Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 04:16:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 75
1  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 09:35:58 pm
A reasonable inflation isn't necessary a bad thing. Unemployment is the main problem.

Define "reasonable."

2-3% inflation is typically regarded as a sign of a healthy economy as the price level is increasing due to increasing consumption spending, which increases aggregate demand and therefore GDP.

Exactly. As long as consumer inflation is below 3 percent, there is room for expansionary monetary policy.

money chasing too few goods? is that what you are saying?
2  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 09:29:34 pm
The market takes care of unemployment. Inflation is determined by alot of things; too high wages for one lead to too high prices. This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods. Low taxes and low wages are the best way to increase the value of the dollar.  You will have less money in the system but people will be able to afford more in the long run. Unemployment is caused by wages being too high as well because the money that is lost due to wage increases has to be made up for by laying off workers. Now they are dependent on the government for money and can't find work. The bottom line is that politicians in Washington for the most part aren't capable of understanding the free market because if they did then they would be making a living in the private sector rather than running for office. Unemployment can be helped with tax cuts but it's profits that must result from cutting taxes that really allows jobs to be created. This is why jobs are always the last thing to come in a recession recovery.

Inflation helps people pay off debt, and helps to build a new economic growth, and is just one of the uncomterble things that is necessary for growth. In short at most inflation is only a necessary evil, but to think any less is stupid.

// This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods.//
What do you think of this economic concept: Time value of money? A dollar is worth more today than it is tomorrow because of this very concept. Finally the value of the dollar is effected more by our balance of trade, and the only reason the dollar is low is because we are importing more than we export, and thus the value of the dollar loses its exchange value. This could continue forever or as long as we like, and can be changed whenever we want. This is because if policy makers want a stronger dollar we could simply create or disolve a trade deal like we did in the late 70's and early 80's under reagan to make the dollar stronger.  Finally lets say that the united states continues to pursue its weak dollar trade policy does that mean the currency will crash? not exactly and this is because our dollar can always be exchanged for T-Bills, and vice versus.  Thus our dollar is safe, but importantly is fixed to the value of our government, the most powerful, and greatest government this world has ever known. America will continue to dominate and destroy all who opposes it, by simply outlasting its detractors.

Now go out there and read a book on economics, and than come back to me with what you have learned. I suggest you read some nobel prize winning essays.

It would help people pay off debt as long as their interest rates haven't gone up and as long as their making more money. That part is true. However, either way you go in a circle with the wages and inflation. We can raise wages which causes prices to go up and deflates the dollar. Or we can decrease wages which causes prices to go down and have a stronger dollar. I prefer the latter. However, the difference is that with higher wages you end up with higher unemployment.


so you are worried more about wage inflation? me too, but I think wage inflation may just lead to a higher natural unemployment rate for years to come, and thus our ultimate obstacle will be sticky wages. Than again prices are normally sticker on the way downward than up...I think?

Yes I'm worried about wage inflation. Alot of the minimum wage laws are political promises made to get politicians reelected. If more people worked for less money then the unemployment rate would go down. Only then will you see a decrease in overall prices.

minimum wages do not have an effect like that on all real wages, and the effect is nill to none. What i fear is that we will not generate enough growth, and inflation for our market to keep up with the population. Thus leading to a situation where the natural unemployment rate is 7%,prices are too low, and beggar thy neighber policy.

Ah yes the more people you have the higher unemployment will go unless of course you keep adding jobs.

we won't have much new jobs if inflation does not kick in to help pay off debt, and create a new economic base on which a company expand from. Finally, if we don't have good amounts of inflation the velocity of money is going to suck. Finally our dollar needs to weaken,but right now it has been pretty stable. Thus we are trapped in a time period where things are just not going to get better.
3  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 09:21:48 pm
The market takes care of unemployment. Inflation is determined by alot of things; too high wages for one lead to too high prices. This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods. Low taxes and low wages are the best way to increase the value of the dollar.  You will have less money in the system but people will be able to afford more in the long run. Unemployment is caused by wages being too high as well because the money that is lost due to wage increases has to be made up for by laying off workers. Now they are dependent on the government for money and can't find work. The bottom line is that politicians in Washington for the most part aren't capable of understanding the free market because if they did then they would be making a living in the private sector rather than running for office. Unemployment can be helped with tax cuts but it's profits that must result from cutting taxes that really allows jobs to be created. This is why jobs are always the last thing to come in a recession recovery.

Inflation helps people pay off debt, and helps to build a new economic growth, and is just one of the uncomterble things that is necessary for growth. In short at most inflation is only a necessary evil, but to think any less is stupid.

// This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods.//
What do you think of this economic concept: Time value of money? A dollar is worth more today than it is tomorrow because of this very concept. Finally the value of the dollar is effected more by our balance of trade, and the only reason the dollar is low is because we are importing more than we export, and thus the value of the dollar loses its exchange value. This could continue forever or as long as we like, and can be changed whenever we want. This is because if policy makers want a stronger dollar we could simply create or disolve a trade deal like we did in the late 70's and early 80's under reagan to make the dollar stronger.  Finally lets say that the united states continues to pursue its weak dollar trade policy does that mean the currency will crash? not exactly and this is because our dollar can always be exchanged for T-Bills, and vice versus.  Thus our dollar is safe, but importantly is fixed to the value of our government, the most powerful, and greatest government this world has ever known. America will continue to dominate and destroy all who opposes it, by simply outlasting its detractors.

Now go out there and read a book on economics, and than come back to me with what you have learned. I suggest you read some nobel prize winning essays.

It would help people pay off debt as long as their interest rates haven't gone up and as long as their making more money. That part is true. However, either way you go in a circle with the wages and inflation. We can raise wages which causes prices to go up and deflates the dollar. Or we can decrease wages which causes prices to go down and have a stronger dollar. I prefer the latter. However, the difference is that with higher wages you end up with higher unemployment.


so you are worried more about wage inflation? me too, but I think wage inflation may just lead to a higher natural unemployment rate for years to come, and thus our ultimate obstacle will be sticky wages. Than again prices are normally sticker on the way downward than up...I think?

Yes I'm worried about wage inflation. Alot of the minimum wage laws are political promises made to get politicians reelected. If more people worked for less money then the unemployment rate would go down. Only then will you see a decrease in overall prices.

minimum wages do not have an effect like that on all real wages, and the effect is nill to none. What i fear is that we will not generate enough growth, and inflation for our market to keep up with the population. Thus leading to a situation where the natural unemployment rate is 7%,prices are too low, and beggar thy neighber policy.
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / no one dares to debate me? on: June 21, 2010, 09:19:43 pm
Fine, than i will start arguing with the left, and use every form of unconvential unheard of conservative out there that i know of.(i.e the malinvestment that caused the 1937 recession)? Does anyone realize that such a argument plays into the mystical version of how conservatives see the market? They think that the market will punish us for our sins, and purposesly malivest to weed out the bad parts of the market. I realize that it is stupid, and horrible thinking to submit to such an ideology. Unfotunately i have no choice but to start argueing from that view because of yall.
5  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Celebrity Libertarians on: June 21, 2010, 09:16:15 pm
Thats it i have had a enough.
6  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Welfare and Poverty on: June 21, 2010, 09:14:42 pm
Rule of thumb tells us that changes in the business cycle effect poverty even in the absence of poor support programs. This is important to remember when talking about the effect that anti-poverty programs have had on the poverty rate from 1965-1987. Thus before I can state "the war on poverty effectively reduced poverty by 11%!" I must account for the extraneous variable which would be the business cycle.

The business cycle can best be expressed by GDP, and this is because it is the most widely used measure when dealing with the health of our economy. Thus changes in GDP should reflect Changes in the business cycle and in turn effect the poverty rate, unemployment rate, wages and so forth.

Before the 1960's the poverty rate was dropping by 1% each year, but after the war on poverty started the rate began to decrease by 2-3% each year. Eventually this rate began to bottom out in 1974, and the poverty rate has never gotten any lower. In fact after individual benefits began to level out we find that the poverty rate only decreased by a few percent when the economy was doing well, but began to increase at a more dramatic rate after reagan cut funding for programs.

Thus in the end we find that poverty is reduced during boom times, but without substantial efforts to reduce poverty it is obvious that the economic boom may not make up for the difference. Thus I think our government should increase spending on poverty in order to aid the economy in reduction, but also minimize the impact of downturns in the business cycle.
By the way don't try to bring out the correlation does not equal causation crap, because I accounted for the extraneous variable. Thus it can be expressed as Correlation Implies Causation. In short, the war on poverty is strongly corelated with reducing poverty levels by half. The (correlation does not equal causation fallcy does not work here, as it does not apply to data that includes the extraneous variable)
7  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who was the best President in the last 40 years? (excluding Obama) on: June 21, 2010, 09:10:19 pm
don't you realize that inflation is sticky on the way down? that is why the inflation in prices during the 70's was so high!
8  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 09:06:45 pm
The market takes care of unemployment. Inflation is determined by alot of things; too high wages for one lead to too high prices. This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods. Low taxes and low wages are the best way to increase the value of the dollar.  You will have less money in the system but people will be able to afford more in the long run. Unemployment is caused by wages being too high as well because the money that is lost due to wage increases has to be made up for by laying off workers. Now they are dependent on the government for money and can't find work. The bottom line is that politicians in Washington for the most part aren't capable of understanding the free market because if they did then they would be making a living in the private sector rather than running for office. Unemployment can be helped with tax cuts but it's profits that must result from cutting taxes that really allows jobs to be created. This is why jobs are always the last thing to come in a recession recovery.

Inflation helps people pay off debt, and helps to build a new economic growth, and is just one of the uncomterble things that is necessary for growth. In short at most inflation is only a necessary evil, but to think any less is stupid.

// This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods.//
What do you think of this economic concept: Time value of money? A dollar is worth more today than it is tomorrow because of this very concept. Finally the value of the dollar is effected more by our balance of trade, and the only reason the dollar is low is because we are importing more than we export, and thus the value of the dollar loses its exchange value. This could continue forever or as long as we like, and can be changed whenever we want. This is because if policy makers want a stronger dollar we could simply create or disolve a trade deal like we did in the late 70's and early 80's under reagan to make the dollar stronger.  Finally lets say that the united states continues to pursue its weak dollar trade policy does that mean the currency will crash? not exactly and this is because our dollar can always be exchanged for T-Bills, and vice versus.  Thus our dollar is safe, but importantly is fixed to the value of our government, the most powerful, and greatest government this world has ever known. America will continue to dominate and destroy all who opposes it, by simply outlasting its detractors.

Now go out there and read a book on economics, and than come back to me with what you have learned. I suggest you read some nobel prize winning essays.

It would help people pay off debt as long as their interest rates haven't gone up and as long as their making more money. That part is true. However, either way you go in a circle with the wages and inflation. We can raise wages which causes prices to go up and deflates the dollar. Or we can decrease wages which causes prices to go down and have a stronger dollar. I prefer the latter. However, the difference is that with higher wages you end up with higher unemployment.


so you are worried more about wage inflation? me too, but I think wage inflation may just lead to a higher natural unemployment rate for years to come, and thus our ultimate obstacle will be sticky wages. Than again prices are normally sticker on the way downward than up...I think?
9  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 09:03:25 pm
i'll make the argument againts myself if nobody responds in two days. you have a chance to prove that i am wrong, and if you fail than i will argue againts myself in order to grow wiser.
10  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 08:55:37 pm
The market takes care of unemployment. Inflation is determined by alot of things; too high wages for one lead to too high prices. This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods. Low taxes and low wages are the best way to increase the value of the dollar.  You will have less money in the system but people will be able to afford more in the long run. Unemployment is caused by wages being too high as well because the money that is lost due to wage increases has to be made up for by laying off workers. Now they are dependent on the government for money and can't find work. The bottom line is that politicians in Washington for the most part aren't capable of understanding the free market because if they did then they would be making a living in the private sector rather than running for office. Unemployment can be helped with tax cuts but it's profits that must result from cutting taxes that really allows jobs to be created. This is why jobs are always the last thing to come in a recession recovery.

Inflation helps people pay off debt, and helps to build a new economic growth, and is just one of the uncomterble things that is necessary for growth. In short at most inflation is only a necessary evil, but to think any less is stupid.

// This deflates the value of the dollar and inflates the price of goods.//
What do you think of this economic concept: Time value of money? A dollar is worth more today than it is tomorrow because of this very concept. Finally the value of the dollar is effected more by our balance of trade, and the only reason the dollar is low is because we are importing more than we export, and thus the value of the dollar loses its exchange value. This could continue forever or as long as we like(in other words its to are advantage to keep the dollar low, and this is something we are doing on purpose), and can be changed whenever we want. Thus why do you think policy makers want a low dollar? Probably because they know a thing or two about economics, or just accidenlty happen to respect some macro economic basics...which you respect right? This is because if policy makers want a stronger dollar we could simply create or disolve a trade deal like we did in the late 70's and early 80's under reagan to make the dollar stronger.  Finally lets say that the united states continues to pursue its weak dollar trade policy,... does that mean the currency will crash? not exactly and this is because our dollar can always be exchanged for T-Bills, and vice versus.  Thus our dollar is safe, but importantly is fixed to the value of our government, the most powerful, and greatest government this world has ever known. America will continue to dominate and destroy all who opposes it, by simply outlasting its detractors.

Now go out there and read a book on economics, and than come back to me with what you have learned. I suggest you read some nobel prize winning essays.
11  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 11:07:31 am
What an old poll - wish I could change my vote on this one!

how did you vote and why?

This thread does not consider cost push inflation, and i am assuming it is only talking about price inflation, but not any other kind of inflation.

I voted in favor of prioritizing inflation as compared to unemployment, as at the time I was a right-winger.

But yes, few people understand that the inflation of the 70 through early 80s was not in fact any kind of indictment of Keynesian-ism, nor an effective argument for neo-liberalism, but rather just a supply shock.

maybe you should post more in this forum about inflation. Their are a lot of misconceptions about it. For example my father comes from the generation that had to deal with supply shocks, and thus until this economic crisis he had an inherent disagreement with inflation.
12  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Summary of political beliefs on: June 21, 2010, 11:01:38 am
Make love not war.
13  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Inflation vs. Unemployment on: June 21, 2010, 10:52:20 am
What an old poll - wish I could change my vote on this one!

how did you vote and why?

This thread does not consider cost push inflation, and i am assuming it is only talking about price inflation, but not any other kind of inflation.
14  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Celebrity Libertarians on: June 21, 2010, 10:50:49 am
For example austrian economists routinely argue that the cause for the 1937 recession was not government cut backs, but was instead accumulated malinvestment. In other words they think the economy experienced a double dip because of forces within the economy. In fact most of the time I have spent arguing with libertarians has usually been over ethics and economics. Sometimes many historical events will be thrown into the discussions for context,but we normally go beyond that.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rahm Emanuel to Retire After 6-8 Months on: June 20, 2010, 11:26:31 pm
Well, so much for him staying to become the liberal Karl Rove.

is the liberal karl rove a vulgar conservative?
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who was the best President in the last 40 years? (excluding Obama) on: June 20, 2010, 11:07:27 pm
Clinton and carter were the best presidents before obama, and after nixon. Just goes to show that you don't have to do much to look better than a republican president.

Ford>Carter

how so?

Carter, unlike Ford, failed to handle inflation or reduce the inflation rate under his Presidency. Also, Carter failed in handling the Iranian hostage crisis.


Carter did appoint Volcker, and secondly he had nothing to do with the supply shock of 1979. On the other hand ford was not president during a supply shock, or an unexpected increase in the inflation rate. Remember consumer inflation is primarily a problem if it is unexpected like it was in 74, and 79.

Inflation began increasing under Carter at the beginning of 1977. He only appointed Volcker two years later.
ok, but when did inflation primarily become a problem?

Depends who you're asking. Considering it was 5% at the start of 1977 and began rising again at that point, it could be argued that inflation started becoming a serious problem again in early 1977.

what was the difference between each year. For example during the oil shock inflation rose more dramatically.

The yearly averages were 5.8, 6.5, 7.6, 11.3, and 13.5 for 1976, 77, 78, 79, and 80 respectively. Also, inflation increased by 1.5% between the start and end of 1977, 2.2% for 1978, 4.0% for 1979, and actually decreased 1.4% in 1980.

Here is the link for my data:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

So it appears that the Iranian Revolution and resulting oil shock might have accelearated the rise of inflation, but even before the Iranian Revolution and oil shock, inflation was already at/near double-digits, which is double what it was (5%) at the start of Carter's Presidency.

was inflation primarly a political issue due to the oil shocks? Steady increase in the inflation rate are fine,but if inflation increases at abnormal pace than it is usually a problem. For example inflation could increase anywhere from 2-3% per year, but if the increase breaks from that trend than investors will start to lose out.

From what I learned in my Econ class, a inflation rate above 4 or 5% is bad news economically, regardless of whether it continues to increase at a constant pace or not.

//From what I learned in my Econ class, a inflation rate above 4 or 5% is bad news economically, regardless of whether it continues to increase at a constant pace or not.//
Respond to prior response before engaging in this question.
did the proffesor, or texboot ever explain why that is?
17  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who was the best President in the last 40 years? (excluding Obama) on: June 20, 2010, 11:05:36 pm
Clinton and carter were the best presidents before obama, and after nixon. Just goes to show that you don't have to do much to look better than a republican president.

Ford>Carter

how so?

Carter, unlike Ford, failed to handle inflation or reduce the inflation rate under his Presidency. Also, Carter failed in handling the Iranian hostage crisis.


Carter did appoint Volcker, and secondly he had nothing to do with the supply shock of 1979. On the other hand ford was not president during a supply shock, or an unexpected increase in the inflation rate. Remember consumer inflation is primarily a problem if it is unexpected like it was in 74, and 79.

Inflation began increasing under Carter at the beginning of 1977. He only appointed Volcker two years later.
ok, but when did inflation primarily become a problem?

Depends who you're asking. Considering it was 5% at the start of 1977 and began rising again at that point, it could be argued that inflation started becoming a serious problem again in early 1977.

what was the difference between each year. For example during the oil shock inflation rose more dramatically.

The yearly averages were 5.8, 6.5, 7.6, 11.3, and 13.5 for 1976, 77, 78, 79, and 80 respectively. Also, inflation increased by 1.5% between the start and end of 1977, 2.2% for 1978, 4.0% for 1979, and actually decreased 1.4% in 1980.

Here is the link for my data:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

So it appears that the Iranian Revolution and resulting oil shock might have accelearated the rise of inflation, but even before the Iranian Revolution and oil shock, inflation was already at/near double-digits, which is double what it was (5%) at the start of Carter's Presidency.

was inflation primarly a political issue due to the oil shocks? Steady increase in the inflation rate are fine,but if inflation increases at abnormal pace than it is usually a problem. For example inflation could increase anywhere from 2-3% per year, but if the increase breaks from that trend than investors will start to lose out.

From what I learned in my Econ class, a inflation rate above 4 or 5% is bad news economically, regardless of whether it continues to increase at a constant pace or not.

This is what I learned from a PHD student.

Inflation is only bad if it is unexpected. If there was a sudden, unexpected inflation then it could be damaging because it may cause people to make poor decisions. Like expanding a business because it appears that profits have gone up, and not realizing that costs have too. But if inflation is stable and consistent it gets built into the system. For instance we have a steady 2.5% inflation rate, if I am a lender and I want to earn 3% interest I can build my rate around the inflation rate by making my rate 5.5%. It just gets built into the system.

Finally , inflation is necessary. Not a lot of it, but a little.That is why hot economic productivity is strongly correlated with lots of inflation, and in fact ever since the dawn of the era inflation has been common. Over time people increase, productivity increases, GDP increases, and likewise the money-supply naturally needs to increase. [additionally fighting inflation and fighting unemployment are mutually exclusive strategies]

This is also something very similar to what a particular textbook i am thinking of right now, and that i could probably buy in stores. In fact this very same textbook has almost the same exact words that the book uses, almost.
18  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What are you listening to right now? on: June 20, 2010, 06:49:00 pm

music outside of america sucks.
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What are you listening to right now? on: June 20, 2010, 06:47:19 pm
It rox dude.

yah but you gotta pay extra for howerd stern
20  General Politics / Economics / Re: Agriculture and GDP Per Capita PPP on: June 20, 2010, 06:43:52 pm
what point were you trying to prove?
21  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who was the best President in the last 40 years? (excluding Obama) on: June 20, 2010, 06:39:52 pm
Clinton and carter were the best presidents before obama, and after nixon. Just goes to show that you don't have to do much to look better than a republican president.

Ford>Carter

how so?

Carter, unlike Ford, failed to handle inflation or reduce the inflation rate under his Presidency. Also, Carter failed in handling the Iranian hostage crisis.


Carter did appoint Volcker, and secondly he had nothing to do with the supply shock of 1979. On the other hand ford was not president during a supply shock, or an unexpected increase in the inflation rate. Remember consumer inflation is primarily a problem if it is unexpected like it was in 74, and 79.

Inflation began increasing under Carter at the beginning of 1977. He only appointed Volcker two years later.
ok, but when did inflation primarily become a problem?

Depends who you're asking. Considering it was 5% at the start of 1977 and began rising again at that point, it could be argued that inflation started becoming a serious problem again in early 1977.

what was the difference between each year. For example during the oil shock inflation rose more dramatically.

The yearly averages were 5.8, 6.5, 7.6, 11.3, and 13.5 for 1976, 77, 78, 79, and 80 respectively. Also, inflation increased by 1.5% between the start and end of 1977, 2.2% for 1978, 4.0% for 1979, and actually decreased 1.4% in 1980.

Here is the link for my data:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

So it appears that the Iranian Revolution and resulting oil shock might have accelearated the rise of inflation, but even before the Iranian Revolution and oil shock, inflation was already at/near double-digits, which is double what it was (5%) at the start of Carter's Presidency.

was inflation primarly a political issue due to the oil shocks? Steady increase in the inflation rate are fine,but if inflation increases at abnormal pace than it is usually a problem. For example inflation could increase anywhere from 2-3% per year, but if the increase breaks from that trend than investors will start to lose out.
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Celebrity Libertarians on: June 20, 2010, 06:25:53 pm
While I don't like the extreme True Scotsman purists who try propagate their version of libertarianism as absolute truth, me thinks this website makes a pretty broad interpretation of what is libertarian.

a lot of interent libertarians think so. Alan Greenspan considers himself to be a libertarian, and i will respect the fact that he wants to be labled as such.

Greenspan was an Ayn Rand fanboy in the 60s but he is not and never was a libertarian.
sorry, but Greenspan is a self-described libertarian. Obviously you have no respect for individuals and you care only about the label....which is meaningless any way.

I'm sorry, but just because Alan Greenspan considers himself to be a libertarian doesn't mean I should be forced to think fo him as one either.
Individualism works both ways HoffmanJohn.

nobody is forcing you to listen to Alan Greenspan give his high and mighty opinion of ludwig von mises  and other influential libertarian thinkers. Perhaps Alan Greenspan is a little closer to Adam Smith than you would like, but you are just going to have to accept the fact that many libertarians are not state right fundamentalists, or anti-central banking.

Well okay, thanks for making yourself a little more clearer on this one HoffmanJohn.
Believe it or not I consider myself to be a pretty open minded guy on libertarianism, hell it doesn't bother me if guys like Vince Vaugn, Denis Leary, or Bill Hicks are considered libertarians, hell it doesn't even bother me when Gramps or dead0man (although I do chuckle a little bit) claim to be libertarians.
Hell, I am very accepting of a wide plethora of "libertarian" views, but Alan Greenspan (by his own admission) is an Objectivist, not a libertarian.
Maybe you should Read Alan Green spans new book. In any event the Libertarians on this forum are kind years behind the libertarians on mises, and facebook, but at least they do not shelter themselves from the opposistion. I know of many powerful libertarian arguments that are much more sophisticated than the arguments i have found on this forum.
23  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Summary of political beliefs on: June 20, 2010, 05:58:03 pm

General philosophy: Liberal

Abortion: Supportive because it is scientifically proven that particular functions to support human life do not occur until after the 5th month.

Separation of Church and State: Political candidates should not be allowed to expressed their
religious views, but more importantly churches should be taxed.

Marriage: anyone no matter what gender or sexual preference should be allowed to mary.

Affirmative Action: Support because companies should voluntary hire quallified minorities while conducting searches done in good faith. every company has to have an ethical code of conduct, and thus every company should also wrote their own affirmative action policy as well.

Gun Control: gotta have a permit, and must meet soft standards to own a gun.

Death Penalty Immoral and violates basic modern ethical principles,but should be allowed on an international level.

Smoking can be done on your own personal property.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research support.

USA PATRIOT Act Support various provisions in the law,but I disagree with the more contraversial aspects of the bill.
[
b]Immigration[/b] open borders.

Taxes current system is too low, and I think we should enter a multilateral agreement with canada ,and mexico in order to establish a tobin-tax. re-enstate the estate tax.

Spending Spend to increase demand, and therfore bring in more tax revenues.

Health care Public option

trade Supportive of free trade, and low tariffs. Wouldn't mind the establishment of a tobin tax,but it must be done on a multilateral level in order to work.

foreign policy Seems like obama is doing pretty good, and i agree with his flexible doctrine up to now.

Economic issues: Tobin Tax system to prevent potential future bailout of third world countries like mexico, breaking up the banks isn't going to do anything unless we institute structural reforms. Strengthen anti-trust laws, and reverse many of the deregulation, and funding cuts that have been going on since the end of carter's first term.

poverty: We are the richest nation in the world, and the biggest economy....we should spend trillions on the poor. The wealthy can go cry about it after the problem is eliminated.
 
24  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Celebrity Libertarians on: June 20, 2010, 04:53:13 pm
While I don't like the extreme True Scotsman purists who try propagate their version of libertarianism as absolute truth, me thinks this website makes a pretty broad interpretation of what is libertarian.

a lot of interent libertarians think so. Alan Greenspan considers himself to be a libertarian, and i will respect the fact that he wants to be labled as such.

Greenspan was an Ayn Rand fanboy in the 60s but he is not and never was a libertarian.
sorry, but Greenspan is a self-described libertarian. Obviously you have no respect for individuals and you care only about the label....which is meaningless any way.

I'm sorry, but just because Alan Greenspan considers himself to be a libertarian doesn't mean I should be forced to think fo him as one either.
Individualism works both ways HoffmanJohn.

nobody is forcing you to listen to Alan Greenspan give his high and mighty opinion of ludwig von mises  and other influential libertarian thinkers. Perhaps Alan Greenspan is a little closer to Adam Smith than you would like, but you are just going to have to accept the fact that many libertarians are not state right fundamentalists, or anti-central banking.
25  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Celebrity Libertarians on: June 20, 2010, 04:21:31 pm
While I don't like the extreme True Scotsman purists who try propagate their version of libertarianism as absolute truth, me thinks this website makes a pretty broad interpretation of what is libertarian.

a lot of interent libertarians think so. Alan Greenspan considers himself to be a libertarian, and i will respect the fact that he wants to be labled as such.

Greenspan was an Ayn Rand fanboy in the 60s but he is not and never was a libertarian.
sorry, but Greenspan is a self-described libertarian. Obviously you have no respect for individuals and you care only about the label....which is meaningless any way.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 75


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines