PDA

View Full Version : Pat Buchanan Speaks Up. Economic Nationalism In Vogue........



ElMariachi
11-09-2006, 07:22 PM
I'm not usually a big fan of Buchanan's, but this has some good common sense idea's behind it. I think America has been too involved with world issues without fixing our own. for far too long. America has yet to learn that handouts, any sort of financial aid, will not earn you gratitude, but often disdain.



"Well, the American people have spoken, and in his own good time, Franklin will tell us what they have said."

So one wag explained the Democratic landslide that buried the Hoover Republicans in 1932. The country was voting against three years of Depression and the president and party it held responsible.

But what was it voting for? FDR supplied the answer: a New Deal.

All week, politicians and pundits will be putting their spin on the election returns, but there is a more certain way to know what Americans are voting for, and voting against. Which issues, in the tight races, did the candidates campaign on, and what issues did they consciously seek to avoid?

Among the more dramatic events of this election year was one that has been little debated: The return of the trade-and-jobs issue, front and center, to American politics.

Note: Almost no embattled Republican could be found taking the Bush line that NAFTA, or CAFTA with Central America, or MFN for China, or globalization was good for America and a reason he or she should be re-elected. But in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, attacks on free trade were central elements of Democratic strategy.

"Protectionist Stance Is Gaining Clout," ran a headline inside The Wall Street Journal election eve. "Democrats Benefit by Fighting Free Trade, and Next Congress Could Face Changing Tide."

The Journal focused on Iowa's 1st District, an open seat given up by GOP veteran Jim Nussle, who was running for governor. As the Journal related, "Bidding for a seat held by a free-trade Republican for nearly two decades, Democrat Bruce Braley had gained an edge by taking the opposite view: bashing globalization. ...

"Mr. Braley has made opposition to the Bush administration free-trade agenda a centerpiece of his campaign. He has run ads blaming the state's job losses on Bush's 'unfair trade deals.'"

Sherrod Brown, the Democratic challenger to Ohio's GOP Sen. Mike DeWine, also launched assaults on globalization and made the Bush trade deals a central feature of his campaign.

With the 2006 election, America appears to have reached the tipping point on free trade, as it has on immigration and military intervention to promote democracy. Anxiety, and fear of jobs lost to India and China, seems a more powerful emotion than gratitude for the inexpensive goods at Wal-Mart. The bribe Corporate America has offered Working America -- a cornucopia of consumer goods in return for surrendering U.S. sovereignty, economic security and industrial primacy -- is being rejected.

What is ahead is not difficult to predict.

The Doha Round of global trade negotiations is dead. Even if Bush cuts a deal with Europe, it could not pass the new Congress. In mid-2007, when Bush asks for renewal of his fast-track authority -- presidential power to negotiate trade deals, while cutting Congress out of any role save a yes-or-no vote -- it will be amended drastically or batted down handily.

But if the free-trade era is over, what will succeed it?

A new era of economic nationalism. The new Congress will demand restoration of its traditional power to help in shaping trade policy. When the U.S. trade deficit for 2006 comes in this February, it will hit $800 billion, pouring more fuel on the fire.

Even before Tuesday, wrote the Journal, "the Republican-controlled Congress (had) already showed its sensitivity ... helping derail a deal by Arab-owned Dubai Ports World to purchase the commercial operation at five U.S. ports and approving millions of dollars to build a wall to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico."

A rising spirit of nationalism is evident everywhere in this election, not simply in the economic realm. Americans are weary of sacrificing their soldier-sons for Iraqi democracy. They are weary of shelling out foreign aid to regimes that endlessly hector America at the United Nations. They are tired of sacrificing the interests of American workers on the altar of an abstraction called the Global Economy. They are fed up with allies long on advice and short on assistance.

Other leaders in other lands look out for what they think is best for their nations and people. Abstractions such as globalism and free trade take a back seat when national interests are involved.

China and Japan manipulate their currencies and tax polices to promote exports, cut imports and run trade surpluses at America's expense. Europeans protect their farms and farmers. Gulf Arabs and OPEC nations run an oil cartel to keep prices high and siphon off the wealth of the West. Russians have decided to look out for Mother Russia first and erect a natural gas cartel to rival OPEC. In Latin America, the Bush's Free Trade Association of the Americas is dead.

We are entered upon a new era, a nationalist era, and it will not be long before the voices of that era begin to be heard.

Lloyd Braun
11-09-2006, 07:26 PM
"We are entered upon a new era, a nationalist era, and it will not be long before the voices of that era begin to be heard."

I certainly hope so.

xer0xed
11-09-2006, 07:42 PM
Let's get out and vote for Buchanan in the primaries. I want him and Ron Paul to run for President/VP asap.

Lloyd Braun
11-09-2006, 07:46 PM
Let's get out and vote for Buchanan in the primaries. I want him and Ron Paul to run for President/VP asap.

I thought he wasn't running in 08? I believe there is some sort of "Get Buchanan to run" signature petition in New Hampshire (IIRC) though.

I think Buchanan should give it another shot. His last run on the Reform ticket was slightly embarassing (remember the Reform party brawl?).

xer0xed
11-09-2006, 07:50 PM
I thought he wasn't running in 08? I believe there is some sort of "Get Buchanan to run" signature petition in New Hampshire (IIRC) though.

I think Buchanan should give it another shot. His last run on the Reform ticket was slightly embarassing (remember the Reform party brawl?).

Oh, he's running alright. The conservative constituency will demand it if they've got a brain left in their skull that hasn't been corrupted by the mainstream media. We want a REAL conservative this time, not Giuliani or McCain, who will just continue Bush's neo-con compassionate (i.e. fake) conservative garbage. I just went to rasmussenreports.com and the polls are already showing in their favor. We can't be so brainwashed that people are already choosing the "lesser of evils" even in a primary. That is just pathetic.

Lloyd Braun
11-09-2006, 08:04 PM
Oh, he's running alright. The conservative constituency will demand it if they've got a brain left in their skull that hasn't been corrupted by the mainstream media. We want a REAL conservative this time, not Giuliani or McCain, who will just continue Bush's neo-con compassionate (i.e. fake) conservative garbage. I just went to rasmussenreports.com and the polls are already showing in their favor. We can't be so brainwashed that people are already choosing the "lesser of evils" even in a primary. That is just pathetic.

LOL just imagine the international uproar if Buchanan were president. The UN? Finished. NAFTA? Dead. Multi-culturalism? Pfft. "Entangling alliances"? You're on your own.

A future "Aztlan" in the American SouthWest? I think not. :D

Gunsgirlsnglory
11-09-2006, 08:08 PM
LOL just imagine the international uproar if Buchanan were president. The UN? Finished. NAFTA? Dead. Multi-culturalism? Pfft. "Entangling alliances"? You're on your own.

A future "Aztlan" in the American SouthWest? I think not. :D
I would love it. Oh man that would be awesome.

xer0xed
11-09-2006, 08:23 PM
LOL just imagine the international uproar if Buchanan were president. The UN? Finished. NAFTA? Dead. Multi-culturalism? Pfft. "Entangling alliances"? You're on your own.

A future "Aztlan" in the American SouthWest? I think not. :D

It would be amazing.

LuckyDragon
11-09-2006, 09:35 PM
Buchanan is an anti-freetrade knucklehead. The guy needs to start reading the economic freedom index and which countries have used protectionist policies. Protectionism, Isolationism are why he will never win.


He is also deluded into believing that if Israel were destroyed that all American foreign policy problems would disappear. Hmm, this must be why France and Spain which both rabidly support the Palestinian cause were bombed. Mabye he wants a happy fantasy scenario in which economic freedom is destroyed and America can deal with Eurabia.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 04:47 AM
Buchanan is an anti-freetrade knucklehead. The guy needs to start reading the economic freedom index and which countries have used protectionist policies. Protectionism, Isolationism are why he will never win.


He is also deluded into believing that if Israel were destroyed that all American foreign policy problems would disappear. Hmm, this must be why France and Spain which both rabidly support the Palestinian cause were bombed. Mabye he wants a happy fantasy scenario in which economic freedom is destroyed and America can deal with Eurabia.

He's not a protectionist... he's just not a rabid globalist idealogue. If you look at our trade deficit (which economists agree is becoming unsustainable) the last thing we need is government interfering to make importation even easier.

Diesel66
11-10-2006, 05:36 AM
If you look at our trade deficit (which economists agree is becoming unsustainable) the last thing we need is government interfering to make importation even easier.
Remove oil from it and the deficit is very low.

From May, two quarters of dropping.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2006-05-12-march-gap_x.htm

even with the high number from all the oil, exports have risen
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2006/pi20061013_228665.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _investing




Not that having a trade deficit is a bad thing.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 05:43 AM
Remove oil from it and the deficit is very low.

From May, two quarters of dropping.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2006-05-12-march-gap_x.htm

even with the high number from all the oil, exports have risen
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2006/pi20061013_228665.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _investing




Not that having a trade deficit is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing, since it is such a high deficit... have you taken an economics class recently (curious)? It's one of the primary causes of all the stories you read about the shrinking middle class.

G + I + C + (M-X)


(ps, that story was just for the month of March)

Diesel66
11-10-2006, 06:15 AM
It is a bad thing, since it is such a high deficit... have you taken an economics class recently (curious)? Yes and It's one of the primary causes of all the stories you read about the shrinking middle class.

G + I + C + (M-X)
Middle class isnt shrinking though. And the poor are getting richer.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/pov05fig04.pdf

Poverty rate dropping from 22% in 1960 to 12.6% today.

drjjg
11-10-2006, 11:04 AM
The gains from the economy are going almost exlusively to those at the top.


"...an analysis of income-tax data by Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of households own nearly twice as much of the nationís corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago"

"In 38 states where the incomes of the bottom fifth of families grew more slowly than those at the top, incomes at the top rose by an average of $45,800 (62%), while the incomes of the poorest grew by $3,000 (21%)."


"The richest 1% of households -- those with incomes above $237,000 for 2003, the latest year analyzed -- owned 57.5% of all income from capital gains, dividends, interest and rents in 2003, the CBO analysis found. That was up from 53.4% the year before and 38.7% in 1991."

"The poorest fifth of Americans owned 0.6% of corporate wealth in 2003, down from 1.4 percent in 1991."



Link: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P143548.asp

Revolver45
11-10-2006, 01:39 PM
I used to think Pat Buchanan was a kook but he's started winning me over recently and I'm honestly starting to think he's (one of) the only true conservative politicians left out there.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 06:01 PM
Middle class isnt shrinking though. And the poor are getting richer.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/pov05fig04.pdf

Poverty rate dropping from 22% in 1960 to 12.6% today.

Yes, but when you factor in the subject matter we're discussing, over the past 20 years the poverty level has remained the same. (btw I was talking about the middle class getting poorer, not the poor falling below the poverty line)

But, there are benefits to NAFTA/etc. as well, such as more economic efficiency overall. The question is whether you're willing to gradually trade your sovereignty to evolving "agreements" for additional wealth, or if you'd prefer the Constitution stay strong.

We've all seen what has happened in Europe.

Lloyd Braun
11-10-2006, 08:55 PM
I used to think Pat Buchanan was a kook but he's started winning me over recently and I'm honestly starting to think he's (one of) the only true conservative politicians left out there.

Yea he's a paleo. Traditional "old right" conservative. Doesn't represent this recent batch of "neoconservative" idealogy whatsoever.

www.theamericancause.org

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 09:12 PM
Yea he's a paleo. Traditional "old right" conservative. Doesn't represent this recent batch of "neoconservative" idealogy whatsoever.

www.theamericancause.org

Neoconservatism is the spawn of trotskyists and social democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#History_and_origins_of_neoconserva tism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Left-wing_roots_of_Neoconservative_organizations

Compare the trotskyite 'permanant revolution' with the justifications we now hear behind this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#.22Bush_Doctrine.22

(p.s. ever read Iraq's new constitution? It hardly resembles an American republic... it's very socialistic.)

This is just an attempt to figure out the loopy idealogy they've potentially got stuck in their heads, of course.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 09:19 PM
Link of Social Democrats USA to Neoconservatism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats_USA

Irving Kristol (key founder of neoconservatism) former Trotskyist and member of Fourth International:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

LuckyDragon
11-10-2006, 09:21 PM
There is nothing Neo about freetrade it is not an anti-conservative position. Anti-Globalization rallies are held by who? The leftwing.


Here is a question for you xeroxed? Why are the people that are so rabidly so anti-freetrade nearly always on the leftwing or far leftwing? Do you have some perception that freetrade harms Nationalism or will transform the world into global government?


Then why is the UN so anti-freetrade? Anti-Globalization is something that was spawned by the New Left after the fall of Communism. Economic freedom is the foundation of Capitalism. Who are Capitalisms biggest enemies? Communists, the UN, Socialists, Anti-Globalists, anti-freetraders, protectionists, Islamists, dictators, anarchists, welfare states, banana republics, environmentalists.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 09:35 PM
There is nothing Neo about freetrade it is not an anti-conservative position. Anti-Globalization rallies are held by who? The leftwing.


Here is a question for you xeroxed? Why are the people that are so rabidly so anti-freetrade nearly always on the leftwing or far leftwing? Do you have some perception that freetrade harms Nationalism or will transform the world into global government?


Then why is the UN so anti-freetrade? Anti-Globalization is something that was spawned by the New Left after the fall of Communism. Economic freedom is the foundation of Capitalism. Who are Capitalisms biggest enemies? Communists, the UN, Socialists, Anti-Globalists, anti-freetraders, protectionists, Islamists, dictators, anarchists, welfare states, banana republics, environmentalists.

How is the UN anti-free trade? I know WTO, World Bank, etc seem to be in favor of this 'free trade.'

Anyway, since the rest of the world is so socialist, as you've said yourself, why would we want to merge institutionally through agreements with them? There's no disputing that overall free trade increases economic efficiency. The main problem is the threat to sovereignty that grows from these active agreements, with a comparatively minor problem being the trade deficit. I don't think agreements should be made on tariffs (I think tariffs should be avoided, actually) or extraneous hands-on implementation of infrastructure, or the selling of such to foreign entities via US government intervention.

My 'perception' comes from watching what happened out of similar trends in Europe. Now with all of these talks of a North American Union, and congressmen finally proposing bills to prevent such an implementation, the threat to our sovereignty becomes more apparent. It all ultimately boils down to Sam Adams... wealth or liberty?

Guardian
11-10-2006, 09:47 PM
I'm not usually a big fan of Buchanan's, but this has some good common sense idea's behind it. I think America has been too involved with world issues without fixing our own. for far too long. America has yet to learn that handouts, any sort of financial aid, will not earn you gratitude, but often disdain.


Intetnationalism is innevitable and in the long run will benefit the world as a whole. Anyone that has even low level knowledge of economics knows that free trade is the best way to go, it conserves units of labor and increases productivity and resource allocation efficiency for participating nations. When Nafta was enacted under Clinton everyone was very worried, yet after its innaguration Gdp grew faster then it had in decades. See, there is a concept here, if other nations markets are opened up to yours, they will grow, and as they grow you too will grow. A notable exception is the much disliked China. China pegs there currency to the dollar, though in recent years they have allowed for small amounts of weekly float. Nonethless the great balancer of trade in the world is currency. As a countries currency increases the cost of its goods to other nations increase. It is no coincidence that in the mid to late 90s the dollar was overly valued (in part because of the fed) which began the parade of loss of manufacturing.
Chinas currency should be rising faster then it is.


Nonethless the major problem with the US is DEBT. If our dollar begins to fall, and countries begin to use Euros for oil trade, then there is a critical problem that most of you prolly never thought of what about paying debt??

Picture this situation for a moment
Countries as a whole begin using the Euro for petrotrades. Foreign banks suich as china and japan now (thanks to the oil trade) need more euros. They begin to dump Us secureities and dollars on the market. Suddenly between domestic inflation and international dollar flooding we have high danger of inflation. An order to keep foreigners buying debt and curb inflation interest rates would need to be raised. Suddenly, the US can no longer freely print more money since it would hurt inflation more. Now we are faced with higher interest rates (which leads to gdp slow down and more unemployment) and find it increasingly difficult to pay off debt. The above situation could spell disaster far worse then the depression due to the fact the deperssion did not involve exorberant amounts of foreign debt (remember back then we had very little debt the depression was a domestic issue).

Now, based off this real economic potential situation, it is not hard for me to believe the us invasion of iraq was actually meant to preserve the dollar status as the worlds reserve currency and chief oil trade. Remember before we invaded iraq just switched to using Euros, guess what now they use dollars.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 09:54 PM
The artificially high value of the dollar is one of the other factors keeping our trade deficit unsustainably high. As soon as the value of the dollar decreases, people will start favoring domestic goods more often (as would have been normal).

Internationalism is not inevitable. The problem with the efficiency argument is that it focuses more on outputs than on outcomes. Just because the PPF is outside the standard margin and GDP is increasing, doesn't mean that the economy is growing evenly or that sovereignty isn't being compromised. Economic success says nothing about civil liberties, human happiness, or other factors -- especially in an already highly developed economy. I don't want to become further integrated into inter-governmental executive agreements.

Guardian
11-10-2006, 10:14 PM
The artificially high value of the dollar is one of the other factors keeping our trade deficit unsustainably high. As soon as the value of the dollar decreases, people will start favoring domestic goods more often (as would have been normal).

Internationalism is not inevitable. The problem with the efficiency argument is that it focuses more on outputs than on outcomes. Just because the PPF is outside the standard margin and GDP is increasing, doesn't mean that the economy is growing evenly or that sovereignty isn't being compromised. Economic success says nothing about civil liberties, human happiness, or other factors -- especially in an already highly developed economy. I don't want to become further integrated into inter-governmental executive agreements.


I assume you meant when the dollar is lower. Again, sounds nice but see my above post as to why THE DOLLAR CANT BE ALLOWED TO FALL. The US has got itself in a trap, and I can only hope we can somehow get out.


You know your economics, you should also know economics isnt about sovereignty and human emotion.

It also is a common idea that although some individuals may suffer the economy as a whole will progress and improve. If we concentrated to much on the inidvidual, then we would end up like Europe with overextended governmental programs and sponserships. This is why most of Europe has an unemployment level a few points higher then ours. International trade is beneficial to countries involved, the ideas behind comparative advantage show this. International trade allows GDP to expand at a greater rate, you claim this may cause human suffering yet GDP is always equal to the some of national income, and national income increases relative to gdp would help people as a whole. John Meynard Keynes also shows that aggregate demand has 4 components, among them is trade, without trade aggregate demand would fall leading to a decline in the gdp equilibrium.

Unless a nation poccesses every skill and resource of all other nations combined then international trade both innevitable and beneficial. I doubt anyone cna argue we have the above tools necessary for a complete isolationist state to actually have some merit.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 10:30 PM
I assume you meant when the dollar is lower. Again, sounds nice but see my above post as to why THE DOLLAR CANT BE ALLOWED TO FALL. The US has got itself in a trap, and I can only hope we can somehow get out.


You know your economics, you should also know economics isnt about sovereignty and human emotion.

It also is a common idea that although some individuals may suffer the economy as a whole will progress and improve. If we concentrated to much on the inidvidual, then we would end up like Europe with overextended governmental programs and sponserships. This is why most of Europe has an unemployment level a few points higher then ours. International trade is beneficial to countries involved, the ideas behind comparative advantage show this. International trade allows GDP to expand at a greater rate, you claim this may cause human suffering yet GDP is always equal to the some of national income, and national income increases relative to gdp would help people as a whole. John Meynard Keynes also shows that aggregate demand has 4 components, among them is trade, without trade aggregate demand would fall leading to a decline in the gdp equilibrium.

Unless a nation poccesses every skill and resource of all other nations combined then international trade both innevitable and beneficial. I doubt anyone cna argue we have the above tools necessary for a complete isolationist state to actually have some merit.

No, focus on the individual is fundamental to a free society. Collectivistic policies are what breed socialism and fascism. Nonetheless, these policies would eventually be felt on all levels eventually, if taken to their extremes.

GDP is equal to the market value of all the goods produced domestically. I think you missed that part as well. By the way, Keynesian economics has primed the pump for the amazingly large debt we have, so I wouldn't use his short-sighted, needlessly intervening, and savings-ignorant theorems as a solution, when this has been one of the problems you've been mentioning. It doesn't work due to lag.

You can have trade without NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT/etc. It's called letting each government implement its own policies domestically and build infrastructure to accomodate need, not to create economic behavior. Sovereignty and the Constitution are not less important than more wealth.

Getting out of executive agreements with other countries and getting rid of the petrodollar would be sufficient for beginning to decrease our trade deficit and preserving our country. Additional tariffs wouldn't even be necessary (and if implemented individually, would actually just favor some industries over others which would then pit them against international competition, which is a catch-22).

At the rate we're going, with all the imports coming in, the negative savings rates, the rapid consumption, the artificially high dollar value, and the trade deficit contributing to inflation... you're going to see Americans having less free time (already are taking fewer vacations), going into debt, outsourcing, and deviating toward the extremes of the economic spectrum. Once you zero everything out, all this "efficiency" gets you is needless wants for the consumer and more benefit for the largest corporations. The investment would hardly even float as well as it is right now at home, since the corporations would be globalized, and most investment would go to China as a transition economy with a 700+ million work force.

(btw, lower dollar value makes it easier to pay off debt)

Guardian
11-10-2006, 10:43 PM
No, focus on the individual is fundamental to a free society. Collectivistic policies are what breed socialism and fascism. Nonetheless, these policies would eventually be felt on all levels eventually, if taken to their extremes.

GDP is equal to the market value of all the goods produced domestically. I think you missed that part as well. By the way, Keynesian economics has primed the pump for the amazingly large debt we have, so I wouldn't use his short-sighted, needlessly intervening, and savings-ignorant theorems as a solution, when this has been one of the problems you've been mentioning. It doesn't work due to lag.

You can have trade without NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT/etc. It's called letting each government implement its own policies domestically and build infrastructure to accomodate need, not to create economic behavior. Sovereignty and the Constitution are not less important than more wealth.

Getting out of executive agreements with other countries and getting rid of the petrodollar would be sufficient for beginning to decrease our trade deficit and preserving our country. Additional tariffs wouldn't even be necessary (and if implemented individually, would actually just favor some industries over others which would then pit them against international competition, which is a catch-22).

At the rate we're going, with all the imports coming in, the negative savings rates, the rapid consumption, the artificially high dollar value, and the trade deficit contributing to inflation... you're going to see Americans having less free time (already are taking fewer vacations), going into debt, outsourcing, and deviating toward the extremes of the economic spectrum. Once you zero everything out, all this "efficiency" gets you is needless wants for the consumer and more benefit for the largest corporations. The investment would hardly even float as well as it is right now at home, since the corporations would be globalized, and most investment would go to China as a transition economy with a 700+ million work force.

(btw, lower dollar value makes it easier to pay off debt)

Lower dollar value makes it easier to pay off debt as more bills can be printed without as harsh of inflationary consequences, not to mention the higher value itself.

John Maynard Keynes won three nobel prizes, no other person has ever recieved more then one. His policies also dictate in times of economic propserity the surplus is used to help pay off what was used to help increase aggregate demand not spend the surplus like Bush did. Basically the US took his policies as an excuse to overspend when that was not what his principles were about at all. Keynes merely showed that Smiths approach of the invisible hand and the market adjusting doesnt always work (look at the deperssion) and that sometimes the government needs to fill the gdp gap and start momentum. It is also accepted that for every dollar spent by the government more then a dollar is created in gdp value, this is the multiplier effect. If you think adam smiths methods (because that is what we based practice on until Keynes) is correct then perhaps you should reevaluated the depression and keynes himself. If Keynes wasnt gay he woulda have been prime minister (this isnt a gay jab its reailty back then).

Getting rid of the petro dollar as I already stated would spell economic disaster, this is the reason we went to Iraq. If foreign banks dump the dollar, and its value declines, interest rates will have to rise and our ability to sustain debt payments and finance the government would be in grave danger.

xer0xed
11-10-2006, 10:53 PM
The fact that Keynes won nobel medals doesn't make his idealistic theorem work any better. Artificial manipulations of the economy are unnecessary and don't work. The justification for his arguments being based on the awards? That's basically ad verecundiam.

Hehe... the Great Depression was caused by government control over the economy. The Federal Reserve's contraction of the monetary supply led to the stock market crash, which led to the bank runs. This is admitted.

A lot of the 'petrodollar crash' stuff relies heavily on speculation. It all depends on how much of the value is vested in petroleum at the time and how quickly the value of the currency decreases.

Overall: A national classical economy is what is in the best interest of the United States.

Guardian
11-10-2006, 11:24 PM
The fact that Keynes won nobel medals doesn't make his idealistic theorem work any better. Artificial manipulations of the economy are unnecessary and don't work. The justification for his arguments being based on the awards? That's basically ad verecundiam.

Hehe... the Great Depression was caused by government control over the economy. The Federal Reserve's contraction of the monetary supply led to the stock market crash, which led to the bank runs. This is admitted.

A lot of the 'petrodollar crash' stuff relies heavily on speculation. It all depends on how much of the value is vested in petroleum at the time and how quickly the value of the currency decreases.

Overall: A national classical economy is what is in the best interest of the United States.


Keynes was about fiscal policy. Your right the depression was caused at least alot from lack of bank polciy and solvency that the fed didnt help much.

Government control over the economy is split between fiscal and monetary. Hell abck In reagons day the fed chairmen wasnt even on speaking terms with Reagon, they hates eachother. Anyways the depression was caused by lack of government control from the federal reserve. The deperssion would never have been solved if not for keynsian government involvement (assuming no war occured).

You seem to group nobel prizes with any old prize and throw it off as some form of advertisement. The nobel prize is perhaps one of if not the greatest award for intelctual achievement, this is why he is the only one to win more then one.

A national classic economy is the worst for the united states. Modern economics that have long since put classical economics to shame disagree with very valid models and reasoning.


The problem with classical economics which Keynes demonstrated is that wages do not always adjust to the market, many times they are stagnant.

Petrodollar crash does have some speculation, but the general idea is there nonethless. Foreigners hold so much us securities and currency that a quick shift out of dollars in there portfolios would result in a sharp dollar decline. China and Japan know this, and thats why they keep buying them because it puts them in a good economic position to negotiate with us.

Alot of you people seem to think the US is some golden beacon that can disregard the world and still have 5 percent unemployment and a gdp per capita of 42 thousand. Let me tell you, as time goes on we are more and more susceptable, and its not because of trade, its because of wreckless government spending from idiots like Bush and Reagon.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


The only viable solution to the us problem is to tax higher income individuals higher. Due to the principles of the marginal perpensity to consume, this would have the lowest impact on gdp growth and could be used to slowly pay off cumulative debt. There really isnt many other solutions without compensating gdp significantly. But hey, this solution was already put in place about a decade ago, you know, that guy we impeached.

LuckyDragon
11-11-2006, 12:33 AM
Keynes was about fiscal policy. Your right the depression was caused at least alot from lack of bank polciy and solvency that the fed didnt help much.

Government control over the economy is split between fiscal and monetary. Hell abck In reagons day the fed chairmen wasnt even on speaking terms with Reagon, they hates eachother. Anyways the depression was caused by lack of government control from the federal reserve. The deperssion would never have been solved if not for keynsian government involvement (assuming no war occured).

You seem to group nobel prizes with any old prize and throw it off as some form of advertisement. The nobel prize is perhaps one of if not the greatest award for intelctual achievement, this is why he is the only one to win more then one.

A national classic economy is the worst for the united states. Modern economics that have long since put classical economics to shame disagree with very valid models and reasoning.


The problem with classical economics which Keynes demonstrated is that wages do not always adjust to the market, many times they are stagnant.

Petrodollar crash does have some speculation, but the general idea is there nonethless. Foreigners hold so much us securities and currency that a quick shift out of dollars in there portfolios would result in a sharp dollar decline. China and Japan know this, and thats why they keep buying them because it puts them in a good economic position to negotiate with us.

Alot of you people seem to think the US is some golden beacon that can disregard the world and still have 5 percent unemployment and a gdp per capita of 42 thousand. Let me tell you, as time goes on we are more and more susceptable, and its not because of trade, its because of wreckless government spending from idiots like Bush and Reagon.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


The only viable solution to the us problem is to tax higher income individuals higher. Due to the principles of the marginal perpensity to consume, this would have the lowest impact on gdp growth and could be used to slowly pay off cumulative debt. There really isnt many other solutions without compensating gdp significantly. But hey, this solution was already put in place about a decade ago, you know, that guy we impeached.


Actually the unemployment rate is 4.4% and the US produces more in 1:15 minutes then Djibuti does in 1 year. Where did you first succumb to Keynesian theories..Internationalist Economists? If Kenyesian theories were correct then the only reason North Korea would be poorer then Singapore is citizens saving their money. Maybe the fact that the largest recent in Keynesian policy, Japans massive public spending failed miserably?


Everytime Kenyesian economics has been challenged postwar it has lost. But apparently reality isn't one of its strong points. You can go on and keep peddling that economic snakeoil, but the fact is its one giant justification for big government and higher spending. But hey look at Europe they are really kicking ass aren't they? BTW, check out the GDP of Hong Kong which is the freetrade capital of the world and the very antithesis of Keynesian economics. They are pound for pound the most successful economy in the world.

Diesel66
11-11-2006, 05:16 AM
Yes, but when you factor in the subject matter we're discussing, over the past 20 years the poverty level has remained the same. (btw I was talking about the middle class getting poorer, not the poor falling below the poverty line)
Yet you didnt show any evidence. Do you believe the 90s were not positive towards the middle class ?

But, there are benefits to NAFTA/etc. as well, such as more economic efficiency overall. The question is whether you're willing to gradually trade your sovereignty to evolving "agreements" for additional wealth, or if you'd prefer the Constitution stay strong.

We've all seen what has happened in Europe.
There is no loss of sovereignty under NAFTA.

xer0xed
11-11-2006, 07:22 AM
Keynes was about fiscal policy. Your right the depression was caused at least alot from lack of bank polciy and solvency that the fed didnt help much.

Government control over the economy is split between fiscal and monetary. Hell abck In reagons day the fed chairmen wasnt even on speaking terms with Reagon, they hates eachother. Anyways the depression was caused by lack of government control from the federal reserve. The deperssion would never have been solved if not for keynsian government involvement (assuming no war occured).

You seem to group nobel prizes with any old prize and throw it off as some form of advertisement. The nobel prize is perhaps one of if not the greatest award for intelctual achievement, this is why he is the only one to win more then one.

A national classic economy is the worst for the united states. Modern economics that have long since put classical economics to shame disagree with very valid models and reasoning.


The problem with classical economics which Keynes demonstrated is that wages do not always adjust to the market, many times they are stagnant.

Petrodollar crash does have some speculation, but the general idea is there nonethless. Foreigners hold so much us securities and currency that a quick shift out of dollars in there portfolios would result in a sharp dollar decline. China and Japan know this, and thats why they keep buying them because it puts them in a good economic position to negotiate with us.

Alot of you people seem to think the US is some golden beacon that can disregard the world and still have 5 percent unemployment and a gdp per capita of 42 thousand. Let me tell you, as time goes on we are more and more susceptable, and its not because of trade, its because of wreckless government spending from idiots like Bush and Reagon.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


The only viable solution to the us problem is to tax higher income individuals higher. Due to the principles of the marginal perpensity to consume, this would have the lowest impact on gdp growth and could be used to slowly pay off cumulative debt. There really isnt many other solutions without compensating gdp significantly. But hey, this solution was already put in place about a decade ago, you know, that guy we impeached.

The fact that Keynes got an award in the past doesn't make his arguments correct. Anyway, all it does is create an increased reliance on the government sector, which is known for its inefficiency. Also it ended up ruining dual federalism. It's a pretty un-American idealogy.

Classical economics has been very successful, actually. The lack thereof can only be argued by correlation, with the US being in the right place at the right time anyway. (High comparative advantage relative to post-WWII europe being among the reasons) There is no proof that we wouldn't have gotten out of the Depression (as we always did in the past) were it not for Keynesian economics.

Wages are only stagnant temporarily, but increase as the demand for labor goes up during a job shift in a new business cycle.

I'm not saying we should ignore the world, I'm saying that the government should leave the economy and economic matters alone. This includes making free trade agreements.

Actually, if you taxed the rich almost down to their MPC it would cripple investment and create unemployment. The solution would be to periodically cut large government programs during an expansion (counter-cyclical).

xer0xed
11-11-2006, 07:44 AM
Yet you didnt show any evidence. Do you believe the 90s were not positive towards the middle class ?
There is no loss of sovereignty under NAFTA.

The graph you showed has a stagnant poverty line during those years.

On the middle class:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,439766,00.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-kurth_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.3e4b4fe.html
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/01/opinion/opinion_30017667.php
http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=11/7/2006&section_id=4&newsid=42909&spcl=no
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/10/arts/idbriefs11d.php

Many of the articles show how people tend to trend toward socialism during times of percieved economic inequality (which as we all know just makes it even worse).


On the results and evolution of NAFTA:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.CON.RES.487:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52684
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52230
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17868
More: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

Guardian
11-11-2006, 06:06 PM
The fact that Keynes got an award in the past doesn't make his arguments correct. Anyway, all it does is create an increased reliance on the government sector, which is known for its inefficiency. Also it ended up ruining dual federalism. It's a pretty un-American idealogy.

Classical economics has been very successful, actually. The lack thereof can only be argued by correlation, with the US being in the right place at the right time anyway. (High comparative advantage relative to post-WWII europe being among the reasons) There is no proof that we wouldn't have gotten out of the Depression (as we always did in the past) were it not for Keynesian economics.

Wages are only stagnant temporarily, but increase as the demand for labor goes up during a job shift in a new business cycle.

I'm not saying we should ignore the world, I'm saying that the government should leave the economy and economic matters alone. This includes making free trade agreements.

Actually, if you taxed the rich almost down to their MPC it would cripple investment and create unemployment. The solution would be to periodically cut large government programs during an expansion (counter-cyclical).

Im done here

If your trully believe classical economics is better then Keynes you obviously lack economic knowledge. There is a reason why modern economics is dominated by keynesian, its what works and what is used.


I should also remind you that President Hoover was a classsicalist and used trickele down theories to try to get us out of the depression, and yea the only thing that did was get towns named after him "hoovervilles."


Classical economist believe supply creates its own demand, this philosphy ahs long since been refuted in favor of the demand sided market determinance.


The depression just wasnt a "new business cycle" it was a combination of no FDIC (a government program btw), 25 percent unemployment, and 0 investment. Marginal efficency of capital was also low, while a traditional downturn causes marginal efficieny to rebound upwards (which is at least one reason for a recovery).


Modern economics is a combination of keynesian fiscal polcies and moneterists federal reserve policies chiefly from Milton Friedmon. One of the primary determinants of a good economy is strong financial systems and structure. Withouth the federal reserve your system would be much weaker, which is how the depression was. True classicalist would not support a government sponsered bank that oversaw topics such as the reserve requirement and interest. Just look at how much attention interest rates get, please tell me you dont think no oversight at all would end up bettering our economy....


Just about every developed country with a strong economy is not classical, yet you somehow claim the classicalists are very successfull....


Your right there is no proog we wouldnt have gotten out of the depression, however you are wrong in comparing it to "all of the paST" as the depression as I already pointed out was a unique circumstance we have never dealt with. When Hoover tried to use your classical economics the situation only got worse, thats why his ass got out of office.

xer0xed
11-11-2006, 06:10 PM
The Great Depression was unique in its horror due to having been caused by the Federal Reserve (aka government interference). You seem to neglect this premise. Under Hoover we did not have a classical economy, it was monetarist.

Guardian
11-11-2006, 07:15 PM
The Great Depression was unique in its horror due to having been caused by the Federal Reserve (aka government interference). You seem to neglect this premise. Under Hoover we did not have a classical economy, it was monetarist.


Itw as caused by the federal reserve, it was caused from lack of oversieght, why do you think the fdic was created??? The deperession wasnt from government interference, it was from lack ot it.


You keep preaching your classical economics, go into any economics class and see how far it gets you.

xer0xed
11-11-2006, 07:18 PM
Itw as caused by the federal reserve, it was caused from lack of oversieght, why do you think the fdic was created??? The deperession wasnt from government interference, it was from lack ot it.


You keep preaching your classical economics, go into any economics class and see how far it gets you.

Been through plenty... and all of the economists I've met have been classical economists, incidentally.

LuckyDragon
11-11-2006, 07:30 PM
Im done here

If your trully believe classical economics is better then Keynes you obviously lack economic knowledge. There is a reason why modern economics is dominated by keynesian, its what works and what is used.


I should also remind you that President Hoover was a classsicalist and used trickele down theories to try to get us out of the depression, and yea the only thing that did was get towns named after him "hoovervilles."


Classical economist believe supply creates its own demand, this philosphy ahs long since been refuted in favor of the demand sided market determinance.


The depression just wasnt a "new business cycle" it was a combination of no FDIC (a government program btw), 25 percent unemployment, and 0 investment. Marginal efficency of capital was also low, while a traditional downturn causes marginal efficieny to rebound upwards (which is at least one reason for a recovery).


Modern economics is a combination of keynesian fiscal polcies and moneterists federal reserve policies chiefly from Milton Friedmon. One of the primary determinants of a good economy is strong financial systems and structure. Withouth the federal reserve your system would be much weaker, which is how the depression was. True classicalist would not support a government sponsered bank that oversaw topics such as the reserve requirement and interest. Just look at how much attention interest rates get, please tell me you dont think no oversight at all would end up bettering our economy....


Just about every developed country with a strong economy is not classical, yet you somehow claim the classicalists are very successfull....


Your right there is no proog we wouldnt have gotten out of the depression, however you are wrong in comparing it to "all of the paST" as the depression as I already pointed out was a unique circumstance we have never dealt with. When Hoover tried to use your classical economics the situation only got worse, thats why his ass got out of office.


Oh for sure, which is why the majority of economists do nor endorse Keynesian economic policy? Because they aren't informed. You seem to be under the impression that classic economics is a dogmatic theory that has not evolved whatsoever despite the contributions of numerous economists. Keynes General Theory was so replete with errors and most of his predictions have already been debunked and buried.


Japan's huge Keynesian policy in the early 90's to bring themselves out of recession failed miserabley. Anyone who reccommends someone take a college class before the qualified to speak on the matter is like someone who says you have to be a doctor in order to comment on the field of medicine. Most college classes are exceptionally biased. For instance spending the first 1/3 of the class on bashing President Bush, 5 days on Marxism, 3 days on Islam, 2 weeks on the failure in Vietnam, and literally *15* minutes(in the whole class) on conservatism then claiming the class was unbiased and non-partisan. Real world results are far more important then Keynes huge dogmatic "General Theory" and its thousands of loyal devotees.


You ask the people on Wall Street, Stock Brokers, Financial Advisors, Finance industry, economists they will laugh if you start spouting off Keynes General Theory and tell them to take a college class on International Macroeconomist at Berkeley or read Wikipedia to get the "real scoop"

drjjg
11-11-2006, 09:28 PM
The Great Depression was unique in its horror due to having been caused by the Federal Reserve (aka government interference). You seem to neglect this premise. Under Hoover we did not have a classical economy, it was monetarist.


The Federal Reserve is made up of private banks, not the government... you know that.

xer0xed
11-11-2006, 09:32 PM
The Federal Reserve is made up of private banks, not the government... you know that.

Yep, but it still behaves like a government regulator that has unwarranted (and heavily concentrated) control over the economy. It's monetarist and not a free market institution.

drjjg
11-12-2006, 12:40 PM
Yep, but it still behaves like a government regulator that has unwarranted (and heavily concentrated) control over the economy. It's monetarist and not a free market institution.


It behaves 'like a government', because it's been bestowed one of the greatest powers the government(the people) is supposed to have, namely the regulation of the money supply.

Just look at what giving the private sector that much power has done!! They will use it for their own personal gain, whereas under public(representative) control, the benefits return back to the people(in the case of money creation, this means lower taxes and better public services/infrastructure).

The private sector CAN and should deliver a lot of goods and services, but to suggest that it should deliver all of them(that's what a free market would entail), is the height of ignorance. One only needs to observe the private sector's abysmal failure at controlling the money supply. One would assume that the private sector's so called 'efficient brilliance' would have in fact improved the nations finances. On the contrary, the opposite has occured. We are more indebted than ever and income disparity continues to increase.

I truly believe the following quote:

"Unfettered capitalism has replaced communism and fascism as the greatest threat to democracy"

Guardian
11-12-2006, 12:57 PM
The Federal Reserve is made up of private banks, not the government... you know that.


The Federal reserve has helped to stabilize inflation and unemployment pretty well, more then a completly private system could do. A truly private system would be concerned primarily with profit which would cause a policy that favors very low inflations which of course compromizes unemployment. Basically, a private system would rather have lower gdp growth and total output with lower inrflation then a system with reasonable inflation, higher growth rate, and lower unemployment.

Banks cant be trusted privatly. They would use all of there cash reserves to make further loans and have 0 reserve. They would also charge higher interest rates on average. People would have less trust in banks without the FDIC and reserve requirement which means savings would often be placed under a matress or in risky investments as opposed to in banks. With bank trust banks often act as a secure and trustworthy saver for some and at the same time a means for investment and expansion for others.

Bank Regulation and there regulation along with the federal reserve is perhaps the greatest influence and most important aspect of economic growth in our country for half a century.

You look at most developing countries and one common trait is they have a weak financial structure. You cant have a strong financial structure without quality regulation that works for the best of the country. It is a case where private efficient and profit oriented citizens cannot run something in the best intetions of the country where a federal agency can. Trust me, I am not in support of excess government spending and regulation but financial markets is oen area it is needed.