What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Maybe The Best Tech Deal EVER--Give Computers To Whole Family view!
bestbuy.com - Geek Squad(r) installation, HP desktop, monitor, laptop & netbook, wireless router--all for $1,199.99!
135 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38Outstanding! This should be part of all basic education in economics.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+38I've spoken to many people who've taken some formal class on "economics" and most agree that the only thing they got was confused. Most economics courses are still based on Keynesian economics which is, for lack of a better term, rubbish. It's almost as if it's taught that way on purpose to make it seem magical and humanly incomprehensible. However, teaching economics from the Austrian School's perspective sheds and amazing amount of light on those dark areas, and the magic becomes very simple. It's so easy to understand that the thought of ordinary people grasping the subject to such a high degree probably frightens those who assumed they were intellectual.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"Social Security should not be lumped in with entitlements since, it has its own separate trust fund..."
There is no sense in which Social Security can be considered a "trust fund." The Federal government collects X billion dollars into the "trust fund," then the Federal government borrows all the money from the "trust fund" and spends it today. The IOUs that the Federal government owes to itself will be paid back later with the taxes collected in the future. It's entirely an accounting fiction, and would be no different than if they skipped the middle steps and just said "we pay retirees with taxes collected now, and we'll pay you with money collected later (if it's still around)."
"and as long as you live an average life span you will get back about what you put in."
Maybe, but I'm not counting on it. Even if I did get it all back, it's still a net loss since I could have just dropped the amount I was taxed into a 401k and made more money.
"When social security is not lumped in the pictur changes quite a bit."
Yeah, quietly ignoring the largest portion of the budget will do that. From the 2004 budget (in billions and % of budget):
Social Security: $491.5 (22.4%)
Means-Tested Entitlements: $328.6 (15.0%)
Medicare: $264.9 (12.1%)
Defense: $454.1 (20.7%)
Everything else: 652.1 (29.7%) - abqjudy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@ Nyghtewynd and others who complain about OPINION pieces in digg
The category IS Political Opinion. Digg down if you want, but not on such specious reasoning. Instead, provide your own opinion of the piece in terms of what it is, not what it isn't. EEEEEK - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22"Yes a really outstanding, no references, no additional notes. No evidence or facts to his opinions."
Perhaps if you read the whole article you would have noticed it was a transcript of a speech given in 2004. I also wonder if you have been so critical of a lack of references if this had been a piece praising some new law against Wal-mart.
"If I was marking this at a post secondary institute (It's actually what I do)..."
Nice attempt at an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
"Let's just do Myth #1 Broken Window Works, real simple, I'm not going to go all tech on you guys."
Yeah, thanks for dumbing it down for us proles.
"Almost any time you can unlock stored funds that are currently locked in long term growth and distribute them through out the economy you get short term economic growth."
Yep. It's called "malinvestment." In any case, Bastiat's point (the guy who originally wrote about it) was that we see the flurry of activity prompted by the spending due to the broken window, and do not see the activity that would have occurred had the shop-owner spent the repair money on something he actually wanted. It's the reason the source essay was titled "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen."
"The fallacy the writer makes is if you have a over abundance of workers not producing new goods, they in turn cannot buy new goods, that is a recession."
First, it would not be a fallacy, but an error. Second, the first response to a claim of surplus is to ask, "at what price?" Since there is not one price for "workers" you're making a rather absurd claim.
"If you take that surplus and give them jobs lets say repairing windows, they in turn now have the ability to purchase new goods, and economy thrives."
If they are creating new goods, sure; but breaking a window and then paying someone to replace it does not create net productive wealth. - Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24Fantastic article. Myth #8 is especially important to debunk.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28I seriously wish I could digg this about 1000 times.
My favorite is #8. I've been trying to tell people this for ages. Especially the ones who scream that a free market would be anarchy and that corporations would rule the earth if it was implemented. We do NOT have a free market now. What we have can barely be called Capitalism.
To hell with the Military-Industrial Complex.... what we need to be screaming about is the Gov't-Corporate Complex. - n3m3s1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15World War II didn't pull us out of the depression. Without even delving deeper for further evidence (which I've done), strictly looking at GDP numbers on a bar chart from before the war, during, and after, the war pushed GDP up (via governemtn spending on "bad" goods, such as things produced to blow up), and as soon as the war was over, GDP fell again. If you take a ruler and draw a straight line on the bars from before the war (already on the rise) they line up almost perfectly on a growth trend to where the GDP fell to after the war.
- Entelechy77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Perhaps it would be better to actually *remove the special privileges* rather than attack the *effects* of plutocracy with socialistic "protections."
Big Business has gummed up the works, we can all agree. But why do liberals propose that we solve this by adding *more* stupid rules? - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24An excellent piece!
- Fantt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Best book on economics ever:
Economics in One Lesson:
http://www.jim.com/econ/contents.html
It's a pretty easy read - probably just a lazy afternoon or two. It's a very good, excellent book that expands on a lot of stuff the article touches on. - GalacticCmdr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@peritonlogon
You are so wrong that you are out of the yard we like to call reality and playing at the intersection of the streets delusion and ignorance.
From the CBO (FY 2001 - 2006: Projected to 2040):
It says quite clearly that the total Discretionary and Non-Discretionary costs for defense is still less that entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.). In addition, since 2001 (a nice year that seems to stick in everyone's mind a the big defense money grab) - direct 911 responses and increases in Military spending still outstrips the increase in social spending
Defense is not the #1 expenditure of the government - it is entitlements. I do not see how this can be made any clearer for you - but it is right there for anybody to read. You do not even need a login or account.
Here is the link (http://www.cbo.gov/). You are looking for PDFs labels "Budget and Economic Outlook". Of course, you could have just googled for the same thing - but I understand that is not as compelling as strawman so wonderfully tailored made. - NeuronExMachina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12> Not sure what you meant, but must say that while not every fallacy can be included when the list is restricted to the top ten, and while I have no idea where the writer might stand on the idea of minimum wage, I do have a strong opinion of my own.
Oh, I can guarantee that the Mises Institute heartily dislikes the minimum wage. Here's their piece on it, "Mythology of the Minimum Wage":
http://www.mises.org/story/2130
Here's another, "The Bridge of Asses": http://www.mises.org/story/1344 - fxmcleod, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23Look. Theoretically, this all wonderful to understand, but it ignores reality. Arguing that world war II wouldn't pull the US economy out of depression is a logical fallacy (because it did), unless you show what did instead (which he didn't).
The reason war is a benefice isn't because its the most efficient way of producing (his point, and he's right it's wasteful compared to peaceful production); but instead because it is an overwhelming galvanizing force.
Try getting people to work hard for the sake of working hard. Like that'll work, comrade. But, get people to sacrifice, buy bonds, ration meat, metal, and fuel... get women into the work force, force businesses to cut the fat, under the unifying rally cry of saving the nation... that you can do.
i like his gusto, and arguments, but he basically makes assumptions about complex social reasoning that Keynesian economics doesn't pretend to offer. - mustbepatient, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10My top fallacies:
-that inflation is a rise in the "general price level," as opposed to an increase in the money supply.
-that the primary job of the Federal Reserve is to fight inflation, as opposed to causing inflation while managing inflation expectations.
I could go on... - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Hoover's laissez-faire? Which Hoover are you thinking of? Surely not Herbert Hoover, who first implemented many of the policies FDR later built on. I'm sure there was someone named Hoover who was an advocate of laissez-faire at some time, but I'm not sure anyone has ever heard of him.
- ScottMitchell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The only way out of a depression or recession is for deflation to occur. America finances her wars with debt, thereby inflating the currency. When you attempt to spend your way out of a depression or recession, you don't solve the underlying economic problems - you just put it off for another day....
For a much better explanation of inflation, its causes, and its relation to boom and bust times, listen to this:
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/9.mp3
It's over an hour long, but certainly worth listening to.... - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If it's spam, why are so many people digging it?
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Wow, if only my econ teacher went to this depth... All we learned was the standard supply and demand BS.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"This is for discretionary spending, because non discretionary spending (particularly social security, where taxes do not go and you (are supposed to) get the money back anyway) doesn't count and isn't really part of the budget."
Incorrect. In terms of Congress' budgeting process, "discretionary" means little more than "allocated annually." The "non-discretionary" budget is paid for with taxes, and its spending is just as under Congress' control as the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process
Argue for or against the military budget on its merits. Don't try to define away the fact that, as a portion of total spending by Congress, whose sole means of funds are either taxation or borrowing (i.e., taxation on the future), defense spending is around 20%. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"The computers we all are typing on came as an expenditure of research for defense."
Completely and totally untrue.
(No, computers did not come from ENIAC.) - JulianMorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A minimum wage splits people into 3 groups according to what they're earning "before", and the limit of what they're actually worth (that being, how much a business could pay them and yet not lose money on the deal). Earning above the minimum: no change. Earning below, but worth above: get a pay raise. Earning below and worth below: permanent legally mandated unemployment.
Nor is the pay raise a freebie. It comes out of new hires, investment, pensions, or *something*. The economy is impoverished of that wealth and it can't be wished to reappear. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"How does one make a free market? How does one prevent monopolistic practices in such a marketplace? Are the economics of abundance compatible with Capitalism as we know it? Surely Microsoft cornering the software market in the 1990s can't be seen as a free market at work. In fact the government HAD to step in and slap them on the wrist to prevent them from crushing all the smaller startups. These are serious questions and if anyone has an opinion I would love to read it."
Good questions.
One makes a free market by keeping all government force out of it. That means allowing individuals to make their buying and selling decisions without fear of taxation or regulation that would penalize them for choices that harm nobody.
If government is not allowed to interfere in the marketplace, monopolistic practices are impossible. Only government force can create monopolies or prevent new companies from entering the market to compete with any company that threatens to become monopolistic.
Capitalism as we know it is not real capitalism, or at least not free markets. It is corporatism or merchantilism because it is so heavily taxed and regulated by government force, which always interferes with the voluntary buying and selling decisions of individuals.
Microsoft did NOT corner the software market in the 1990's. It was by far the market leader because it provided the products that the vast majority of individual software buyers chose voluntarily. Microsoft always had competitors and was, in fact, losing market share at the time when some of its less efficient competitiors went to the government and got a certain Senator to convince the Justice Department to start proceedings against it so they wouldn't have to cut their profits to compete. Now that Microsoft has been forced to "play ball" with Washington, it is much more likely to become monopolistic.
I hope that answers your questions. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I need your help diggers. I read #8 and explained it to a hard socialist. That businesses DO NOT favor the free market. That if they had the chance, they would use government to increase their wealth. The guy responded "then why have laissez-faire if businesses will do something like that? It will just make it easier for the businesses to exploit the government!" Now that I read this again...it seems like a pretty stupid comment. My question is, how can it truly be explained to non-believers that businesses DO NOT promote laissez-faire? I know wal-mart does support the increase in minimum wage(not to care for workers...but to destroy competition through force)."
The guy obviously didn't understand that businesses CAN'T exploit government if the government isn't allowed to interfere in the economy. That's what laissez-faire and free markets mean. If businesses can't use laws (like the minimum wage law) to get an unfair advantage over their competitors, they have to compete on the basis of providing products and services that consumers are willing to buy at the prices the consumers are willing to pay. That's a lot harder than paying off legislators. - pcking1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Actually, all of economics can infact be put into simple statements. I've noticed that the more complex a definition becomes in economics, the more likely it is to be false or based upon false assumptions.
- JulianMorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The war thing is fairly self evident, really. You and your opponent are mutually breaking each others' windows, and you're paying for all the related economic bustle with debt. You'll have to spend a long time in the future paying down that loan, one way or the other. The government taxes and pays, or it repudiates and dumps the debt on the little guy, or it inflates and takes the debt out of the value of people's savings, but whichever way, a large chunk of *real wealth* is just gone, wasted. It can't by any means at all be wished back into existence.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@Pacotheparrot
You have obviously gotten your American history out of the history books provided in government schools. Go back to primary sources and you will find this author is correct in his interpretation of Lincoln's actions. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"More liberal crap on why America is not great. Blah blah blah."
Duh? If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that the myths being debunked come from both the right and the left. - OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Dugg. Amazing how many people in the most prosperous nation in the history of the planet have so little understanding of the fundamentals of the system that makes that prosperity possible.
It's been a while since I read it but I believe all of these points are covered in more detail in Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". That's one book that should be mandatory reading before graduating from high school. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@twinklyJesus
"I don't know where you got your ideas from, but the minimum wage laws don't "cap" wages for entry level employees, or prevent a business from paying any wages it sees fit. It does, however, prevent companies from paying less than acceptable wages for any job."
You are right that minimum wage laws don't "cap" wages, but your reference to "acceptable wages" begs the question "acceptable to whom?" Minimum wage laws not only prevent businesses from offering lower wages, they also prevent workers from accepting wages they might very well find "acceptable" versus having to go on unemployment or welfare. Thus, minimum wage laws actually encourage the mindset that you find so objectionable. - Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I need your help diggers. I read #8 and explained it to a hard socialist. That businesses DO NOT favor the free market. That if they had the chance, they would use government to increase their wealth. The guy responded "then why have laissez-faire if businesses will do something like that? It will just make it easier for the businesses to exploit the government!" Now that I read this again...it seems like a pretty stupid comment. My question is, how can it truly be explained to non-believers that businesses DO NOT promote laissez-faire? I know wal-mart does support the increase in minimum wage(not to care for workers...but to destroy competition through force).
#1 is also huge. Think about it through nasa and the internet. Sure, Nasa has created technology that we enjoy today as well as the internet being created by the government. But the Broken Window still applies. It even applies to 9/11 and Katrina with media saying the government will repair this damage. Hell, some economists have gone to say katrina has created a "boom" to the economy in New orleans(broken window fallacy as well as the "blessings of destruction" fallacy).
#2 is great from adam smith's perspective. That we shouldn't borrow any money and the only way to fund the war is through immense taxation. Instead of the government creating money out of thin air(federal reserve), they have to take away capital from the common people. If we did it this way, this war in Iraq would've been over A HELL LOT FASTER.
#4 is great because people who advocate this are basically saying "we can increase prosperity by increasing debt." How can anyone believe this? Does someone get rich by amassing massive debt on their credit cards? If someone has 5 credit cards....each of them having a balance of $10,000...is that person rich?
Promoting imports and exports is also a dumb idea. To quote from Hazlitt's "economics in one lesson" imports and exports will always be the same in the end. There will never be a trade surplus nor a trade deficit. When someone from america trades to a foriegn country....something leaves our country and something comes in. It's the basics of trade itself. You don't have something coming into our country...and nothing leaving.
Overall, this is a good article for people not knowing economics. Even today, these fallacies still persist. The broken window....and businesses supporting laissez-faire. There are a few. The CEO of whole foods is one of them(a former communist).
To answer some questions about our success.......it would be BIGGER if government did not get involved in our economy. Of course, when you say our country is a huge success....what are you comparing it to? To the other countries? The other countries have more government in their economy than we do. We have one of the least amount of government interference in our economy in the world.
FX explaining about war being the best mode of production is stupid. Best mode of production for whom? Who are you appealing to? In war, you are producing for destruction...not to help people. The idea of production is for consumption. Who in america really wants Tanks....planes, and other military items? How many of us really demand it?
"Henry Ford, who had many dreadful political and social opinions, fortunately did get one thing right: If you pay your workers enough to buy your products, you need not worry about your profit."
This is stupid comment. This is working off the fallacy of "enough to buy back the product." I know the Hazlitt's book explains this fallacy. This is because people who advocate this(I can't believe there are people out there THAT STILL DO) do not define what this means. I mean, factory workers who make shoes shouldn't be paid enough to buy those shoes...nor car manufacturers should be paid yearly for the amount of making that car.
"Let's just do Myth #1 Broken Window Works, real simple, I'm not going to go all tech on you guys. Almost any time you can unlock stored funds that are currently locked in long term growth and distribute them through out the economy you get short term economic growth. The fallacy the writer makes is if you have a over abundance of workers not producing new goods, they in turn cannot buy new goods, that is a recession. If you take that surplus and give them jobs lets say repairing windows, they in turn now have the ability to purchase new goods, and economy thrives."
Government housing first of all is a failure. The ghettos are the perfect example of it. You totally do not understand this fallacy. Also, the broken window fallacy means you don't get a NET increase in wealth. When the government hires people to do work for them, where do you think they are getting that money from? You don't gain wealth by placing $500 from your right pocket to your left pocket. How do you call that getting richer? - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Why not withdraw from Iraq and bomb the sh*t out of New York, instead? Why only break a few windows, when you could be demolishing cities wholesale?
(If that worked, surely Lebanon would be the richest country in the world right now!) - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"You have a few people amassing huge fortunes and then sitting on them, essentially removing a large part of the money from the system, preventing the things with real value from being traded."
I was with you until this point. Even if it were true that people could amass huge fortunes and then "sit on them" (which would be dumb, and if they were that dumb they're not likely to make the huge fortune you attribute to them in the first place), that would only cause prices to fall so that the remaining money (the "fortune sitters" haven't got _all_ the money, right?) is sufficient to people's needs. [You might like to run out and read Frederic Bastiat's wonderful little essay entitled _What Is Money?_ at this point! http://bastiat.org/en/what_is_money.html] - abqjudy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10And note the last paragraphs which details some pretty positive reasons why we have so far succeeded. I would add that a political process, derived from constitution over time, has made it unlikely that any one policy stays in force long enough to cause permanent damage. Just think what might have been had FDR not replaces Hoover's laissez faire, or Clinton had not risked cutting deficit, or if we turned out to be forced to stay with the current economic idiocies being performed in our name.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Railer
I really doesn't matter how you twist it. The facts are:
1. The system has lost a window and all it took to create a new window.
2. The system has lost all that could have been achieved with the involved effort.
3. All that has been achieved is moving money around.
You can assume that there is guaranteed to be nothing actually productive to be done with that effort, but even in that highly unlikely situation you've only eliminated number 2 above, and only if you consider free time worthless. There is still a loss to the system. All that has been achieved is a redistribution of funds from the owner of the window to others. If that is what was supposed to be good, then transferring those funds without breaking the window would have been far better.
And there of course you have the key thing. The problems that you wish to "solve" by breaking windows is a problem with the distribution of money not having any real relationship to the distribution of things with real value. You have a few people amassing huge fortunes and then sitting on them, essentially removing a large part of the money from the system, preventing the things with real value from being traded.
This is actually a fundamental problem with the use of money as a substitute for things with a real value. Without moving the things with real value around you can move all the money into a few pockets and effectively stop the people in possession of the things with real value from trading them because this fantasy we call money is not available.
I don't have any suggestion for a solution, but we bloody well had better acknowledge that there are fundamental problems with the very concept of money that need to be addressed. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@rassoodock
"without a citation you are just blowing smoke"
So where's your citation? This is political opinion where we can point out that other sources exist, but nobody is writing a research paper here. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"As part of this academic field..."
I have my doubts.
"Comparing the world economy from the 1700s to the present are apples and oranges. It's changed very much and many of the principles no longer operate under the same conditions."
Congratulations, you're a member of the German Historical School! Now, do you want to restart the Methodenstreit?
"As an old punchline to a joke goes, "And the economist says, 'What do you *want* the numbers to say?' "...."
You're confusing statisticians with economists (though nowadays the former is being passed off as the latter). I prefer the quote by Hayek: "The job of an economist is to remind people they don't know as much as they think they do." - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Hey look, a propaganda article for free trade! Hey Randites, here is a clue...Is it really free trade if you trade freely with a country that doesn't trade freely in return? Does it work if they don't have a free market?"
I'm not a Randite, but the answer is that yes, unilateral free trade is still free trade because restrictions on trade hurt the country with the restrictions, not the country that is trading freely. - Entelechy77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9And what would preserving the Union do for one of Illinois highest paid railroad lawyers? Why it would provide the tax base for internal improvements like, say, the first continental railroad begun in 1862 with federal funds and land grants. Yes, that's 1862 . . . as in "let's spend money on a railroad while were busy fighting a Civil War." The author's criticism is quite accurate.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sure, a close second if you aggregate all defense spending, and split up social spending into different categories. From the 2004 budget (in billions and % of budget):
Social Security: $491.5 (22.4%)
Means-Tested Entitlements: $328.6 (15.0%)
Medicare: $264.9 (12.1%)
Defense: $454.1 (20.7%)
Everything else: 652.1 (29.7%)
Without making a normative argument, defense spending is around 20%, and social spending is around 50%. - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@ abqjudy:
I don't know where you got your ideas from, but the minimum wage laws don't "cap" wages for entry level employees, or prevent a business from paying any wages it sees fit. It does, however, prevent companies from paying less than acceptable wages for any job.
This is a free country, if you apply for a job and it doesn't pay the wage you feel you should earn, take your skill set and find the employer who does. If you don't have the skillset, go to school and get it. Know that, this is not a socialist country (completely) and therefore you are not entitled to anything but minimum wage. There are only a few places in this country that minimum wage is not "live-able" and that would be on the east & west coasts. Minimum wage was originally put in place not to be live-able, but to insure that entry level workers were not abused in OJT scams. You are not supposed to live on minimum wage. You are supposed to have stayed in school, gone to college or learned a trade while in school (for minimum wage) then, when out, you get a job for real wages.
For some unknown reason, people expect to coast through high school, barely pass or drop out and be able to have a big house, a new car and cool clothes with matching bling, all on minimum wage!
Welcome to earth. Enjoy economy class. - Railer, on 10/12/2007, -20/+25Yes a really outstanding, no references, no additional notes. No evidence or facts to his opinions. If I was marking this at a post secondary institute (It's actually what I do), and it was a research paper, he would get about 25%. Not all of it is wrong, just most of it. I wish I could spend a few days pointing out all his errors but I really don't have the time.
Let's just do Myth #1 Broken Window Works, real simple, I'm not going to go all tech on you guys. Almost any time you can unlock stored funds that are currently locked in long term growth and distribute them through out the economy you get short term economic growth. The fallacy the writer makes is if you have a over abundance of workers not producing new goods, they in turn cannot buy new goods, that is a recession. If you take that surplus and give them jobs lets say repairing windows, they in turn now have the ability to purchase new goods, and economy thrives.
Lets look at housing starts: http://www.census.gov/briefrm/esbr/www/esbr020.html
It's a marginal opinion piece, at best. - trollick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If fixing broken windows, or spending billions on wars, was beneficial for economy, why would not governments around the world take care of all of their economic problems by starting massive and completely meaningless projects? Why, for example, not build huge factories were windows are broken and fixed and broken again on industrial scale?
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Maybe you should have read #1 more carefully. You see positive effects from the path we took (e.g., the Cold War), but do not see the positive effects which would have occurred without such destruction. On net, less destruction is better.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"And when libertarians stop trying to rid the government of the very few protections against this we realistically have (public education, workfare, campaign finance restrictions, etc.), then perhaps people will take them seriously."
If you actually believe that those failed government programs (public education, workfare, campaign finance restrictions, etc) help anyone other than politicians and bureaucrats, you are seriously mistaken. Libertarians are not trying to rid the government of anything. We are trying to rid the American people of the depredations the government inflicts on us under the pretense of "protecting us."
Read the article. These are the myths that convince people the government offers them some kind of benefits. Research each point and learn the truth. Or don't. See how long you can keep your head in the sand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Myth #4: Deficit Spending Benefits the Economy and Government Debt
I can remember in the early 80's my economics teacher explaining this fallacy out on the chalk board,, almost took an hour. I remember thinking,, This does not make sense! - Metman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Economic student who let his intellect obscure his objectivity. The world is not Black and White. Viewing economics in this fashion is highly irresponsible and the product of poor teaching.
Hamilton and WWII were boons for the US and the effect of them had more to do with the social paradigms they created rather then dollars and cents. Any good professor of economics will make it clear that in today's culture Hamilton's policies would never have worked but at the time it was a 'change in influence' that made the difference. If it had not been for WWII would were in worse shape then the USSR at the time of it's collapse. However, due to the infrastructure that was created by waging a war abroad (something done with little success historically) we dominated the industrial world for 35 years.
Then again, what did I expect in a world where we teach "peaceful religons" do not wage war. Yet 98.4% of all wars fought in recorded history have religous overtones. - Luyseyal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You assume there will be someone other than the plutocrats to remove them. That is your fallacy.
-l - Bowster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It seams as though you can write but you can't read. During a war, capital accumulation is dramatically decreased or altogether halted. Without capital accumulation you cannot have economic growth. Your comments are exactly what the author exposes as fallacy, read it again and open your mind.
"The truth is that war, and the preparation for it, is economically wasteful and destructive. Apart from the spoils gained by winning (if it is won) war and defense spending squander labor, resources, and wealth, leaving the country poorer in the end than if these things had been devoted to peaceful endeavors.
During war, the productive powers of a country are diverted to producing weapons and ammunition, transporting armaments and supplies, and supporting the armies in the field.
William Graham Sumner described how the Civil War, which he lived through, had squandered capital and labor: "The mills, forges, and factories were active in working for the government, while the men who ate the grain and wore the clothing were active in destroying, and not in creating capital. This, to be sure, was war. It is what war means, but it cannot bring prosperity."
Nothing is more basic; yet it continues to elude the grasp of our teachers, writers, professors, and politicians. The forty year Cold War drained this country of much of its wealth, squandered capital, and wasted the labor of millions, whose lifetime work, whether as a soldier, sailor, or defense worker, was devoted to policing the empire, fighting its brush wars, and making weapons, instead of building up our civilization with things of utility, comfort, and beauty." - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@hackwrench and Nyghtewynd
You made BryanMorton's point for him. LOL -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is