The Current Crisis

[Didymos Thomas]

Do we all realize that the bulk of economists have accepted that supply-side is a brilliant, though failed, economic system?

[BrightNoon]

BTW, to anyone, what would you do if you had the power to make laws, with regard to this crisis?

I would do the following:

1) eliminate capital gains taxes and reduce substantially all corperate taxes

2) reduce income taxes for everyone by some amount

3) invest heavily in basic infrastructure: roads, bridges, dams, powergrids, etc.

4) then balance the budget by reducing welfare, medicare and medicaid expenditures by whatever amount is necessary to offset the loss of revenues and expenditures listed above

5) establish, with public annoucement, a non-governmental commission to investigate the role of regulation and of governmental interference in the crisis, especially with regard to Fannie and Freddie

6) establish a bipartisan commision to investigate fraud in the financial sector; I mean actual fraud or contractual violations, not 'excessive greed' or 'predatory lending'. It is not the fault of a mortgage company if someone signs a mortage without reading it.

We have to allow the market to naturally eliminate those institutes that are unsound, not support them with public funds. The above plan allows this correction to ocur, and also the cocomittent job losses and other unfortunate effects. However, it returns alot of money to the private setor, where it can be used efficiently to begin again. The building programme provides the stimulus for new growth not only in constrution but in all the industries that produce the necessary materials and equipment, whih have suffered the worst in reent years: steel, glass, heavy machinery, etc. Perhaps most importantly, the plan would prevent masive inflation and provide a sound, less regulated foundation upon which new growth could occur.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Do we all realize that the bulk of economists have accepted that supply-side is a brilliant, though failed, economic system?

If you mean Reagan-style supply-side economics, I disgree that it is brilliant and agree that it is failed. It would be fine, except for the borrowing.

Pure, unadulterated capitalism, in a country whose government does hardly anything, is my ideal. Freedom.

[BrightNoon]

As for democrat vs. republican, it doesn't appear that either side is concerned with fiscal responsibility. In fact, we are pretty well screwed either way, because while a hostile executive and legislative may stall on some issues, the one thing they always agree on is populist spending plans. -Mr. Fight the Power

O I agree. I prefer the republicans, on fiscal matters, like I would rather lose a finger than an arm to a threshing machine. I do think that the democratic party will spend more money in power than would the republican, but not by much. What really concerns me is that the republicans have been so villainized due to their (nonexistent) preference for the free market, that the democrats will feel justified in going radically toward the other direction after gaining a massive majority for that same reason. Thank god we have presidential term limits, otherwise I suspet we might have an FDR situation, with the notable difference than Obama is still quite young...

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

BTW, to anyone, what would you do if you had the power to make laws, with regard to this crisis?

I would do the following:

1) eliminate capital gains taxes

I think the stock market already beat the government to the punch. Not too many are making capital gains. Thus, no one is really paying the tax anyway.

[BrightNoon]

Exactly my point. The loss of revenue would be minimal, but there would still be an incentive for immigration of business into the country; whether a business is making money or not, that is its aim, and it prefers a location where, when it eventually turns a profit, it will be able to keep more of it.

[Didymos Thomas]

You speak of ideals, yours being capitalism. That's fine, but your ideal has failed. Sure, never has pure capitalism existed, but the principles upon which the system is founded have been tested and have failed. And the point is this: no ideal is ever reached, however close. So, to speak of ideal capitalism and actually advocate economic policy based on this ideal is folly. Not only have the principles failed in application, but the ideal, even if it could work, is impossible to reach.

Let's get past these silly idealistic notions of the economy. Capitalism, ideally, is freedom, and in practice is consumerist slavery. It's time we take whatever works for the most people as possible, and be ready to react to economic crisis rather than pretend that they are natural. Economy is the result of human society and is, therefore, not natural. We invent it, we have control. Let's do something.

Cutting taxes for corporations is hardly the answer. These are the people responsible for the modern cancer epidemic, not to mention a host of other atrocities. A corporation should not be a person, but that's the modern corporation. The 14th Amendment, passed to protect freed slaves, was invoked nearly three hundred times before the Supreme Court after it's passage, and prior to the turn of the century. In that time, less than twenty of the cases involved African Americans, the rest involved the use of the 14th Amendment to expand the prowess of corporations. Damn attorneys.

Notice something. After the Civil War, African Americans became significant political players in the south. Thirty years later blacks could hardly even vote in the south; meanwhile, corporations enjoyed the liberty intended for freed slaves. Instead of giving liberty to free slaves, the courts gave that liberty to corporations and stole it from African Americans. This occurred due to the lobbying of corporate attorneys.

Ah, but so much for history.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Do we all realize that the bulk of economists have accepted that supply-side is a brilliant, though failed, economic system?

Yes. It isn't even brilliant.

[Khethil]

No system (political or economic) will ever work like we think it should, elements of human behavior (read: greed, corruption, abuse) prevent it. A couple of you have hit on the real question, much like the comparison with that of cutting off a finger instead of your arm. Which ideology hurts more?

There's a theory that even in this hugely-flawed system there needs to have - at regular intervals - some balance brought, even if that can only be achieved partially and imperfectly. I think it's time for a change, I think it's time to swing the disgusting pendulum that our country has been on in the other direction; in the hopes of mitigating the over-stayed republicans of the past. Imperfectly stated, traditional views of conservative economics say "less government, less regulation, give incentive to big business (to spur growth) and let 'em run with it". Traditional views of liberal economics scream, "tax breaks to the little guy, help the poor and in-need, regulate the greed with laws, tax penalties and legislation". What I'm saying is that; Between these two grossly imperfect philosophies - those two selections on our current menu - there exists the possibility of some vague sense of balance, as long as one philosophy isn't allowed to pervade, dominate and overrun the country for too long. There are as many potential problems with this are there are cats in my neighborhood; granted, but as we look for imperfect solutions to a joke-of-a-system, sometimes - I believe - the best we can do is mitigate the damage, bandage the wound, take our best shot given the constructs in which we're working.

As far as the candidates themselves (and who might do better): I think it's beyond dispute that we tend to blame or praise the president more than is realistically deserved. And yes, although I think we're getting far too close to having an "Emperor", there are numerous other elements (governmental) that hurt or help. One note here, I've always liked McCain and I've cheered for him before much in the past. I think him to be a man of integrity and thoughtfulness. Truth be told: There are benefits to be had by electing either; so much so, that for the first time in ages I'm considering not voting (wait, forgot about Palin; oh... my... god).

I have a real disgust for capitalism, but capitalism has one major advantage: It relies on greed to keep its wheels turning - and we're so VERY good at greed, aren't we? That's also its downfall (ref: the current economic crisis). Greed run amuck and unchecked (read: via whatever legislative reigns can be brought to bear) does this from time to time. I read another article the other day about how the FBI divisions that keeps tabs on unethical and/or criminal elements of trade and banking, despite their gross cutbacks caused by "smaller government", has been enthusiastically warning the administration since 2004 about "dangerous loan practices in the housing sector" yet the administration would not allow it to be pursued (ref: let business run with it! mindset). Between this and fraudulent institutions like ACORN this was a road we were bound to travel.

Great, now we're here. Ugh. I'm just glad I sold my house back in 2005 when I did. These are just my opinions and I could be wrong....

Thanks

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You speak of ideals, yours being capitalism. That's fine, but your ideal has failed. Sure, never has pure capitalism existed, but the principles upon which the system is founded have been tested and have failed. And the point is this: no ideal is ever reached, however close. So, to speak of ideal capitalism and actually advocate economic policy based on this ideal is folly. Not only have the principles failed in application, but the ideal, even if it could work, is impossible to reach.

Let's get past these silly idealistic notions of the economy. Capitalism, ideally, is freedom, and in practice is consumerist slavery. It's time we take whatever works for the most people as possible, and be ready to react to economic crisis rather than pretend that they are natural. Economy is the result of human society and is, therefore, not natural. We invent it, we have control. Let's do something.

Cutting taxes for corporations is hardly the answer. These are the people responsible for the modern cancer epidemic, not to mention a host of other atrocities. A corporation should not be a person, but that's the modern corporation. The 14th Amendment, passed to protect freed slaves, was invoked nearly three hundred times before the Supreme Court after it's passage, and prior to the turn of the century. In that time, less than twenty of the cases involved African Americans, the rest involved the use of the 14th Amendment to expand the prowess of corporations. Damn attorneys.

Notice something. After the Civil War, African Americans became significant political players in the south. Thirty years later blacks could hardly even vote in the south; meanwhile, corporations enjoyed the liberty intended for freed slaves. Instead of giving liberty to free slaves, the courts gave that liberty to corporations and stole it from African Americans. This occurred due to the lobbying of corporate attorneys.

Ah, but so much for history.

"Sure we haven't really had a government that has tried to uphold the principles of free market capitalism, but they have all failed." This is what your post amounts to, and it is a blatant cop-out. This is why arguing political economy is the most frustrating thing imaginable for the market-oriented thinker. One is constantly fighting nothing but strawmen, as it seems no opponent of the free markets workings can differentiate between capitalism (I don't even like to associate myself with the word, because I don't assume capital ownership via the market) and the hideous state-corporatism that we are currently burdened by.

The supporter of the free market (and most capitalists) wants to defend the rights of the property owner and the fairness of free exchange, but the typical opponent of the free market will only attack wal-mart and enron.

Yours is a perfect example. "Capitalism doesn't work! Now listen to me describe all of the ways that government has unjustly interfered in the workings of capitalism."

I know there are very well economically founded arguments against capitalism out there, I have heard them, I have been impressed by them, I have agreed with some of them, and I have adjusted my views accordingly.

But I am through with arguments that capitalism is bad that revolve entirely on the corruption and incompetence of government. If you cannot come up with a problem with capitalism that isn't accountable to government, perhaps it is time to accept the free market solution!