Capitalism vs Socialism
- Thread starter plyka
- Start date
I think ultimately his idea was, you manage it as it goes, and he like I do have disdain for those that think they have it figured out.
Keynesian economics made him throw up
He knew we were stupid, but it even flabbergasted him how stupid we were.
He was engaged, nobody wants to be engaged, they just want it fixed.
I just want everything solved so I can move on to the next problem.
That's why they call it the "Dismal Science"
There is no chart of what happened under Hoover that I could ever dig up. But the past nearly four years since the bankruptcy of Lehman in Sept 2008 have been as classic an illustration as there is of the diff between following classical economics and Keynesian.
The crash of '29 happened six months into Hoover's term. By the time FDR came along, the economy was at a dead halt.
We passed three and a half years after Lehman a short time ago. Anyone here, any of you so-called experts, care to show me how the US economy was at a dead halt at the three and a half year mark?
You can't because it didn't happen. If that isn't enough proof for any of you, there's nothing that can be said that would convince you.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say in Keynes' native country.
W churhill quote to me sums up socialism well:
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Unquote
To me, it is so clearly a failure noting since the fall of communism, and now eurosocialism that how anyone who pushes anything but capitalism must be considered essentially immoral at the least.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Unquote
To me, it is so clearly a failure noting since the fall of communism, and now eurosocialism that how anyone who pushes anything but capitalism must be considered essentially immoral at the least.
That's perhaps an excellent example of the first phase more or less properly applied. So what will happen once the economy perks up and the government is able to leverage down some? Will we follow Keynes still, or then just ignore his ideas? I realize that's an unfair question because it's impossible to know the answer at this point.
Let me add, incidentally, I hope once we are firing on all cylinders again we continue to follow Keynes and pay down the debt acquired, as opposed to monetizing most of it.
Well, we'll see. It's unfortunately true you can't control the politicians, they'll do as they please and justify it after the fact with whatever comes to hand.
As for the Fed, who can actually do this (monetize the debt) at will, they need to be merged into and placed under the supervision of the FDIC. There's no reason for them to exist except as an adjunct to that very useful if not particularly glamorous agency.
As for the Fed, who can actually do this (monetize the debt) at will, they need to be merged into and placed under the supervision of the FDIC. There's no reason for them to exist except as an adjunct to that very useful if not particularly glamorous agency.
here's what cracks me up. When there is more of us than there is of them, the game is kind of over. Didn't they already go through this in 1917 Russia?
If I'm in power, I want to throw the dogs a bone, maybe social security, maybe medicare, but I don't need a full blown revolution on my hands.
If you are a true capitalist, then you should realize just how powerful a tool socialism can be.
If I'm in power, I want to throw the dogs a bone, maybe social security, maybe medicare, but I don't need a full blown revolution on my hands.
If you are a true capitalist, then you should realize just how powerful a tool socialism can be.
In the USA you'll seldom hear someone extoll their own perceived virtues of socialism; yet it is clear to me from the facts, and present day examples we have all around us, that the jury may have already reached a conclusion quite different from yours or Mr. Churchill's. To give Sir Winston his due, however, we can't know exactly what Mr. Churchill's meant by "socialism" in the context of his remark, and it's too late to ask him.
All of the "isms", including corporatism, which, if you like, is a form of capitalism, have virtues and defects, though any virtue in either communism or corporatism isn't that obvious. If we just take the present examples available to us, it seems that the countries that are far more socialist than the US; yet have done a better job of maintaining a competitive, capitalist business environment and avoided becoming mired in U.S style corporate welfare are, if we are to judge by the universal attributes of living standards, health, education, personal freedom, crime and poverty, doing the best overall.