Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 18, 2019, 11:23:33 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 274
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Regarding AOC, and the importance of selling green politics on: Today at 01:17:11 pm
I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.  


Just ask former PM Julia Gillard of Australia how her carbon tax ultimately fared.  


The six days from January 12 to 17 are all within Australia's ten hottest days on record, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said. Marble Bar in northwestern Australia hit the highest temperature during the heatwave at a sweltering 49.1 C (120 F) on Sunday -- a January record for the area.Jan 18, 2019

Global warming deniers should be referred to as 'pro death.'

Australia heatwave: Mass animal deaths and roads melting as temperatures reach record high

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-heatwave-latest-temperature-heat-records-stress-new-south-wales-bushfires-a8735541.html

Don't pay the carbon tax, pay more for more frequent road repairs.  The idea that there is a 'free lunch' on not addressing global warming is yet another right wing lie.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Are the Dems in disarray? on: Today at 01:09:30 pm
Secret Socialists have long been a part of the Democratic Party, but now they are declaring themselves and "Capitalism", itself, is becoming an issue for Democrats.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.  
Out of all the Bernie/AOC progressives relevant to American politics at this time, NONE of them have an issue with capitalism itself.  All of these people want and desire capitalism. They have issues with corruption, oligarchy and a lack of regulation. They are striving for a Denmark / Sweden style of system, which you can easily research and see is 100% capitalist.

There is NO battle against capitalism. There are NO calls for communism. I love Bsrnie and AOC to death, but they make a big mistake using the term "socialism" to describe their beliefs. That word is a political cancer; and what they are seeking is a more socialized version of a CAPITALIST system.

The worst part is, you know this Fuzzy. Many conservatives know this actually. They just refuse to stop using this misleading talking point as propoganda. Bernie foolishly gave them an excuse to smear him and they've been running with it for years. What I wonder is, why are conservatives so desperate to use misleading arguments to make the other side SEEM to be wrong, instead if just touting their own supposedly superior ideas? Shouldn't an idea's superiority be able to win hearts and minds over other ideas without trickery? Hmm..

I haven't heard anything from Bernie or AOC that leads me to believe they have any fondness for capitalism. Have you?  Pelosi and Warren want a more regulated capitalism with a larger safety net.  But Bernie and AOC seem to be true believers who will go as far toward socialism as the political environment allows.

Bernie Sanders and AOC are supporters of Democratic Socialism, not social democracy or socialism.  Democratic Socialism advocates for Worker Owned Enterprises.  I know that many Democratic Socialists don't seem to agree, but I think they simply don't understand that as long as these businesses operate on more or less profit maximization principles, they are simply capitalist enterprises with a less common ownership structure.

If they advocate getting away from profit maximization principles, as ideal as that might sound, I think it could easily lead to crony capitalism or the South Korean business model of Chaebol, which has had all sorts of problems.  However, obviously these are presently completely abstract concerns.

AOC herself founded a publishing house that I believe operated on a Democratic Socialist model - Brook Avenue Press.
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 6th Grader refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance, arrested for "disturbance" on: Today at 12:57:07 pm
The irony is that the very liberty spoken of in the pledge is what allows students to refuse it to begin with.

The very liberty spoken of in the U.S Constitution is what allowed would be authoritarian dictator Donald Trump to run for President and is what allows people to enable him.

So attack liberty to oppose a would-be authoritarian dictator? Great logic there.

No more or less so than what you wrote.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 6th Grader refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance, arrested for "disturbance" on: Today at 12:54:08 pm
The irony is that the very liberty spoken of in the pledge is what allows students to refuse it to begin with.

The very liberty spoken of in the U.S Constitution is what allowed would be authoritarian dictator Donald Trump to run for President and is what allows people to enable him.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Regarding AOC, and the importance of selling green politics on: Today at 12:51:46 pm
I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.   


But, I guess you have no problem paying more for all the things that are already negatively impacted by climate change.  "Pay me now or pay me later."
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 6th Grader refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance, arrested for "disturbance" on: Today at 12:42:50 pm
This teacher doesn't even know basic U.S. History. How is she qualified to teach at the 6th grade level? Also if the student was sitting how was he being disruptive? It sounds like she tried to force him to do something that is unconstitutional then got upset that a 6th grader is smarter than she is.



What the hell are you talking about? This story contains no details. All it says is that the kid insulted the US and after a couple back and forth the teacher called in the dean, after which the student was physically disruptive. How you go from that to leaping to the conclusion the teacher is in the wrong I have no idea.

The Washington Post story goes in to more detail.  The teacher tried to force the kid to recite the pledge of allegiance and, after that, back and forth started.

 Yes I read a story with more details.

 The child was sitting in his seat. How is sitting disruptive?

 The teacher told the kid something to the effect of "if you don't love the USA leave". This is patronizing, silly, and possibly racist. The teacher also discounted the students experience and reasoning and uttered some nonsense about her experience with Cuba. Which might be valid to her but has nothing to do with what the student was saying.

 This is basic stuff that is settled law. Students can not be forced to pledge at school or games in public institutions. They also can not be disciplined for refusing to do so. This has been ruled to violate their constitutional rights. This is only a story because the teacher made it one. I would call up the ACLU, if I was this kid's parents. If they ACLU hasn't already called them.

As I said, right wing political correctness.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 6th Grader refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance, arrested for "disturbance" on: Today at 12:23:58 pm
This teacher doesn't even know basic U.S. History. How is she qualified to teach at the 6th grade level? Also if the student was sitting how was he being disruptive? It sounds like she tried to force him to do something that is unconstitutional then got upset that a 6th grader is smarter than she is.



What the hell are you talking about? This story contains no details. All it says is that the kid insulted the US and after a couple back and forth the teacher called in the dean, after which the student was physically disruptive. How you go from that to leaping to the conclusion the teacher is in the wrong I have no idea.
Beet is quite correct.

From the story itself:
Quote
The district did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday, but a school spokesman told the Ledger, a local newspaper, that students are not required to participate in the pledge.

The spokesman, Kyle Kennedy, told the newspaper that the teacher, Ana Alvarez, wasn’t aware of that policy and would no longer work with the district.

AHEM. Maybe certain people could read the story before leaving snarky one-liners? Roll Eyes

Quote
After the confrontation began, the school’s dean of students tried unsuccessfully to calm the student down, asking him to leave the class 20 times, police said.

“The school resource officer then intervened and asked the student to exit the classroom and he refused,” the department said. “The student left the classroom and created another disturbance and made threats while he was escorted to the office.”

According to Bay News 9, the student denied making threats.

This is what the arrest was about. Whether or not this account by the school is accurate is undetermined at this time but this is not about refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Can we all save our outrage for actual issues like Trump acting like Victor Orban?

His refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance is the underlying issue.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 6th Grader refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance, arrested for "disturbance" on: Today at 12:09:31 pm
Yet another example of right wing political correctness.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 6th Grader refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance, arrested for "disturbance" on: Today at 12:09:00 pm
This teacher doesn't even know basic U.S. History. How is she qualified to teach at the 6th grade level? Also if the student was sitting how was he being disruptive? It sounds like she tried to force him to do something that is unconstitutional then got upset that a 6th grader is smarter than she is.



What the hell are you talking about? This story contains no details. All it says is that the kid insulted the US and after a couple back and forth the teacher called in the dean, after which the student was physically disruptive. How you go from that to leaping to the conclusion the teacher is in the wrong I have no idea.

The Washington Post story goes in to more detail.  The teacher tried to force the kid to recite the pledge of allegiance and, after that, back and forth started.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Canadian Election 2019 on: Today at 12:02:45 pm
First post scandal poll is out from Campaign Research

Conservative: 37%
Liberal: 32%
NDP: 14%
Green: 7%
Bloc: 5%
People's: 3%

Large change from pre-scandal polling but not a major shift from the last Campaign Research poll, which had the Liberals and Tories statistically tied.

Could be accurate but this is Nick Kouvalis' firm.
11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Canadian Election 2019 on: Today at 11:57:05 am
Ah sh-t.

There's an argument to be made that this is all the NDP's fault for bucking Tom Mulcair. He'd be ravaging the government on the daily in Question Period and come off like a reasonable, responsible, progressive leader. Instead there's bumbling Singh who has a snowflake's chance in Hell of presenting the NDP as a reasonable alternative to the Liberals.

But I digress.

NDP voters made a serious miscalculation. I know they wanted someone to outcharisma Trudeau but it's the Liberals. Something like this was bound to happen eventually.

The Conservatives are even more corrupt, they're just more brazen about it and they have most of the media on their side.

For instance, CBC did a series of stories about a decade ago on how the Conservatives helped the pipeline industry cover up oil spills, but outside of the CBC, it was never reported on.
12  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The Crisis of American Democracy Distilled on: February 17, 2019, 07:43:34 pm
The "polarization threatens liberty" argument ignores a very key fact - the centrists are the ones who disdain democratic rule, not the "extreme" ideologues.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

Just look at the small House vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 for a good example. It was almost exclusively from the most left-wing Democrats and the most right-wing Republicans.

Except right now Donald Trump has been threatening democratic institutions for the last two years (fortunately fairly incompetently) and pretty much the entire Republican Party has rolled under him.

You can't make a broad conclusion off a single data point in regards to the vote on the Patriot Act.  It's also not exactly intellectually honest to say that anybody who voted for the Patriot Act doesn't support democracy.  There certainly are problems with the Patriot Act, but most of those who opposed it didn't offer anything beyond 'don't do anything' which wasn't exactly a viable response at that time either.

In regards to the survey, it breaks down 'centrists' vs 'far left' and 'far right' with people self identifying on I gather from looking at the survey itself a 1-10 scale. if the 'centrists' are anybody from 3-8, they comprise 80% of people.  I'm not sure that you can determine much from a survey like that.

Also, as has been pointed out here previously, the questions were asked on a 1-4 scale. It could simply be that the 'centrists' did not give many '1' or '4' answers as they might be the least likely to 'strongly' believe in something.  So, that would also skew the results.

Essentially, it's probably not the case that that study provided evidence of what it claimed to show.
13  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The Crisis of American Democracy Distilled on: February 17, 2019, 06:41:38 pm
The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

We can talk all day about how the media unfairly covered Trump to the detriment of both his primary opponents and the Clinton campaign, but the fact is that the fretting by media personalities during the campaign and afterwards was all of a certain type. I don't dislike the media--far from it, they're how I get most of my news! That said, things such as conferences on the "Fourth Estate" occurred in an environment where, for the organizes and speakers, it was unimaginable that one might credibly doubt what they have to say all of the time! The ethos of journalism calls on people to question authority, but fails to account for when large news corporations are themselves authorities--they have the power to employ conscious and unconscious bias, to choose what to cover, and to issue public cries for certain causes. It of course doesn't help that news agencies have now liberally mixed the transmission of information with the opinion-based roles of "talk show hosts". Yes, Fox does this too. Maybe more than any other channel, I wouldn't know. That doesn't excuse the purveyors of "real" news any bit. And when journalists and, perhaps with far more guilt, news anchors and talk show hosts are called to account, they tend to hide behind journalistic principles. They're a fine set of principles. But merely laying claim to certain values means nothing in and of itself--otherwise, the Church would have no scandals.

I don't know what this has to do with what you wrote originally.

Okay.

Okay, well how about this. When was this mythical time when liberal orthodoxy dominated?
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Do recessions cause polarization? on: February 17, 2019, 05:47:36 pm

Huh

TARP was actually defeated initially.

https://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/

I suppose you could spin it positively as a bi-partisan defeat.
15  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The Crisis of American Democracy Distilled on: February 17, 2019, 05:46:17 pm
The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

It's not stupid or false. It's incomplete, certainly, and typically subtle. Mainstream media articles almost always assume "liberal as default" in their day-to-day writings. They use terminology which frames debates on left-wing terms. Right wing movements are framed as "anti-" ("anti-abortion rights" as opposed to "pro-life" or "pro-fetal rights", "anti-immigration" as opposed to "pro-immigration control", "anti-gay rights" as opposed to "pro-religious freedom" etc.) while similarly restrictive left wing movements are framed are "pro-" ("pro-gun control" as opposed to "anti-gun rights", etc.). On the rare occasion that the left is cast as "anti-", it's always against something obviously bad such as "anti-sexual assault" or "anti-hate speech" when they could just as easily be cast as "anti-due process" or "anti-free speech" on their respective issues.

When international/local events such as the Argentinian abortion vote occur, you're much more likely to see interviews and reporting from the perspective of the left-wing group. A left-wing victory is cast as a victory for progress, while a right-wing victory is a "disappointment" or a setback. Statements by the right as taken as uncharitably as possible (e.g. "second amendment folks" implying a call to assassinate Hillary, Trump's comments about subgroups being generalized to larger groups, Trump's recent "I didn't have to do this" comment, Kavanaugh's comments as "bitter" rather than legitimately aggrieved) while similar statements by the left are interpreted away or simply not covered. Outlandish stories such as the Covington or Sussie stories are repeated as fact immediately because they fit a predefined narrative and disappear when they're proven wrong.

This biased framing is especially pernicious because (I'd bet) a lot of the media likely doesn't realize they're doing it. It just feels natural to them.

Pro-fetus instead of anti abortion is fine by me.  Most people in the media now ridiculously refer to them as 'pro life.'  Anti gay rights are far from the same as 'pro religious freedom'  (maybe pro 'freedom' for 'religious' people to dictate how others live their lives)  and that you equate the two certainly suggests it's you who have the extreme bias.

However, in regards to Trump, while I think there is no question the media in general has a lot to answer for in terms of the initial extreme amount of coverage that he received and that he wasn't taken or treated initially as a serious candidate, I think it's also clearly the case that he was for quite a long time given the benefit of the doubt.  For instance, it wasn't until months later that the media checked on Trump's false claim that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and only later did they determine that it was false.  I think it's hard to dispute that this led to some foolish people believing that Trump was the 'peace candidate.'
16  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The Crisis of American Democracy Distilled on: February 17, 2019, 05:42:55 pm
The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'

We can talk all day about how the media unfairly covered Trump to the detriment of both his primary opponents and the Clinton campaign, but the fact is that the fretting by media personalities during the campaign and afterwards was all of a certain type. I don't dislike the media--far from it, they're how I get most of my news! That said, things such as conferences on the "Fourth Estate" occurred in an environment where, for the organizes and speakers, it was unimaginable that one might credibly doubt what they have to say all of the time! The ethos of journalism calls on people to question authority, but fails to account for when large news corporations are themselves authorities--they have the power to employ conscious and unconscious bias, to choose what to cover, and to issue public cries for certain causes. It of course doesn't help that news agencies have now liberally mixed the transmission of information with the opinion-based roles of "talk show hosts". Yes, Fox does this too. Maybe more than any other channel, I wouldn't know. That doesn't excuse the purveyors of "real" news any bit. And when journalists and, perhaps with far more guilt, news anchors and talk show hosts are called to account, they tend to hide behind journalistic principles. They're a fine set of principles. But merely laying claim to certain values means nothing in and of itself--otherwise, the Church would have no scandals.

I don't know what this has to do with what you wrote originally.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: How does the GOP rebrand and reinvent nationally as a party? on: February 16, 2019, 08:57:07 pm
Truth be told Drumpf coalition would probably be quite salient it if wasn't for his sleaze and Russiagate. We see that increasingly in Europe. It's a question of the messenger, not the message.

I will also add they will eventually have no choice but to counter Democrats over-the-top female identity politics by playing over-the-top male identity politics. It's the only way they will start peeling off a good chunk of non-whites votes.

It wouldn't work, because for Republicans their over the top identity politics is all about defending entrenched interests, and most minority males won't sympathize with that.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Pat Caddell dead at 68 on: February 16, 2019, 08:26:55 pm
His malaise is over.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Do recessions cause polarization? on: February 16, 2019, 07:46:42 pm
Recessions do seem to make people less generous which leads to more extreme politics, especially from those on the right.

The surveys of Americans at the turn of the century seem to indicate that in the United States anyway.
20  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Should teetoalers be allowed to serve on juries in DUI cases? on: February 16, 2019, 06:42:42 pm
As someone who regularly picks DUI juries: absolutely. And that's not just from the perspective of the state; it can go both ways. Usually, on a panel of 20 we'll have between 4 and 7 non-drinkers. The only time their non-drinking is a genuine problem is when it comes from DUI-related experience, like a sibling being killed by a drunk driver. But for religious non-drinkers or those who don't like the taste of alcohol, there can be good reasons both sides would want to keep them on the panel. Obviously, as the State we would be hoping that they'd automatically dislike drinkers...but there are very good reasons why that wouldn't be true and why the defense would want a teetotaler.

For one, many non-drinkers have less experience overall with alcohol. I've had some non-drinkers on jury panels even tell me they don't think they've ever been around a drunk person. There are plenty of DUIs where a defense attorney would LOVE someone like that on their jury. In that case, the defense can poke all sorts of holes in the signs of impairment that officers testify to (i.e. my client could naturally have a flushed face, allergies could have caused the bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol is only proof of consumption, not impairment) without that juror knowing better from personal experience what an impaired person looks like. And on the other hand, you have non-drinkers who are recovering alcoholics. They're also a possible choice for both parties. On one hand, many of them do come down hard on drinkers. But on the other hand, they'll often compare what they see on a DUI/body camera video or in officer testimony to their own experiences and if they think "this defendant doesn't look anywhere near as bad as I did when I was drinking" we as the State have basically lost them. So much that goes into choosing jurors depends on the specifics of both the facts of the case and the personal quirks of each juror.

There is no juror who you can guarantee will vote the way you want them to in the jury room. That's why at my office we often call them "forces of darkness." Former police officers can automatically trust police or they can hate police witnesses for doing things differently then the way they used to do it. Some women can put themselves in a domestic abuse victim's shoes, but many cannot and are more inclined to victim-blame. Its the same with non-drinkers; they aren't a solid block. Outside of family members of one of the parties, I think its a terrible idea to eliminate any broad category of person before voir dire.

According to Gallup, 38% of Americans don't drink any alcohol.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Are the Dems in disarray? on: February 16, 2019, 06:39:06 pm
The so-called Green New Deal may have shifted the 'Overton Window'

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/some-gop-lawmakers-are-thawing-on-climate-change

Some GOP lawmakers are thawing on climate change
‘There are some things I’m willing to look at,’ said House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows

I don't think the 'Green New Deal' or 'Medicare for All' were ever more than slogans, but AOC does seem to appreciate the way to shift debate.

"Shimkus agreed with the sentiment that Democrats’ Green New Deal created an opportunity to craft a more politically-moderate approach to addressing climate that could receive buy-in from his party."
22  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The Crisis of American Democracy Distilled on: February 16, 2019, 03:14:45 pm
The paradox of the media issue is that liberalism and leftism spent centuries assaulting the sources of "orthodox truth": "Believe in X, not the Church or the State." There came a point when they were finally in a position to themselves be the sources of orthodoxy, and they were surprised that alternatives would emerge. "Why would anyone question the media when we are the media!?" It gets even funnier when you consider that liberal punditry longs nostalgically for a time when they were considered the unquestionable authorities on everything. It's almost as though there's a spirit of the past they would like to recapture; perhaps they would like to "Make America Great Again"? Tools and arguments are entirely rotational based on who controls what.

The stupid and false myth of the 'liberal media.'
23  General Discussion / History / Re: Cause for Stagflation of the 1970s on: February 16, 2019, 09:42:19 am
I assume my reply to your post was the reason behind you asking this:

"1.Keynesian economics failed to address the problem of inflation of the 1970s (starting in the late 1960s.)  Keynesian theory held that unemployment and inflation could not rise at the same time, they argued that a nation could have a little more inflation for a little less unemployment. 

Essentially the idea behind this was that due to the circulation of money, there was a fiscal multiplier effect to government spending.  The government would put money into the economy and due to it being spent multiple times, jobs would be created.

Monetarists showed that in normal economic times (i.e no recession) new money introduced into the economy without an increase in productive capacity (or output) would just result in inflation: "too much money chasing too few goods."  They showed "in the long run, the fiscal multiplier is zero" (or "dead" in the original quote.)

So, this change in economic theory removed the argument for governments to try to 'fine tune' the economy to reduce unemployment."


I think there are two ways to answer your question: either with an analogy or with a simplified mathematical explanation, unfortunately, I'm not smart or capable enough to come up with either.

If you ask me what you don't understand about my post, I might be able to figure something out.
24  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of Friedrich Nietzsche on: February 15, 2019, 10:51:54 pm
As a philosopher, he found his Nietzsche.
25  General Discussion / History / Re: Cause for the rise of neoliberalism on: February 14, 2019, 12:33:09 pm
Was the global turn to neoliberalism in the 70s and 80s a organic process brought about by changes in the academy, a change in public sentiment, and a reaction to the excesses of government...

...or was the causality reversed and neoliberalism was something that was mainly astroturfed into existence over time by the forces of capital/special interests?

A lot of it is a result of the massive economic downturn of the 1970s, in degrees and manners simply unexplainable by prior models, and the total sense of stagnation and ineffectual responses of the governments of the 1970s (throughout the entire West, not just the Ford and Carter Administrations in the US, though they're both great examples). The general sense that people needed to try something new and that Keynesian models weren't addressing the problem really helped open the door up for new approaches.

Remember, the 1970s was characterized by: stagnant growth, high interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment at the same time, coupled with staggeringly high energy costs due to the oil shock. That combination should've been impossible. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

1.Real GDP growth in the 1970s is actually much higher than is generally believed.

I think the answer is 'all of the above' (depending on what neo-liberalism) means.  In reference to the 'Washington Consensus', all of the above.

At the organic level, there were changes in economic theory and changes in technology that favored private sector domination, but there was also a massive propaganda campaign by corporations and many in the media.  Ronald Reagan summed this up as 'government is not the solution, government is the problem.'

I can go in to more detail if anybody is interested.

By all means

1.Keynesian economics failed to address the problem of inflation of the 1970s (starting in the late 1960s.)  Keynesian theory held that unemployment and inflation could not rise at the same time, they argued that a nation could have a little more inflation for a little less unemployment.  

Essentially the idea behind this was that due to the circulation of money, there was a fiscal multiplier effect to government spending.  The government would put money into the economy and due to it being spent multiple times, jobs would be created.

Monetarists showed that in normal economic times (i.e no recession) new money introduced into the economy without an increase in productive capacity (or output) would just result in inflation: "too much money chasing too few goods."  They showed "in the long run, the fiscal multiplier is zero" (or "dead" in the original quote.)

So, this change in economic theory removed the argument for governments to try to 'fine tune' the economy to reduce unemployment.

2.Changing technology.  I don't think people today appreciate the amount of government involvement in the economy prior to the 1980s.  The initial impetus of de-regulation, starting under President Nixon and continuing under President Carter, was to try to reduce inflation (it actually worked.)  The federal government, for instance, not only used to set the rates that long haul truckers charged, but they set the trucking schedules, the routes, and based on these, the number of drivers and companies as well.  The initial purpose was to increase competition in trucking to decrease trucking rates.

This deregulation actually occurred before changing technology. However, with the invention of such things as e-mail, spreadsheets, and the internet (pre world wide web) it became much easier for individual companies to do their own scheduling and so on, and coordinate it with the businesses that hired them.  This effected the airlines, led to 'just in time' inventory, containerization and probably a whole bunch of other things.

3.Starting in the 1960s, a number of right wing business people became concerned with the 'creeping socialism' in the United States and started campaigns to blame the government for all problems and to create concerns over loss of 'freedom.'  (I'd like to find out more about this myself.)  So, this led from 'government spending and deficits and trying to 'fine tune' the economy can be counterproductive' and 'regulations that dictate business conditions can stifle innovation' to the 'neoliberal' extreme of 'all social spending and unions are bad' and 'all regulations are bad' (or virtually all.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 274


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines