Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Wrong

To repeat – (post 516) And in what logical way can you prove otherwise? Empirically you would need to have two worlds one in which public money was used and one in which it wasn’t. Are you hiding another world somewhere, to observe and experiment on?

As I’ve pointed out to you before could have is not the same as would have.(post 534)

 

Wrong

In post 516 you said - If anything the government provides has value, it will also be provided by the market.
I’ll give the same reply I gave back then - It depends on what your definition of value is - can you explain it?

It depends on what your definition of value is - can you explain it?

 

Wrong

Again read - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353
I don’t think I mention ‘bailouts’ I do say “nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble” so I’m unsure of your context, I’m talking about the last financial crisis.
Thing is that you seem to imply that things were rosy before the 1940’s but the thing is that it wasn’t, it was times of banking panics, runs on and collapses of banks and recessions and depressions, many longer and worse than things we have witnessed since the 1940’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Look I know the theory – eventually, sometime off in the future the economy should maybe, possibly emerge rebuilt better or just the same as it was before, but why prolong a downturn?

 

Wrong

Well I googled ‘Corporate Welfare’ and at the top came wiki which said -

Corporate welfare is a sociological concept that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used derogatorily to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. In practice, the term is often used virtually interchangeably with crony capitalism.

Well no and if you had read my posts you’d know that. Please read - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353
I don’t think I mention ‘subsidy’ I do say “nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble” so I’m unsure of your context, I’m talking about the last financial crisis.
Ideally it is about buying into a business with the idea of making a profit later, in periods when the market is not (or cannot) do so.
The other suggestion is helping businesses through infrastructural investment.
You could also try - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

Well I googled Keynesian economics and at the top came wiki which said -
Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) are the group of macroeconomic schools of thought based on the ideas of 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economists believe that in the short run, productive activity is influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) and that aggregate demand does not necessarily equal aggregate supply (the total productive capacity of the economy). Instead it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment and inflation.
Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

 

Wrong

Once again you are just restating stuff that has already got outstanding criticisms levelled at them.

I mean come on man when you use such obvious evasion as claiming things are - so far removed from logic and reason it quite literally does not warrant a response – then I think we can all see you are in trouble.

So can you please address the criticisms of your views and if you can’t shouldn’t you be asking yourself why you can’t?

 

Indie

So are you up for the challenge yet?

Oh and once again you are restating stuff we have already been through many many many many times.

We have been through the whole localism things and its drawbacks

We have been though the whole ideology thing and how your right wing outlook doesn’t change with scale or level.

We have been through your arguments opposing democracy and that you have suggested giving much greater voting power to wealth.

We have been through the whole thing about it being a problem of wealth having too much power and influence within a system that allows it to have that power and influence and how you seem to want to give wealth even more power and influence.

We have been through deficiencies of the US political system and that you seem to want to make the system worse.

With wealth more firmly in control thanks to your ideas.

 

Bal,

"With wealth more firmly in control thanks to your ideas."

Wealth is now firmly in control, wouldn't you agree? The more power the Federal government is allowed to assume over the people, the more attractive it becomes as the ONE place to spend large sums of money both effectively and efficiently.

 

Indie

We’ve been through this many many many many many many many many many….times and you still have not addressed the criticisms of your viewpoint.

As you say “Wealth is now firmly in control” but as I’ve pointed out all those times before you seem to want wealth to be even more in control.

 

So we have, and I've addressed your responses as best they can be addressed recognizing that you view government as the source of control over society, which is what allows wealth to manipulate it, while I and others view societies to be the source of governments powers which it should limit greatly in how it can be implemented over the societies as a whole. So in my view, it is YOU who would allow wealth the ability to impose its will over all members of society as a whole, collectively, from a single source of power.

 

Indie

Again you prefer hollow rhetoric to enlightenment.

As I’ve explained at length and in detail I want good and balanced governance and as became clear in the Small Government thread of over two years ago you don’t seem to want good governance preferring one where wealth would control. And as for balance you have even suggested that wealth be given greater voting power so if could overrule the vote of the majority. And you have admitted that you would be happy to see people that through no fault of their own have fallen into difficulty to suffer or even die of that circumstance.

I’ve asked you many times to address the many criticisms of your ideas but you still refuse.

As for throwing the accusation back at me what are you a child in a playground, please grow up – As well you know I’ve explained the many ways in which I think balance could be restored and the power of wealth reduced. They are all through my posts and you can criticise them all you like, as you have at times but here is the difference between us, I’m happy to defend them.

If I couldn’t defend them I’d change or drop them, you seem unable to defend your ideas but you still hold on to them and I’ll ask again (as I have many times) why is that?

 

Value: relative worth, utility, or importance

Try googling: corporate welfare definition
and see what comes up at the top (the definition I provided). And I can understand why you'd be confused, but your wiki definition is essentially the exact same thing as my definition, just in a lot more words.

I'll be glad to accept your change in position, however your entire previous argument has been based on the idea of subsidies. Here's another definition for you, Subsidy: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

You remember your whole "might be a good idea to give assistance to manufacturing" spiel? That, by definition, is a subsidy.

Also, the bailouts given to the banks in the last financial crises were, by definition, subsidies.

Thing is can you quote where I claimed or even implied things were rosy before the 1940s? Thing is you can't because thing is, no one ever did. So the thing is, that is just another straw man. You post wikipedia as if it's a decisive source. Right off the bat I can spot several things wrong with the information, and it's mainly due to a faulty definition of what a "depression" is. For one, The Long Depression of 1873, is no longer believed, even by mainstream economic historians, to be very long at all. And also, your table has the Great Depression divided into 3 separate depressions, and it's widely accepted, even by mainstream economists, that the Great Depression lasted from 1929 to the end of WWII. If you really want to learn about banking panics in the 1800s, their causes and effects, you should read economic historians who have actually done exhaustive research on the subject, The Panic of 1819 by Murray N. Rothbard is a good place to start

And just picking an arbitrary date in history like 1940 and saying the depressions prior were longer doesn't mean or prove anything. Since the 1920s, when the government got involved in monetary policy and all that "assistance" you've been promoting, we've had the 2 longest and most severe depressions in our countries history, and the overall economic growth of the century before was far greater than the century after. You yourself said that since WWII, we've seen a decline in real incomes, or the middle class. Why than are now trumpeting monetary policies of 1940s since?

 

Bal,

While you may feel that you have defended your ideas, you should recognize the fact that you've only done so to your own satisfaction. We differ strongly in how we define an acceptable form of government, and the application of democracy by a simple majority or less is not acceptable to me. The U.S., and its' Constitution provide the basis of government which is not a collectivist form of government, and one in which balance is more easily accomplished by the fact that people are freely able to seek out and acquire balance where it does not exist for themselves, and State and local governments NOT the Federal government is where the people are best able to have their voices heard and acted upon.

You appear to be the one who would like to play childish games rather than engage in any form of rational or reasonable discourse, as you have demonstrated continually for what, 2 years or more?

Are you claiming that ONLY big government can be good, and small government with limited powers is bad? How is wealth able to exercise its power over a large population when the States and the people would have to be bribed and bought in numerous places rather than as now a single location? If you prefer a collectivist form of government, create it in Great Britain or the EU, but it's not the form of government I think a majority of Americans would like to be governed by.

 

I think this post sums you up quite well. There is nothing hollow about what he said, or his position, whether you agree with it or not. The fact that you're only capable of attacking it via straw men, is a clear tell of whose position is stronger.

YOUR POSITION: We need good and honest government in order check the power of wealth and maintain a balanced society.

HIS POSITION: The very act of giving the government the power you think is required to check wealth and maintain balance, is what allows the wealthy to wield the power that needs checked.

He's not throwing the accusation back at you like a child, that's his position. And lets be honest, calling people stuff like a "child in a playground", is very much acting like a "child in a playground" yourself. Also, your arrogance is stifling. Calling your views "enlightenment", is rather pathetic, and once again alludes to your complete and utter closed-mind when hearing any kind of opposition.

 

If the constitution was actually adhered to. I did a school report about the constitution a few days ago and (if you haven't already) you should read the stuff in the anti-federalist papers. It's pretty shocking. They criticized a lot of the broad wording, including the welfare and the necessary and proper clause, and went through everything the federal government could get away with from the way it was worded, and pretty much all of their predictions have come true. Here is one such prediction from the anti-federalist Brutus,

The power to borrow money is general and unlimited. . .. Under
this authority, the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues
of the union. . . . By this means, they may create a national debt,
so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can
scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befall this coun-
try, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to
discharge. If this be a just remark, it is unwise and improvident to
vest in the general government a power to borrow at discretion,
without any limitation or restriction

And at the Virginia Ratifying convention, the federalists assured the dissenters that this (and other oversteps) would not happen, and it would never be interpreted in those ways. But see.. small government people were right even than

 

lol

 

Wrong

It depends on what your definition of value is - can you explain it?

As I’ve told you before, you really must think things through –

Relative worth – but relative to what?

Utility – but what might be useful to one person might not be to another it will also change with circumstance.

Importance – well what is important to you?

For example what value would you give to a person’s life? Would it be what you could harvest from it? What price would you pay for a loved one that had been kidnapped? Would you be happy to see people that through no fault of their own have fallen into difficulty to suffer or even die of that circumstance?

 

Wrong

Problem is that you are not backing up your assertion but just repeating the assertion, now can you actually back up your original assertion or not?

Thing is that I’ve been warning against corporate welfare since about 1979 and on this site since 2001, explaining that the elites have always tried to arrange things so they get the greatest handouts, special permissions, exceptions, etc.
It is one of the main points of the post I’ve often pointed to you –

Plutocratic = Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

Where I quote ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour
Quote:
What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.

 

Wrong

Again I think you need to look at things a bit more closely – this is tied up with your assertion (which you also have not backed up) that you believe governments produce little or nothing of what you see as ‘value’.
I mean the key point here would be - an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

That sounds like investment.

As I’ve said before - I mean there are things that governments have created or helped to create, I mean I’ve already talked about the sewers and such things as the Erie Canal, then there was the railways and the roads, I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History". Then there is the development of jets as well as the internet and the World Wide Web.

I mean it could said that a bank or entrepreneur that invests in a new business (that is not yet making money) is subsidising it until the point were it makes ‘good’ for them in the form of profit.

 

Wrong

I don’t think I mention ‘subsidy’ I do say “nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble” and I so talk of investing in public works. I don’t talk of just giving money to corporations for nothing.

And I’ve said many times that the US government should have nationalised the banks concerned.

 

Wrong

You seem to imply that recessions/depressions were less serious before suggesting for example that recovers were always faster.

You also make a big thing about ‘mainstream economists’ who are you talking about? I mean thing is that your assert that “The Long Depression of 1873, is no longer believed…to be very long at all.” But that is not an uncontested idea it is an opinion of some that is contested by others.

The so-called ‘The Keynesian era’ was supposedly from the 1940’s to the 1970’s (although interventions type reactions to economic crises have happened since).

Could you actually read my posts please?

Actually what I’ve said (many times) is that in the last thirty odd years wealth has become vastly richer why the real term incomes of the lower and middle classes on the whole have either stagnated or dropped.

And I have pointed out that the period from 1945-70 was a time when a lot of Americans came into prosperity and large numbers improved their station. That prosperity might have stabilised if the US had not adopted some destructive policies.