The failure of Obama's economics

[werepossum]

McCains plan is to give rich people money, and then that money will be spent, and trickle down to the rest of us. I'm sorry, but how about instead of injecting prospeirty at the top, and hoping it comes down to the rest of us eventually, let's just give the middle class a tax cut. It makes more sense to give a 1,000 dollars to each middle class family each year, for them to spend, than to give 700,000 dollars more in tax breaks, to the top 1% families.

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence. Any income that IS NOT confiscated by government is considered a gift from government; any income that IS confiscated by government is considered an investment. From considering ourselves free creatures by right of G-d, with all the rights, privileges, and terrors of freedom, we have as a people devolved into serfs presenting ourselves and our families with nooses around our necks and silver pennies in our hands that we may no longer face the challenges of life on our own.

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

From considering ourselves free creatures by right of G-d, with all the rights, privileges, and terrors of freedom, we have as a people devolved into serfs presenting ourselves and our families with nooses around our necks and silver pennies in our hands that we may no longer face the challenges of life on our own.

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

Drama, much?

If you're right, then perhaps your Founding Fathers were mistaken on how best to advance the ideals of the Enlightenment they so treasured. Perhaps preserving political freedom isn't best done by assuming that people will be responsible for their own freedom... perhaps their fears that Athenian demogoggery would undermine their Republic were well-founded, and their measures to counteract that insufficient.

Honestly I don't think so; I think they did make some mistakes (they're only human) but nothing irreversable to the American ideals of equality before the law and right to seek betterment of one's living ("pursuit of happiness") has yet happened. The myth that "rugged individualism" is the foundation of American society is eroding, yes, but it was a myth fostered more by Marlboros ("For a taste as mild as the West was wild!") than by Jefferson.

I certainly don't believe that any of those drafting your Constitution ever thought that plutocracy should be the ultimate result of that document... and if anything is killing rugged individualism in America, it's the concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy and their use of that power to increase the dependance of wage earners upon that power.

-- Steve

 

[werepossum]

McCains plan is to give rich people money, and then that money will be spent, and trickle down to the rest of us. I'm sorry, but how about instead of injecting prospeirty at the top, and hoping it comes down to the rest of us eventually, let's just give the middle class a tax cut. It makes more sense to give a 1,000 dollars to each middle class family each year, for them to spend, than to give 700,000 dollars more in tax breaks, to the top 1% families.

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence.

That's not what that quote says. That quote describes a situation where the idea that all wealth belongs to the government in the first place is a given, and the difference between McCain and Obama is who they think should be given it as a privileged.

True rugged individualism requires people to build their own roads, deliver their own mail, fight their own wars, and put out their own housefires. That just doesn't work.

There's a big gap between thinking all wealth belongs to the government, and thinking the government has the right to tax and spend for the general welfare because some of that wealth was created by prior spending on the general welfare--it's hard to make a million dollars selling widgits if the government hasn't provided an infrastructure for commerce.

Soviet Russia did not fall because it had a command economy; it fell because it geared it's economy towards winning a conventional war of armies and navies, not realizing that wars between countries are now fought with tariffs and corporations and trade agreements and information.

Ever wonder why the U.S. government keeps bailing out the airlines? Because it's kinda hard to open up a McDonald's in Red Square if you can't fly executives around.

As for serfdom, here are two quotes from the book that that idea that government regulation/participation in the economy is a form of serfdom: a book called _The Road to Serfdom_ from F.A. Hayek. These are some of the passages from that book that might surprise people here:

For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.

and

But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes...It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude."

But the idea that all wealth automatically belongs first to government shouldn't be a given, at least not to conservatives and libertarians. Giving a tax break - literally the government taking less of a person's wealth or income - is not a gift, any more than choosing not to rob someone is a gift. By equating tax rates with gifts, we accept that we are property, that government knows best who should have what. With all due respect to Hayek, the situation today is not guaranteeing a certain minimum income to everyone, it's

No, never mind. There's no point to answering these kinds of posts. America has decided that government should run our lives, taking everything and equitably re-distributing it, telling us what we can and can't do, what we can and can't say, what we can and can't think. I just need to accept it.

 

[werepossum]

From considering ourselves free creatures by right of G-d, with all the rights, privileges, and terrors of freedom, we have as a people devolved into serfs presenting ourselves and our families with nooses around our necks and silver pennies in our hands that we may no longer face the challenges of life on our own.

Somehow we have taken the bravest and boldest of each nation and in a mere few hundred years devolved into something that, frankly, I don't see being able to compete with other socialist nations in the long term. We're losing our advantages whilst retaining our deficiencies.

Drama, much?

If you're right, then perhaps your Founding Fathers were mistaken on how best to advance the ideals of the Enlightenment they so treasured. Perhaps preserving political freedom isn't best done by assuming that people will be responsible for their own freedom... perhaps their fears that Athenian demogoggery would undermine their Republic were well-founded, and their measures to counteract that insufficient.

Honestly I don't think so; I think they did make some mistakes (they're only human) but nothing irreversable to the American ideals of equality before the law and right to seek betterment of one's living ("pursuit of happiness") has yet happened. The myth that "rugged individualism" is the foundation of American society is eroding, yes, but it was a myth fostered more by Marlboros ("For a taste as mild as the West was wild!") than by Jefferson.

I certainly don't believe that any of those drafting your Constitution ever thought that plutocracy should be the ultimate result of that document... and if anything is killing rugged individualism in America, it's the concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy and their use of that power to increase the dependance of wage earners upon that power.

-- Steve

Sorry if that's too dramatic. More and more I'm finding The Escapist forums too depressing, and it's starting to make me a little weird I think. I think I'm going to have to leave, at least for awhile, maybe go back to the hard science sites I've been neglecting, maybe do some more writing.

Anyway, it's been fun.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Sorry if that's too dramatic. More and more I'm finding The Escapist forums too depressing, and it's starting to make me a little weird I think. I think I'm going to have to leave, at least for awhile, maybe go back to the hard science sites I've been neglecting, maybe do some more writing.

Anyway, it's been fun.

Yes the escapist can be depressing because it makes you think that people everywhere so want government to run their lives because they don't want to provide for their own wellbeing. But this is a slanted community and not what many people want/think/believe, I promise you there is a bunch of conservative youth(and older people) out there, almost all at my college (UT's business admin school) believe like you and I. So there is hope yet for conservatism don't get too down.

 

[Rankao]

Most of its is basic Macroeconomics, but damn the media tells me to vote for Oboma so thats who my vote will go to!

 

[Rankao]

Most of its is basic Macroeconomics, but damn the media tells me to vote for Oboma so thats who my vote will go to!

I just like the idea that he taught Constitutional Law. We could use someone in office for a couple of years that thinks civil rights aren't just for commie arab pussies. Basically, whatever damage he does to the economy, I figure he'll make up for it in appointing good judges and setting an entirely new tone in the Federal government, if his behavior running the Harvard Law Review is any guide.

Liberties and Freedom is the last thing on my mind when I am in a mob raiding a Grocery to feed myself and my family.

You see the issue is that the Bush Administration has been injecting meth into our economy, making seem like its doing very well, and lets face it we have had meth injected into it for the last 6 or so years. Now what the next president does with the economy will be crucial. Not because he will be able to "wave a magic wand" (both Bush and Oboma can be quoted saying that excact phrase about gas problems) but it will be a deciding factor if we will be able to pull out of it in the next 8 years opposed to the next 10,20, life.

I mean we could have a go at having our government run every aspect of our lives, but you wouldn't be able to do that without having bread riots i the streets of New York and Chicago (at least maintaining the basic Civil Rights and Liberties). I believe in the next 4 years we will really see the true face of Oboma, and what his real feeling of Civil Rights are.

 

[Rankao]

The funny thing is, the whole issue could be moot--any huge government intervention could be justified not by waving a red flag and carrying a big paper-mache sculpture down Main Street on May 1st, but just by a second G.I. Bill.

Think about it--we have *so* many vets now that any kind of benefits program for vets would be like a social welfare program of general application. Not as close as after WWII, but still--something to think about if any politician wants the government to get involved in the economy: they could do a lot under the patriotic, right wing cover of a massive G.I. Bill.

I mean I have no problem with some social help that effects the lives for everyone. For example I agree with Oboma that we should put a lot more effort into entry level school. Find use of income to better our children education at that level because that is the most important age of learning.

And I support homeless shelters and job hunting organizations, soup kitchens, and education programs. The problem is well, economics. Resources are scarce and wants and needs are unlimited. We have to be smart where we put our resources to help our society, we just can through money into it and hope it goes well. We also can't start telling people where they need to spend their money and how they need to do it.

Military is of the socialist factors that I am willing to let the government handle. I mean I respect Wal-Marts efficient and market power, but lets face it do you want them to run your Defense. They would outsource it.

Don't get me wrong, I won't vote for Oboma but there are some issues I do agree on him with, I believe that there should be some sort of required military or foreign ambassadory service. It would at least make you respect what you have. At the same time though, It is one of the Privileges (not a right) of living in America that I am not required to die for my country, and that is a choice for me have. I can contribute by working, having and raising a family, and paying taxes or I can do that Plus a little bit more.

We are all part of a community like it or not. Some to don't pull their weight, but most do. The driving factor in Socialism and Capitalism is that resources are scarce and not everyone gets to them. The difference is one I have the right to choose how I handle that scarcity the other I don't.

 

[Eyclonus]

Just wondering what exactly are the policies that Sarah Palin will find in the post-it notes lying around from McCain?

 

[Saskwach]

PS: trickle-down doesn't work for the same reason that any other long distribution chain leads to higher costs... each link in the chain takes a cut with a portion going to savings instead of recirculation (or, in thermodynamic terms, each conversion leads to entropic losses) and so for anything to make it down to the very lowest levels of the economy you need massive injections at the top. That kills the middle class, and it's horribly inefficient at priming the economic pump anyway; even trickle-up works better that way because lower-income earners can't afford to put as much aside into uncirculated savings.

You've intrigued me: is there any reading you could suggest on this point? Don't shirk from dense economics texts as long as they don't require an understanding of the lingo.

 

[Eyclonus]

As for the actual video I really don't see this guy's viewpoint. He seems to assume that vaguish promises will be applied as hard economic policy by Obama. That and his voices itself justifies something very violent.

 

[Ray Huling]

This post is more illustrative of the decline in the concept of America than anything I've seen in recent years. From rugged individualism, we have declined to the concept that all wealth belongs first to government, to be equitably distributed on the basis of, well, existence.

Ha ha ha!

Man, I tell you: this 'rugged individualism' business would never have gotten anywhere, if only the Wampanoags had let the Pilgrims starve.

Or to put it another way, the government should encourage the market by no longer printing money.

That's privatization for you!

 

[Anton P. Nym]

PS: trickle-down doesn't work for the same reason that any other long distribution chain leads to higher costs... .

You've intrigued me: is there any reading you could suggest on this point? Don't shirk from dense economics texts as long as they don't require an understanding of the lingo.

Truth be told, it's something I only realised myself about the time this current market tanking started... it's probably an amalgamation of a bunch of stuff on the news with my old university textbooks. I don't pretend to be an economist, but I did spend a couple of years each in physics and history (the latter, alas, filled with dreary pseudo-Marxists ramming balance of trade charts into everything) and sometimes the fusion of the two disciplines is... interesting, especially in the light of past experience in small business and a serious news addiction.

Most of what I said there, though, is either basic thermodynamics, basic economics, or current business practices... just put together differently.

-- Steve