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

A winner being someone who agrees with you?

 

It appears to be a reinterpretation of three words, in fact the only words, "The reasoning being?" from my post.

 

I explained it here, which you seem to have missed, “In this situation, I'd say value relative to the resources (land, labor, and capital) used to create it.”

Because every other service that consumers find valuable is provided by the market. Why are we to think that these services you named are any different simply because the government currently holds a compulsive monopoly on them? I’ve also provided you with two empirical examples of the private sector stepping in and supplying services where the public sector was deficient: http://libertariantee.com/pub.php?F=10&I=159x186
This is evidence that not only can the voluntary sector provide these services in the absence of a government monopoly, but they will. There is no way to determine if what governments build is worth the resources invested, because it was built using force and not voluntary exchanges. In the market however, if a business offers a service that consumers do not value more than the resources used to create it, than that business will fail. If a business offers a service that consumers DO find valuable, than it will flourish. This is true for every good and service on the market. The profit and loss test is what determines whether or not a good or service is valuable to consumers. If the services you mentioned have value to consumers, why do they require force to provide them? The burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

Except in that quote I wasn’t referring to every depression of the 1800s, just many throughout history where there were no bailouts, no intervention, no monetary stimulus, and yet… we still recovered. Here is the ENTIRE quote, “I've pointed you to several depressions where the government did NOT intervene, did NOT give bailouts, did NOT give monetary stimulus, and not only did we still recover, we recovered FASTER. The depression of 1920-1921 is a great example.”
Nothing to do with the entire 19th century as a whole, or recessions before or after “1940”. My point was that recessions, throughout history, that were not met with Keynesian interventions like nationalizing, bail outs, and monetary stimulus, often recovered faster than recessions that were. Again, You picking an arbitrary date like 1940 and saying the recessions before were longer does not mean or prove anything. You even had to restrict it further to 1940-1970… which exposes your non-argument even further, because during that period there were no bailouts, nationalizing, or large stimulus packages AT ALL! Monetary policy during the period was timid compared to what we see now, and we'd just came off the worst depression and most costly war in our history, so of course you can expect economic growth. If you wanted to pick a time to show off Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy in action, or government stepping in to save the day, this period is certainly not it.

 

Given the definition of Coproate Welfare, "Government support or subsidy of private business"…

You have said that it would be a “good idea to give assistance” to manufacturing in a downturn."
Which sounds an awful like “Government support or subsidy of private business” to me.

You’ve also said that the GM / Chrysler bailouts were a good move, and insinuated that allowing the banks to go bankrupt would have been bad (which sounds an awful like advocating for “Government support or subsidy of private business” to me)

Like I said, I’m happy to accept your change in position, however the policies you’ve been describing and defending all fit comfortably into the category of “Corporate Welfare”, whether you admit it or not.

Just because the government deems something advantageous to the public, doesn’t make it so. I really don’t get your point. Everything Government does pretty much is sold under the bill of being “advantageous to the public”…
The government deemed the Iraq and Afghanistan war advantageous to the public, and I think we’re in agreement that they certainly were not. FDR deemed it advantageous to the public to put everyone of Japanese ancestry in internment camps. What’s your point?

 

More straw-men, I didn’t claim that the Austrian school was in the mainstream, just that economists in the mainstream have agreed that the long depression was actually not very long at all. I also didn’t claim there were “no economic problems in the US between 1873-1879.” It’s not fun when you can’t attack me on any positions that I actually hold. If you’re interested in checking out some of Christina Romer’s work on the subject here is a link: http://menghusblog.files.wordpress....olatility-in-historical-unemployment-data.pdf
She helped develop ways to more accurately measure GNP and unemployment of pre-war data and found that the period was not as volatile as originally thought. (just read the Abstract)
Here is Rothbard on the subject:
“Historians have long complained about the “great depression” that is supposed to have struck the United States in the panic of 1873 and lasted for an unprecedented six years, until 1879. Much of this stagnation is supposed to have been caused by a monetary contraction leading to the resumption of specie payments in 1879. Yet what sort of “depression” is it which saw an extraordinarily large expansion of industry, of railroads, of physical output, of net national product, or real per capita income? As Friedman and Schwartz admit, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-perannum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged “monetary contraction” never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion—a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction.”
And a corresponding table:

The large amount of business and bank failures can be attributed to the deflation, or falling prices, during the period. During deflation, resources are reallocated from debtors to savers. Meaning people who have over-leveraged credit, will fall further into debt. At the same time however, people's savings increase in value. So over-leveraged businesses fail, but as I've said before, this does not mean their capital disappears. People with savings, that have gained wealth come in and buy up the capital, and use them in more responsible ways. Just because there is business failures, does not necessarily mean that the economy is stagnate. Also, there was certainly economic problems during the period, there was a bank panic in 1873 as a result of bank credit expansion, however (like I've said), the resulting "Long Depression" was actually not very long at all.

Another straw man! You’re persistent, I’ll give you that. I never said there was NO government intervention in the 19th century, I did.. in our previous discussion say that there was no Federal Regulation in the 19th century, until 1887… however that was a different topic. I also said that the overall economic growth of the 19th century was immense, despite there being A LOT LESS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. I’ve said in previous posts that the government constantly intervened in the banking industry during the 19th century, and propped up and promoted bank note credit expansion in order to help finance government ventures. These included granting special charters that created State bank monopolies, allowing the banks to pyramid credit. When bank runs occurred and contractions happened, the government allowed for bank holidays and delay of specie payments in order to prop up the banks. They also forced consumers to accept bank notes on par with specie, when they were enormously devalued. Our entire system of Fractional Reserve banking could not exist without constant government intervention. The booms and busts of the 19th century were caused and prolonged by government intervention just like the booms and busts of this century. There was always a period of monetary expansion precipitating each boom, followed by a bust or recession after. I’d once again point you to Rothbard’s book “The Panic of 1819” as a great analysis of a 19th century business cycle.

 

So you're now saying it'd be better if economic situations didn't become so bad that businesses and people needed assistance. But you're entire method of preventing economic situations from becoming so bad is to give businesses and people assistance. You’re argument doesn’t make sense. (big surprise)
Here is a quote from your utopia-no just Keynes post where you clearly say, that the way in which to prevent a downturn from being so bad, is to “put money into the system, buy up, or nationalize viable businesses”.

And I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news Bal, but the way Government “puts money into the system” is through bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare, etc… They may sound like naughty words to you, but it is what it is. Even artificially lowering the interest rate involves giving a subsidy to banks. Do you even know how that process works? The FED prints money and buys Bonds from banks (other assets too since the advent of QE). The banks than take their newly created money, and loan it out to the general public at interest. It's a subsidy for the financial sector, plain and simple.

 

Here's another good graphic by Friedman and Schwartz (monetary Keynesians) of the economic data from 1873-1879.
it shows 2 important indicators (see the large gray portion for the "long depression" years):
1. Real Incomes rose dramaticly
2. There was a substantial fall in prices throughout the period

Incomes rising while prices falling can only mean one thing. People's wealth rose dramaticly throughout the entire period. Not exactly a situation that would warrant the title of "The Long Depression" in my opinion.

 

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=460813&f=420

This piece of shit is what conservatives are bitching about. Not the single mother of 3 working 2 jobs just to get by. We are called "soulless" for not wanting to pay the way for people like that.

 

Not really...

More like:

(I don't remember anyone one calling you souless)

 

It was a general statement made to all conservatives. I can't remember where it was at but that's not important. It is the general sentiment from the left anytime anyone talks of social welfare in a negative light, or just mention the need for reform.

 

Must have been your post #996

 

Probably referring to your response to me of "The reasoning between your ears which is a result of lack of "soul" or concern for the poor."

But then there was also a post by scratcho, #991 " I think basically the only reason I've ever posted in here is because I like to get a rise out of some of you "souless" bastards." that you were probably one of the two who liked it.

Remember now?

 

Bingo

 

Indie

Again you evade.

I’ll ask again why do you promote ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending from criticisms in any rational or reasonable way?

 

Wrong

LOL – that doesn’t explain anything in the context of what has been said – to repeat -

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

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?

Land prices can be different, wage prices can be different, the value of goods or services can change according to context and circumstance.

Also as pointed out you can improve the living conditions of the people living on land through such things as public works (such as sewage systems) or through regulations on the private (such as the tenement acts we have talked about). You can improve someone’s potential of getting a higher wage through public education, and you can help with goods and services through publically financed infrastructural projects (like roads). All those things have taken place.

 

Wrong

But the things that were not, were not – to repeat only if you had two world - one in which public money was used (as it was) and one where it wasn’t (which didn’t happen) could you say the things that were not would have been financed by the market.

Again your belief that private could have done these things does not prove that it would have done them.

Are the improvements in people’s lives, health and wellbeing that have come about through public works or regulation of no worth?

 

Wrong

“I've pointed you to several depressions where the government did NOT intervene, did NOT give bailouts, did NOT give monetary stimulus, and not only did we still recover, we recovered FASTER.”[my bold]

It talks of several depressions and gives the impression that those where government didn’t intervene things were better.

But now you are saying - I never said there was NO government intervention in the 19th century- and that the strongly expressed statement of “where the government did NOT intervene” are contradicted by your other belief that governments have constantly intervened in their countries economies.

I mean you have talked of government intervention in the 19th 20th and 21st century so are your examples of NO government intervention in the pre-industrial period? Which depressions where the government did NOT intervene are you talking about?

 

Wrong

If you have a viable business that gets into problems for example in a downturn, you can let it go or support it through that bad time through nationalisation or a buy in.

Buying in allows the company to survive the storm and come out the other side saving it, its employees, the suppliers etc. Your idea seems to be that such viable industries that get into short term problems should be allowed to crash and burn, in the hope that something will come out of the ashes.

It seems to me that you are sticking rigidly to a dogmatic ideology rather than wanting to help people.

I must have missed that where did I say it?

I think the problem here is with terminology to you a ‘bailout’ is just giving money away. My own view is that nationalisation or a buy in is the way to go in such things it isn’t about just giving money. I think that is clear in my writing but I suppose if I have said ‘bailout’ it could be misinterpreted.

I think I have said several times that I thought the banks that got into problems should have been nationalised.

Again you make the assertion but do not seem able to prove the charge.

I think the problem is that you view any support for an economy by governance as ‘Corporate Welfare’ while I think sensible and prudent assistance given when needed is just good management. Only if the assistance given is unwarranted, unnecessary, unfair, and bought by corrupt means like campaign funding or lobbying would I see it as corporate welfare.

Again it seems to me that you’ve more interested in sticking to a dogmatic ideology than in helping people.

 

Wrong

You seem to be trying to imply that therefore anything governance does is actually against the public interest?

I said - 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.

But you seem to be saying that because of the neo-con policy madness that led to the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos and the unconstitutional interment of Japanese Americans in WWII (that was widely supported by the many Americans) this somehow shows that all I mentioned was unimportant and that all actions of governance are ‘bad’?

Do you actually know what a straw man argument is?