|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aka Dave
Joined: 02 May 2008
Location: Down by the river
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Arguing with a delusional Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, libertarian wing-nut is like arguing with a Scientologist. A collosal waste of time.
One of these guys actually said that there should be "private currencies". Completely, freaking unhinged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You're my new hero, aka Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
And those who understand economics have always considered Bush to be a socialist - a communist/socialist - because he intended to force his common values on others (war on drugs, war on women's right to conrol their bodies, war on personal liberty etc = the major emphasis on the total communist man.)
|
That's closer to fascism than it is to socialism. Fascism tends to put more regulation on private lives and less regulation on the economy whereas socialism(like in the UK or the EU) is generally the reverse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aka Dave wrote: |
| One of these guys actually said that there should be "private currencies". Completely, freaking unhinged. |
So, you're completely absent of any historical information/perspective on the subject?
There are private currencies now, in the US. There are barter networks. I'd like to see metals backed currencies compete with the $. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
How many English majors who have never taken a course in biology would attempt to instruct a surgeon on the details of how to perform a specific operation?
Yet here they are, posting about economics, finance and accounting, when unfortunately, they actually know more about surgery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greedy_bones wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
And those who understand economics have always considered Bush to be a socialist - a communist/socialist - because he intended to force his common values on others (war on drugs, war on women's right to conrol their bodies, war on personal liberty etc = the major emphasis on the total communist man.)
|
That's closer to fascism than it is to socialism. Fascism tends to put more regulation on private lives and less regulation on the economy whereas socialism(like in the UK or the EU) is generally the reverse. |
Communism and Fascism are both types of Socialism, so there are many similarities and overlaps. You will find followers of either in any of the various "socialist" movements and groupings. It is, in fact, Karl Marx who is the father of the progressive income tax we have in America today, but he also helped bring us the war on drugs.
Communism and Fascism are in the same corner on the Political Map, along with all forms of hard line socialism and totalitarianism. They have varying degrees of the same ideology, with different areas of emphasis.
Communism was always more concerned with creating the "good communist man" than in finance. It was more about control of the people's morality and behavior: forcing women to have abortions or denying women the right to choose, regulation of sexual behavior, persecution of homosexuals, banning drugs or alcohol etc.
Fascism meanwhile is more about large national programs for the "good of the nation": national electrification programs, national jobs programs, national energy programs, national service... Basically, anything big, national and powerful so as to enhance the power of the State.
In America, the Republicans have long been more communist in promoting family values, the war on drugs, regulating sexual behavior and morality, and restricting women's rights.
Democrats have long been more Fascist in trying to create big national programs under rigid control of the State.
And yes, this truth has been long recognized by real economists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disaster Socialism Creep in Brazil
| Quote: |
[Brazilian President Luiz In�cio Lula da Silva] has created eight new state companies. Most are fairly small outfits for specific tasks, such as energy research. A recent proposal to revive Telebr�s, the defunct state telecoms monopoly, to provide broadband internet services to the poor, looks different. The private sector does not provide services in poor, rural areas, because the investment involved would be unprofitable. This irritates the government, which considers access to the internet to be a matter of �citizenship�. But rather than subsidise customers to encourage telecoms companies to invest, the government wants to go into this business itself.
The state�s economic clout is expanding in other ways. In January Petrobras, which already has its hands full with a massive investment for deep-sea oil, raised its stake in Braskem, a big private-sector chemical company, by 2.5 billion reais ($1.4 billion). Lula has announced that Eletrobr�s, a state-controlled electricity company once seen as almost vestigial, should be expanded to become a �Petrobras of the electricity sector�. Meanwhile, BNDES and the pension funds of the big state companies have increased their holdings in many of Brazil�s largest private firms. In the case of BNDES, this has been part of a government policy to create Brazilian champions that are big enough to compete abroad.
For some opponents this is all retrograde. Paulo Renato Souza, the education minister in the S�o Paulo state government and a close ally of Ms Rousseff�s main rival for the presidency, Jos� Serra, says: �We have had 15 years of continuity, but in the past year things have changed. This is the old PT, the party that we saw in the elections of 1994 and 1990.� Amaury de Souza, a political consultant, argues that �the government used last year�s crisis as an excuse to push a particular ideology.�
As Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who preceded Lula as president, puts it, [the economic divide] is over whether Brazil would do better with a �bureaucratic capitalism in which the state orders and resolves things� or a �competitive, liberal capitalism�. |
Brazil's Presidential campaign may be a referendum on state encroachments into the economy. Naturally, the Economist sides with the opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| [mises'] philosophy created the mess. |
Completely oblivious to the role of the govt in credit expansion?
| Quote: |
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis. It was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/do_facts_matter.html |
Quite pitiful how Ya-ta boy accuses a poster by the name of "mises" that his philosophy caused the mess. Ludwig von-Mises (and Hayek) demonstrated that a government-created credit expansion (lent out at low interest rates to people of low, or no, creditworthiness) necessarily results in a credit contraction. Predicted the entire thing, in other words.
Henry Hazlitt, way back in 1946:
| Quote: |
| Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to �buy� houses that they cannot really afford. |
So whose philosophy created the mess, again? Hmm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good one, Sergio-spotter's badge for you! (regarding Hazlitt)
ontheway had a good point about the communist persecution of homosexuals. It never ceases to amuse that so many leftists praise Castro AND gay rights, all the while ignoring the fact that for much of his reign Fidel mercilessly persecuted Cuban homosexuals(to say nothing of journalists and trade unionists). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
