Originally posted by MerkPerhaps you don't understand the capitalist economic system. Boom and busts are inevitable byproducts of that system. I find it amusing that right wingers like yourself extol its virtues when things are going well, but always seek to blame government or quasi government agencies when things go bad.
Perhaps you don't understand the purpose of the Fed? The Fed is intended to control liquidity through interest rates in order to smooth out the cycle of boom and bust. They failed for years to reign in liquidity. We got the .com bubble then went directly into the housing bubble and if they don't bring rates up, we'll be moving into another bubble.
The bottom line is that this latest crisis is a direct result of the creation and mass buying and selling of an unstable type of new security. The Fed had nothing whatsoever to do with this. The type of "tight money" policy you are espousing would have caused a recession and mass unemployment long ago. In turn that would have led to people defaulting on mortgages anyway and caused the value of these securities to plummet. Result: same except with a worse economy.
I find it amusing that right wingers like yourself extol its virtues when things are going well, but always seek to blame government or quasi government agencies when things go bad.
If the government is managing the economy, then it is not a purely Capitalistic system. So no one can claim the US economy is doing well because of a pure Capitalistic system, if it is doing well or not.
If right wingeers like to claim that Capitalism is best, perhaps you believe another model would be better. What economy has proven itself to be a better model over the past 50 years?
Originally posted by EladarThe last 50 years is a interesting narrowing of the field; why not include the 30's?
[b]I find it amusing that right wingers like yourself extol its virtues when things are going well, but always seek to blame government or quasi government agencies when things go bad.
If the government is managing the economy, then it is not a purely Capitalistic system. So no one can claim the US economy is doing well because of a pure Capitalistic ...[text shortened]... el would be better. What economy has proven itself to be a better model over the past 50 years?[/b]
There has never been a "pure" capitalistic system for the obvious reason that such a system would be inherently unstable.
Originally posted by shavixmirHe worked while they played.
How come those four people are poor and that one man is rich?
Or, maybe inheritance. Inheritance is a strange and difficult topic that challenges the idea of a capitalist meritocracy by giving money to people that never had to earn it.
Originally posted by EladarDefine "socialist". Is that limited to only Communist countries or does it include countries with a large amount of state owned firms like Israel or Sweden?
[b]The last 50 years is a interesting narrowing of the field; why not include the 30's?
OK, including the 30's. What Socialist nation has proven to have a better economy than the US since the 1930's? Remember, the country had to have a Socialist economy at the time.[/b]
Define "better". What measurement of economic activity from what source would you accept as proof of a "better economy" than the US?
When I say Socialist, I do not mean Communist. In any case, pick a country that you believe is equivalent to the US in size and population who has a distinctively different economic system. Demonstrate how that country's economy is better than the US's and explain what is different about their system that makes it superior.
In general, I'd say that the government that taxes its economy the least will result in the stronger economy.
Originally posted by EladarEladar: pick a country that you believe is equivalent to the US in size and population who has a distinctively different economic system.
When I say Socialist, I do not mean Communist. In any case, pick a country that you believe is equivalent to the US in size and population who has a distinctively different economic system. Demonstrate how that country's economy is better than the US's and explain what is different about their system that makes it superior.
In general, I'd say that the government that taxes its economy the least will result in the stronger economy.
No such country exists. Explain why you believe that a country's size and population have any bearing on whether its economic system is "better".
No such country exists. Explain why you believe that a country's size and population have any bearing on whether its economic system is "better".
Because you have to compare apples with apples. If a country is having do deal with certain issues while the other one isn't, then simply looking at end results has nothing to do with the economic models.
I could be running down hill with a tail wind and cover 100 meters faster than Usain Bolt if he was having to run up hill on against a moving side walk set at the equivalent of 20 mph. That doesn't mean that I'm faster, it just means that I had a much more favorable condition.
Originally posted by EladarThanks for the non-answer. As I recall, it was YOU asking for a "better" economy. Since no country fits the narrow specifications YOU require, according to YOU it is impossible to discuss whether any country's economic system is "better" than the US. Thus, your original request was disingenuous.
[b]No such country exists. Explain why you believe that a country's size and population have any bearing on whether its economic system is "better".
Because you have to compare apples with apples. If a country is having do deal with certain issues while the other one isn't, then simply looking at end results has nothing to do with the economic model ...[text shortened]... at doesn't mean that I'm faster, it just means that I had a much more favorable condition.[/b]
Originally posted by kmax87No worries that you didn’t answer the first question, it was rhetorical. Should people be punished for working harder and smarter? The answer is a categorical, resounding NO. Do people get punished for working harder and smarter? The shameful answer is yes, and it’s called progressive taxation.
And if he didn't should he be rewarded for that?
Now - Should people that haven’t worked harder and smarter be rewarded? They should be neither rewarded nor punished, in the same way that people that haven’t worked harder and smarter should be neither rewarded nor punished. What rewards are you talking about here k? hand outs from guvamint?