Athens burns - is this a citizens' revolt against the corporatist EU elite? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-16-2008, 12:49 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
i never meant to imply that i wasn't left wing. i'm probably one of the most left wing posters on this board. i was suggesting that i may not qualify as an intellectual.

the latter part of your post is telling, and in hindsight, most of your other posts make sense given your assumptions. are you seriously arguing that ideological domination plays no role in social construction? tell me oscar, can the "economic laws" bend light as well?
As long as human nature exists we can study how it works with economics. We can't ignore gravity anymore than we can ignore human nature.

You can't pervert the monetary system without unintended consequences. So if money is a medium of exchange and is increased versus the number of goods (which is what most of the world is doing now) what happens is that the goods increase in price because:

1st the owners charge more because they can since the supplies are flying off the shelfs with this new money

2nd when companies have to pay for source goods they have to deal with other suppliers that raise their prices as well so the the economy adjusts and a dollar doesn't buy what it used to. You can't change this law unless you labotimize humans to make them ignore self-interest.

We are having some deflation in prices and economists in the G20 feel there will be a unending spiral downward so we need a stimulus but the reality in my opinion we need prices to go to the new lower equilibrium of supply and demand so people can afford to spend again without going into debt. I don't think prices will spiral forever to nothing. This comes from Keynes critique of what happened with the depression which is a different situation under a gold standard, new regulations and trade barriers starting up.

The economists want to create new money to stimulate more spending but people have to go into debt to access this money and they already are in debt. That's why, (from what I can see in the U.S.), people are saving money to reduce the size of their debts despite a stimulus because of a fear of losing jobs which in turn can mean losing their house or car or whatever big ticket items they bought with credit. Even my spendthrift brother and his wife are voluntarily cutting back. Miracle!

If we keep creating new money there will be more inflation after the short-term recovery months down the line and there will be more people trying to make money on money as a commodity creating more economic bubbles. Since houses are probably too expensive there will be some other investment item that could boom with new currency. Some people actually win with inflation if they have access to the new money first because they can buy at a low price and when prices rise after the initial purchases because of unexpected demand people with fixed incomes get hit with those higher prices. It's like a hidden tax of the poor to the rich. The governments use this tactic to fund all kinds of government activities, and to find an extreme example then look at Zimbabwe.

The optimal situation is to have people in jobs that supply what people want. Now there is risk in supplying what people don't want so technically those jobs should disappear and people should get new jobs in sectors of the economy that have more business. That's what recessions attempt to do naturally which is to correct the market but it's painful for people and so politicians try and reduce the pain. I think they fail at that and create long-term pain from their short-term tactics. Priming the pump is what got us into this problem in the first place. The bigger the bubble the bigger the recession has to be to correct it.

True conservatives want people to use money simply as a medium of exchange where people can use it to trade goods and services that both partners want to engage in, and as a commodity to facilitate trade. As soon as you have companies that barely make enough income to pay the minimal payments on their debt you have a situation where people are trading crappy goods and services for quality goods and services. Nobody wants to lose their job no matter how useless it is but hypocritically we go to supermarkets and demand high quality goods and services for low prices so something has to give.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
could you explain this to me in some more detail? it seems to contradict the fact that i am not a statist in any sense.
Many different libertarians are for legalizing narcotics, allow abortion and gay rights because they feel the govenment shouldn't tell people what to do regarding social issues. They are also are skeptical of military and the interest they have to start military actions to justify themselves. They would vehemently disagree with Marxists on economics. I would allow gay rights but I'm "statist" when it comes to drugs and abortion (unless the woman will die from giving birth or there's rape and incest).

An example would be in Cuba and how they treated gay people. Communists can also be statist on social agendas. A social libertarian would be more buddhist pacifist types and anti war. Of course as BVS would say not ALL libertarians agree with this agenda and I'm generalizing, but I find many libertarians agree on many of those points. Legalizing drugs is the most promenent social liberal attitude I see in libertarians in particular.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 12:56 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
No. I don't agree with their means, and I'm not even sure they really know why they are doing this...
Well the Greeks that are complaining may not completely understand why they do what they do, but they do feel the credit crunch and students parents are having trouble paying for education abroad as you can see in the economist article I posted before.

Now that Greece is a part of the EU they have to keep their budget balanced to a debt threshold that the EU demands. This means the spending that students are asking for would force them to breach their EU deficit target. Anarchists of course like to take advantage of social strife and do so with glee.

When you start getting into whether the government should listen to them and go into a bigger deficit you start getting into an economics discussion. I often feel that if I don't talk more about economics and the unintended consequences it appears less convincing than simply saying "I don't like deficits because they suck."
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 12:58 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I think it is better to put the money into re-training. The US should probably only have one or auto companies.
Sounds much better than bailouts to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
That sounds like a question of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' variety.
Touche. Can you tell I'm getting frustrated?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 06:16 PM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well the Greeks that are complaining may not completely understand why they do what they do, but they do feel the credit crunch and students parents are having trouble paying for education abroad as you can see in the economist article I posted before.
They feel the frustration of the economic times, but my point is, from what I gather there really is no common ideal or stance they are standing behind. At least I haven't really seen one.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 06:19 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Many different libertarians are for legalizing narcotics, allow abortion and gay rights because they feel the govenment shouldn't tell people what to do regarding social issues. They are also are skeptical of military and the interest they have to start military actions to justify themselves. They would vehemently disagree with Marxists on economics. I would allow gay rights but I'm "statist" when it comes to drugs and abortion (unless the woman will die from giving birth or there's rape and incest).

An example would be in Cuba and how they treated gay people. Communists can also be statist on social agendas. A social libertarian would be more buddhist pacifist types and anti war. Of course as BVS would say not ALL libertarians agree with this agenda and I'm generalizing, but I find many libertarians agree on many of those points. Legalizing drugs is the most promenent social liberal attitude I see in libertarians in particular.
Because I, unlike you, believe that I should have control over my own body; hypothetically, if I was to take drugs, I wouldn't be hurting anybody or causing harm; it can be a victimless crime committed by a private criminal.

Even if you think that all drugs must be eradicated, surely the "war on drugs" is the wrong way to go about it, it consolidates power with the worst elements of the drug trade, gives the government carte blanche to abuse citizens rights (no-knock warrants that end up killing old ladies because they have the wrong address), and harming users (no safe-injecting rooms etc).

Unless your goal is to militarise the police, declare war on the public and hurt a lot of people you shouldn't be supporting the war on drugs. If you want minimal statism then supply your junkies with clean drugs, hand them $20,000 a year in welfare, and leave them to either kill themselves or get functional; it would be a lesser evil and it would reduce some of the horrible consequences of the black market.

Its the very idea that gay rights, or cognitive liberty, are things which you get to veto that I find repellent. I have no right to use state force to stop people believing in God, nor would I want to; you, however, advocate the same type of violent action, only against people who use drugs which aren't alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and painkillers.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 08:20 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
As long as human nature exists we can study how it works with economics. We can't ignore gravity anymore than we can ignore human nature.

You can't pervert the monetary system without unintended consequences. So if money is a medium of exchange and is increased versus the number of goods (which is what most of the world is doing now) what happens is that the goods increase in price because:

1st the owners charge more because they can since the supplies are flying off the shelfs with this new money

2nd when companies have to pay for source goods they have to deal with other suppliers that raise their prices as well so the the economy adjusts and a dollar doesn't buy what it used to. You can't change this law unless you labotimize humans to make them ignore self-interest.

We are having some deflation in prices and economists in the G20 feel there will be a unending spiral downward so we need a stimulus but the reality in my opinion we need prices to go to the new lower equilibrium of supply and demand so people can afford to spend again without going into debt. I don't think prices will spiral forever to nothing. This comes from Keynes critique of what happened with the depression which is a different situation under a gold standard, new regulations and trade barriers starting up.

The economists want to create new money to stimulate more spending but people have to go into debt to access this money and they already are in debt. That's why, (from what I can see in the U.S.), people are saving money to reduce the size of their debts despite a stimulus because of a fear of losing jobs which in turn can mean losing their house or car or whatever big ticket items they bought with credit. Even my spendthrift brother and his wife are voluntarily cutting back. Miracle!

If we keep creating new money there will be more inflation after the short-term recovery months down the line and there will be more people trying to make money on money as a commodity creating more economic bubbles. Since houses are probably too expensive there will be some other investment item that could boom with new currency. Some people actually win with inflation if they have access to the new money first because they can buy at a low price and when prices rise after the initial purchases because of unexpected demand people with fixed incomes get hit with those higher prices. It's like a hidden tax of the poor to the rich. The governments use this tactic to fund all kinds of government activities, and to find an extreme example then look at Zimbabwe.

The optimal situation is to have people in jobs that supply what people want. Now there is risk in supplying what people don't want so technically those jobs should disappear and people should get new jobs in sectors of the economy that have more business. That's what recessions attempt to do naturally which is to correct the market but it's painful for people and so politicians try and reduce the pain. I think they fail at that and create long-term pain from their short-term tactics. Priming the pump is what got us into this problem in the first place. The bigger the bubble the bigger the recession has to be to correct it.

True conservatives want people to use money simply as a medium of exchange where people can use it to trade goods and services that both partners want to engage in, and as a commodity to facilitate trade. As soon as you have companies that barely make enough income to pay the minimal payments on their debt you have a situation where people are trading crappy goods and services for quality goods and services. Nobody wants to lose their job no matter how useless it is but hypocritically we go to supermarkets and demand high quality goods and services for low prices so something has to give.
i'll pose my question again. are you seriously arguing that ideological domination plays no role in social construction? i suppose a "yes" or "no" would suffice.

Quote:
Many different libertarians are for legalizing narcotics, allow abortion and gay rights because they feel the govenment shouldn't tell people what to do regarding social issues. They are also are skeptical of military and the interest they have to start military actions to justify themselves. They would vehemently disagree with Marxists on economics. I would allow gay rights but I'm "statist" when it comes to drugs and abortion (unless the woman will die from giving birth or there's rape and incest).

An example would be in Cuba and how they treated gay people. Communists can also be statist on social agendas. A social libertarian would be more buddhist pacifist types and anti war. Of course as BVS would say not ALL libertarians agree with this agenda and I'm generalizing, but I find many libertarians agree on many of those points. Legalizing drugs is the most promenent social liberal attitude I see in libertarians in particular.
the fact that left and right libertarians would disagree on economic issues doesn't really explain your statement that left libertarians are econoimic statists. of course they don't agree on economic issues!

how is cuba an example of any type of libertarianism? what does the country's internment of citizens to contain HIV/AIDS have to do with anything?

what do totalitarians who are statist on social issues have to do with left libertarians?

as a left libertarian, how am i an economic statist?
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 08:39 PM   #52
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I view the essential struggle of our times as between statism and libertarianism.
Interesting...although I view the role of governments as secondary (more of an intermediary) to the essential struggle between the haves and have nots.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 09:43 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
i'll pose my question again. are you seriously arguing that ideological domination plays no role in social construction? i suppose a "yes" or "no" would suffice.
I think a yes or no answer to your question doesn't go far enough.

I believe that ideology should be informed by actual results. You need theories and you also need to compare those theories to the results to see how good your ideology is scientifically. Then you change your ideology to fit what is natural and make new theories. The conversation doesn't stop. Ideology is a good place to start. View Thomas Sowell's terminology of constrained and unconstrained visions and you will get to my leaning.

Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many modern ideological struggles can be traced to two visions: the vision of the anointed and the vision of the constrained realist: Sowell lays out these concepts in his A Conflict of Visions, and The Vision of the Anointed. These two visions encompass a range of ideas and theories. The vision of the anointed relies heavily on sweepingly optimistic assumptions about human nature, distrust of decentralized processes like the free market, impatience with systemic processes that constrain human action, and absent or distorted empirical evidence. The constrained or tragic vision relies heavily on a reduced view of the goodness of human nature, and prefers the systematic processes of the free market, and the systematic processes of the rule of law and constitutional government. It distrusts sweeping theories and grand assumptions in favor of heavy reliance on solid empirical evidence and on time-tested structures and processes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
the fact that left and right libertarians would disagree on economic issues doesn't really explain your statement that left libertarians are econoimic statists. of course they don't agree on economic issues!
No there is a misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
how is cuba an example of any type of libertarianism? what does the country's internment of citizens to contain HIV/AIDS have to do with anything?

what do totalitarians who are statist on social issues have to do with left libertarians?
I thought you were saying you were left-wing economically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
as a left libertarian, how am i an economic statist?
If this is the case then you are not a statist in anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
i'm probably one of the most left wing posters on this board.


Okay, I thought you were saying otherwise on the economic front. So based on these quotes then I should now assume that you are a libertarian economically and socially.

Disregard my prior post of statism. I misread your post.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 10:07 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
Interesting...although I view the role of governments as secondary (more of an intermediary) to the essential struggle between the haves and have nots.
You have to break a few eggs...
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 10:13 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I thought you were saying you were left-wing economically.
i am.
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 10:16 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:47 AM
How much wealth redistribution do you advocate (everybody does it, but to different degrees), and the whom?

You can have free countries with excessive government (Sweden and the UK), but can you have economic parity within a society with a minimal state?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 10:22 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I believe that ideology should be informed by actual results. You need theories and you also need to compare those theories to the results to see how good your ideology is scientifically. Then you change your ideology to fit what is natural and make new theories.
Evidence based policy is a good thing, but your claim of laissez-faire economics being "scientific" is fallacious.

The use of the word "scientific" to describe political theories is a pseudoscientific badge of honour with a long history (scientific socialism for instance); there may well be a point where we can say that certain social conditions make people unhappy, or are not conducive to flourishing, but we should never make the mistake of claiming a scientific justification of these types of political theories.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 11:07 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
How much wealth redistribution do you advocate (everybody does it, but to different degrees), and the whom?

You can have free countries with excessive government (Sweden and the UK), but can you have economic parity within a society with a minimal state?
expropriation doesn't require a state apparatus.
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 11:08 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Evidence based policy is a good thing, but your claim of laissez-faire economics being "scientific" is fallacious.

The use of the word "scientific" to describe political theories is a pseudoscientific badge of honour with a long history (scientific socialism for instance); there may well be a point where we can say that certain social conditions make people unhappy, or are not conducive to flourishing, but we should never make the mistake of claiming a scientific justification of these types of political theories.
this is a good point.
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2008, 11:40 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
expropriation doesn't require a state apparatus.
What specific mechanisms would you use?

Private tax collectors? Angry mobs? Agrarian councils?

If someone doesn't want to hand over most of their hard won cash to everybody else what do you think should be done?

A slightly separate question is what do you think the appropriated property and money should be spent on?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com