
Posts: 57,544
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 02:50 PM   #115
Sweet Daddy Hate Sweet Daddy Hate is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: ABQNM
Casino cash: $5000
I look at this forum, and I thank God for big government.
Posts: 18,397
Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.Sweet Daddy Hate < Tried to steal Andy's chili fries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 03:47 PM   #116
HonestChieffan HonestChieffan is offline
Country Santa Year Around
 
HonestChieffan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $7357
For goodness sakes. George, take some time off. Have a drink. Relax. Posts like this make you look like amajor dumbass
__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Come home to Jesus Dave. Come home.
Posts: 28,591
HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:03 PM   #117
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The Bitch is back
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $10049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate View Post
I look at this forum, and I thank God for big government.

Why? People on the low end of the labor scale have been totally destroyed in the Obama administrations.
Posts: 13,881
Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 07:43 AM   #118
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
You need to actually understand what I wrote and learn how a free-market system works. Once you get that down, my posts will make sense. At least there will be a meeting of the minds on what we disagree with.


Yeah, I just provided how it happens, why it happens, and how it has historically happened referring to all the earlier booms/busts and the connection to a central bank. Your point?



The periods of time in America when such policies were not in use, mostly in the 19th century. Like after the first Bank of the US was done away with. ( Hamilton's Curse provides excellent examples of what happened.) If you want more, and it will take a lot more to educate you, or re-educate you, go to Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the Mises website. They even have classes.

I see my points went over your head again.
I asked for one Country that hasn't had a boom and bust cycle. Can you provide one or not?

Because, again, Canada has found a way to do it.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 07:50 AM   #119
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6350
The question libertarians just can’t answer

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_...t_cant_answer/


Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.


While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.

But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to “economic freedom.” Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

According to their similar global maps of economic freedom, the economically-free countries of the world are by and large the mature, well-established industrial democracies: the U.S. and Canada, the nations of western Europe and Japan. But none of these countries, including the U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Indeed, the government share of GDP in these and similar OECD countries is around forty percent—nearly half the economy.

Even worse, the economic-freedom country rankings are biased toward city-states and small countries. For example, in the latest ranking of economic liberty by the Heritage Foundation, the top five nations are Hong Kong (a city, not a country), Singapore (a city-state), Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland (small-population countries).

With the exception of Switzerland, four out of the top five were small British overseas colonies which played interstitial roles in the larger British empire. Even though they are formally sovereign today, these places remain fragments of larger defense systems and larger markets. They are able to engage in free riding on the provision of public goods, like security and huge consumer populations, by other, bigger states.

Australia and New Zealand depended for protection first on the British empire and now on the United States. Its fabled militias to the contrary, Switzerland might not have maintained its independence for long if Nazi Germany had won World War II.

These countries play specialized roles in much larger regional and global markets, rather as cities or regions do in a large nation-state like the U.S. Hong Kong and Singapore remain essentially entrepots for international trade. Switzerland is an international banking and tax haven. What works for them would not work for a giant nation-state like the U.S. (number 10 on the Heritage list of economic freedom) or even medium-sized countries like Germany (number 19) or Japan (number 24).

And then there is Mauritius.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.

The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?

How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.

Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!

Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.

It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,941
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 07:57 AM   #120
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
The question libertarians just can’t answer

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_...t_cant_answer/


Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.


While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.

But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.

Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to “economic freedom.” Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

According to their similar global maps of economic freedom, the economically-free countries of the world are by and large the mature, well-established industrial democracies: the U.S. and Canada, the nations of western Europe and Japan. But none of these countries, including the U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Indeed, the government share of GDP in these and similar OECD countries is around forty percent—nearly half the economy.

Even worse, the economic-freedom country rankings are biased toward city-states and small countries. For example, in the latest ranking of economic liberty by the Heritage Foundation, the top five nations are Hong Kong (a city, not a country), Singapore (a city-state), Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland (small-population countries).

With the exception of Switzerland, four out of the top five were small British overseas colonies which played interstitial roles in the larger British empire. Even though they are formally sovereign today, these places remain fragments of larger defense systems and larger markets. They are able to engage in free riding on the provision of public goods, like security and huge consumer populations, by other, bigger states.

Australia and New Zealand depended for protection first on the British empire and now on the United States. Its fabled militias to the contrary, Switzerland might not have maintained its independence for long if Nazi Germany had won World War II.

These countries play specialized roles in much larger regional and global markets, rather as cities or regions do in a large nation-state like the U.S. Hong Kong and Singapore remain essentially entrepots for international trade. Switzerland is an international banking and tax haven. What works for them would not work for a giant nation-state like the U.S. (number 10 on the Heritage list of economic freedom) or even medium-sized countries like Germany (number 19) or Japan (number 24).

And then there is Mauritius.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.

The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?

How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.

Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!

Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.

It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Even economists who are often liberal argue against a high minimum wage.
Posts: 20,306
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:11 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.