What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
114 Comments
- jeffiek, on 01/11/2008, -8/+62This won't go anywhere. It makes too much sense.
- jurow, on 01/11/2008, -7/+40This is the most important piece of writing I've seen on Digg in quite a while. Every person (not just Americans) should be taught how to think in these terms from a very early age.
/opens umbrella for impending rain of Ron Paul comments. - ScienceDoc, on 01/11/2008, -4/+35This demonstrates one of the reasons why politicians and political appointees need an education. Not a freebie from Yale.
- AdrianBisson, on 01/11/2008, -3/+25This is simply a great article. If the American people would simply understand what's here, there would be a lot more hope for peace and prosperity in our future. EVERYONE should read this.
- kaelyiesta, on 01/11/2008, -7/+28Number 8 is one I bring up all the time. Any time anyone attacks my belief in the ideals of free market, they always point to problems in industry that are not even remotely free. I have to constantly explain that the evidence they use is in fact ammunition for MY argument, which is to keep government from colluding with business.
- airwalkery2k, on 01/11/2008, -0/+17Not once is Ron Paul mentioned in this article.
- GrantRobertson, on 01/11/2008, -3/+19What the author, as expert as he may be, misses is that these fallacies are not propagated because those propagating them believe them to be true. They are propagated because the propagators know most of the public will fall for them at least enough to not do anything about it. This then allows the propagators to continue funneling taxpayer money into the pockets of big business.
War isn't good for the economy, we can see that right now. But war is good for Haliburton, so another war we must have. Disasters aren't good for the economy. Just ask the residents of New Orleans. But allowing disasters to occur is good for builders and developers, especially those who have enough connections to get no-bid contracts.
We will never be able to fight the big business interests if we continue to believe that big business and politicians - in any way - believe what they say. Everything they say, including tis list of reapeating fallacies, is merely to continue fooling or distracting the public. - dave6, on 01/11/2008, -1/+17Huh? The article calls out the failures and irresponsibility of pretty much every major Bush administration policy from warmongering to deficit spending to corporate handouts . In #5 it even criticizes Ronald Reagan, who is above criticism in most Republican circles.
- GoneFishing, on 01/11/2008, -0/+15This resonates with many of the current fiscal policies US has, and that's not good.
- h4ppydotcom, on 01/11/2008, -2/+15A wonderfully well written and well thought through article. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but he has put together his considered opinion in an engaging and accessible way. Writers of the world take note (not to mention politicians and policy makers)!
- hyrate, on 01/11/2008, -2/+13"Huge pointless projects just for the sake of generating activity" already describes FDR's policies during the Great Depression.
- lOvOl, on 01/11/2008, -4/+13Since when did the federal government ever do anything in the national interest?
What a lot of people just don't get is that our government is unaccountable. Yah we have elections where you have the choice of Republican Douchebag A or Democrat Douchebag B, but whether they stay in office or get kicked out has almost nothing to do with how they vote.
Usually it is because if things are in the ***** on any particular election year, the people who are ideologically on the fence will take out their frustration on the political party they blame for the nation's ills. Barring some sort of racist slip of the tongue or sexual affair (if they are a Democrat this of course does not apply because moral relativism is the name of the game for most Democrats), incumbents always get re-elected I think 98% of the time (I could be wrong on that but last I heard it was that high).
When will people wake up and realize "the system" is the problem and representative government is antiquated and obsolete. We need direct democracy plain and simple and we have the technology and infrastructure to enable direct democracy today. Until people stop drinking the "if you don't vote for someone, then you are part of the problem" Kool-Aid, then literally nothing is going to change.
People should not be voting for politicians, people should be voting on issues. Until that happens, there is no hope for a country that entrusts corrupt, incompetent blowhards they only know through the prism of campaign commercials, with absolute power over their lives.
Seriously, if there was a need for a draft, why should a bunch of ***** in Congress make that decision and why should they make the decision to go to war as well (even though they have pretty much allowed the President to wage war by proxy for the last 50 years). - cosmicdreams, on 01/11/2008, -3/+12Holy Crap that was a good article!
- alsahir, on 01/11/2008, -7/+15My biggest question after reading this is how it got to Digg's front page? It doesn't involve Jessica Alba, it isn't from Cracked or Double Viking, and it doesn't have a picture of a dog's backside that might resemble Jesus. What happened?
- tomek77, on 01/11/2008, -4/+11This is simple common sense.. should be taught in school
- scubasteve377, on 01/12/2008, -0/+7The republican (small 'r') system created by the founders of this country, is in place to protect the minority from having their rights voted away by the 51%. Direct democracy centralizes power, and instead of empowering the people, as you suggest, will empower the whomever is the most skillful propagandist. Direct democracy encourages collectivism (group thought), instead of individualism. A lynch mob is democracy in action. You're right that the government is the problem, but it is the size and regulatory power in particular, not the system itself, that must be dramatically downsized if we are ever to get back to a free society with a strong and productive economy.
- cybrguy, on 01/11/2008, -2/+9Ah, historical precedence. People who deny history usually make fools of themselves.
Great article. - thejokker, on 01/11/2008, -2/+9this list was in one of my economics textbooks word for word
- voisine, on 01/11/2008, -4/+10No, you're wrong about government spending. You've fallen victim to the Keynesian view which has been widely discredited after the stagflation of the 70's. Mises was the only other economist to put forward a systematic theory of the business cycle and his model has been shown to be the correct one historically. He's the only one who predicted the great depression and also the economic collapse of communism.
- jeffiek, on 01/11/2008, -1/+7"which is simply wrong"
Thanks for rebutting unfounded conclusions with an unfounded conclusion. - stinkythegrump, on 01/11/2008, -5/+11Wow. Very good basic summary of a few economic principles that everyone should know. My wife has an Economics M.S. and I think I'll have her read this.
- tomek77, on 01/11/2008, -5/+11What´s there to stop them? The US Constitution.
It´s one of the reasons it was written. - scubasteve377, on 01/12/2008, -1/+7That is genuinely tragic.
- zephc, on 01/11/2008, -1/+7The fallacy is to separate things into the left-right spectrum. I think its more a spectrum of more vs less central power/planning. More things fall in line (as it were) when you look at it like that.
The 2D Political Compass illustrates this pretty well by increasing the level of detail along this more/less authoritarian spectrum by adding the 2nd dimension (splitting social from economic policies).
You could add more and more dimensions to increase detail, but i think after two you reach diminishing returns, and you make it harder to render on flat surfaces like computer monitors :-) - jmpeagle, on 01/11/2008, -8/+13damn those classical liberals and their right wing economics....oh wait...right wing economics is corportism, not capitalism
- dagoonmaster, on 01/11/2008, -1/+6yay people that understand how economics work, government interventionism never helps in the long run, the short run may seem to be better but the long run will always suffer, and i would like to bring up federal reserve and the fact that they really hold the most control over the economy
- cybrguy, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5You should cite yourself to keep yourself honest, where in the article does it say government spending doesn't shorten recessions?
"Students are taught that World War II ended the Depression; many Americans seem to believe that tax revenues spent on defense contractors (creating jobs) are no loss to the productive economy; and our political leaders continue to believe that expanded government spending is an effective way of bringing an end to a recession and reviving the economy."
That is the quote. And it is TRUE. - Dischorran, on 01/11/2008, -1/+6Who would have thought that a libertarian article would do well on Digg? After all, it's not as if there's anyone rabidly supporting a libertarian candidate in these parts...
- cybrguy, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6The author wasn't writing a book,
"Ten Recurring Economic Fallacies, 1774–2004"
Not top Ten, not THE Ten, just 10. He picked the 10 based on his criteria. not yours. - captZEEbo, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5If you want to learn more, read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America ... - rkbabang, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4Don't you understand? Not only is anything written by or about Ron Paul just spam, but anything written that Ron Paul or his supporters would agree with is also spam. You just don't understand the bury-bots.
- kaelyiesta, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6Arguments for feasibility of keeping capitalism pure are probably the best criticisms around(I mention Orwells arguments about this from time to time). Still, the solution is easy. The solution is to keep government small, in line with Constitutional limits. No income tax, no lobby to steal your and my money and pay off corrupt politicians who secretly champion them.
Off topic, I don't see why Eccles comment is being buried. Its not blatantly deceiving nor insulting. - jurow, on 01/11/2008, -3/+7Notice that I very consciously said a couple things there that you ignored:
1. I said every person. Not just Americans. This is important.
2. Even more importantly I said they should be taught HOW to think like this. Not that they should be taught TO think this. The ability to critically analyze something as complex as economy in simple and realistic (i.e. fact-based) terms is exceedingly important in understanding what's going on in our lives...not just the economy.
Without such skills, you end-up sounding like a reactionary jerk hiding behind anonymous comments and misspelling the names of those you quote out of context ;) - goes211, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4I think the whole point is it will never change as long as the government has the powers it currently does. It is just irresistible for someone with power not to give their friends and cronies special treatment. How many off duty cops get caught speeding or DUI and then their buddies let them go? It is just human nature.
Companies or powerful interests will continue to seek special privileges from those in government because the (Federal) government has the power to assign winners and losers. Just look at the Congressional Republicans in 1994. For a while they ran a relatively conservative government with Clinton as president and things went fairly well, but the temptation of power just proved to be to great. By the end they had become more corrupt and even more fiscally irresponsible than the Democrats had in the previous 40 years. It is just as simple as "Power corrupts!"
People need to realize that:
"A government powerful enough to provide you with every thing you need is also a government powerful enough to take everything you have."
At this point things seem pretty grim. With all the problems we have right now ( and we will probably have a lot more in the near future ), people will continue to beg for the government to save them, never realizing that it is that attitude that is the cause of many of the current problems. I wish the free market could save us but I don't think it will ever get a chance. - CanTheSpam, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4Not so much. I remember this article making rounds in 2004.
- scubasteve377, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4"Um, what do they think the profits made from cleanup and reconstruction will be spent on?.... Now mises.org is arguing that investors making a profit off of investment is a redistribution of wealth. I wipe my eyes in disbelief. Are you sure a liberal didn't hack their site? Maybe, just maybe, their beliefs are internally inconsistent."
You have completely missed the point. Who paid for the reconstruction of Japan and Iraq? Was it the Japanese and the Iraqis? Oh no, that's right, it was the American taxpayers. The reason that these reconstruction efforts cannot be considered productive is that there is no mutually beneficial producer/consumer transaction taking place. Money is forcefully lifted from one group and handed out to corporations. The beneficiaries of the services provided are not those who paid for them, and considering the taxpayers already paid for the war, it simply adds to the injury to pull resources from the same group to pay for the reconstruction. The broken window analogy applies here, because the government dictates resources are to be allocated to fix what the government broke in the first place. These resources are being diverted away from goods and services that are actually beneficial and productive for those whose money is being spent. Diverting funds away from the competitive, voluntary market, and funneling them to government contractors (another form of corporate welfare), is about as anti-free market as one can get. Less money being spent in the regular economy, means a weakening of that economy. It's as simple as that. - Eccles, on 01/11/2008, -3/+7The problem for me is how do you make the U.S. truly a free market, or at least move it in that direction? It's all very well and good to argue the benefits of a free market, but what's going to stop businesses from using government to promote their agenda? Any business is going to act in its own best interests, not in the interest of creating a free market.
- cybrguy, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6Any historical basis? He gave historical basis for much of his arguement.
- captZEEbo, on 01/11/2008, -4/+8vote ron paul...the only politician that believes in small govt.
- OnlyShawn, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6...and yet, economists that I've heard on econtalk would agree that government spending does not help recession. I believe that they are more consistently of the mind that that's actually the case...
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4So great presidents trash the economy and bad presidents pay their debt? I guess this means the US is fooked, er, economically...
- sensoukami, on 01/11/2008, -4/+8Ditto. i have a liberal friend who is always going on about competition being bad (typical liberal stupidity). He fails to understand he is giving the speical interests he hates the very thing they want, which is restraint from competition. Shockingly short sighted.
- cybrguy, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Thats a bad example, but saying that the governement spending money fixing and re-fixing our road system over and over again is good for the economy IS a fallicy and jives better with the article.
Building of the dams was beneficial long term. Now as for what the ROI was? thats up to debate. - 3tcp, on 01/12/2008, -0/+3Best article I've seen on mises.
- milesthang, on 01/11/2008, -4/+7my AP us class should really read this
- Jarbow, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3The best part is when he calls Hamilton a "vainglorious popinjay" in #9
- elguando, on 01/11/2008, -1/+4If WWII didn't end the Depression, what did? I'm not saying the article's wrong, I'd just like to know.
- gandhi2, on 01/26/2008, -0/+3Quickly in reference to 2 points
#3: The author details a response for this. If the cost of the war is coming more directly from the citizens, then they are less likely to willingly finance UNWARRANTED wars. As is, it is in fact in best interest of FOREIGN nations from whom we borrow to start wars, and we pay the cost, via inflation, no matter whether the war is warranted or not.
#7: The point he was trying to make is that more fiscally liberal politicians always point to the failure of that era to debunk free market economics on principle. They usually reference "robber barons" or something of that nature....but in reality, there never WAS a free market. These people were guaranteed a stronger foothold on their market from government subsidies and grants, or even worse, with market barriers. You are right, we have never had a free market, but you are wrong that 19th century industrialism was the closest we are going to ever get. For example, the internet market remains relatively unregulated, their are few barriers into the market, and yet it can support companies. The .com bubble saw a flood of companies founded on speculation...and today what remains are the companies which offered a solid, valuable product/service. Even today, there are companies which can capitalize on markets which giants like Google "monopolize," because they are offering value-adds to the product Google sells. The space is still very wide open, you just have to have a good product. Case in point; Digg. - stix213, on 01/12/2008, -1/+4Incorrect for one simple reason. The depression was over the moment America mobilized for the war. America had basically full employment from that point on. You are absolutely correct in your reasoning for the US's post war boom, but that wasn't the question you were answering. During the war the job market was doing so well that all those "useless" women even had to work, businesses that didn't require raw materials needed in the war effort did great, businesses involved in the war effort were doing even better, and the stock market shot up and never looked back.
Since you don't own a dictionary see below
Economic Depression definition: a period during which business, employment, and stock-market values decline severely or remain at a very low level of activity. - trollick, on 01/11/2008, -6/+9#1 is the most retarded. It it was true, then why even wait for a broken window? Why not just start huge pointless projects just for the sake of generating activity?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is