NATION

PASSWORD

Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:22 pm

AuSable River wrote:Do you refute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990's?


Do you refute the fact that govt, spending as % of GDP decreased after the collapse ?


In the words of our friend Sibirsky:

:palm:

more importantly, due to the infinite number of independent variables influencing economic outcomes within society --- it is more effective to engage in a logical refutation of your statistical anecdotal, circumstantial, minutia.


Anecdotal and circumstantial minutiae? I presented you half a decade's worth of quantitative data illustrating that the contraction tapered off and then stopped, stopping at a point well above the spending of most other countries. And that's under the direction of a center-right government with a finance minister who is openly hostile to social protection spending!

Hence, do you seriously think that politicians allocating scarce resources will insure more economic growth than private sector participants ??


Seems to be that way in Norway, as I've shown in the data.
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Inky Noodles
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8567
Founded: Sep 05, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Inky Noodles » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:23 pm

Vareiln wrote:You're one of those "Never trust the government" types, aren't you?

Your argument is BS.

I just won an argument.
Transnapastain wrote:
Inky Noodles wrote:QUICK.

I WANNA ASK SOMEONE TO HOMECOMING.


whaddo I do?!


So I just met you
and this is crazy
but heres my number
homecoming maybe?

*not a valid offer.

~Trans, killing TET's since part 45.

San Leggera wrote:
Veceria wrote:People with big noses have big penises.
Even the females.

Especially the females. *nod*


Hurdegaryp wrote:
Belligerent Alcoholics wrote:Are you OK? :eyebrow:

It's a person called Inky Noodles in a thread that is not exactly known for its sanity in general. Do the math, beerguzzler.


18 year old Virginian

Ravens, O's, and Penguins fan

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:24 pm

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
AuSable River wrote:(Image)

I dont see why it is so difficult for leftists to understand this graphic.

1) sweden had one of the strongest economies in the world in 1970

2) they got complaisant and expanded the welfare state from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990s

3) plainly shown on the graph, they began to downsize the percentage of economy used to fund government in response.

4) they have averted disaster by doing so.

5) this is no guarantee that statists wont regain control of the economy -- indeed that is what they do -- but the oft repeated fantasy that big government is responsible for sweden's 'success' is absurd. Indeed, the heritage supports the notion that sweden's strong free market principles in other areas of the economy, government spending notwithstanding, helps to grow the economy.

in sum, leftists can rarely find the forest through the trees -- hence they fixate on anecdotal and circumstantial in a vain attempt to refute the obvious fact that a government managed economy is nowhere near as strong as a private sector economy.

Why?

again, this is obvious --- politicians react based on political expediency, as a result they are far less governed by economic fundamentals then free market participants.

lastly, the moral implication of a government run economy is anathema to freedom


You...cannot...be...serious. Do you know what the word "relative" means? If so, what is Sweden's % GDP spending, after the contraction (or even during) relative to any other country on that graph? How about afterward? They're right up there with France, which is exactly what the table I presented showed you. And the contraction tapered off and then flattened out, as I said. So how exactly am I missing the fucking forest for the trees if I've been talking about the very trends you're now pointing out the entire time?



comparing sweden to any other country is not a sound method to best analyze the effect of government spending.

for example, i posted sweden's significant drop in government spending as a % of GDP immediately after the financial crisis to show that this was a necessary step to address the destructive effects of the welfare state.

Morever, you still havent answered a single challenge I have thrown at you ---preferring instead to engage in these fallacious anecdotal statistical arguments.

however, if your interested in statistics -- here is one showing canada's reduced spending as a % of GDP and not surprisingly canada's economy has emerged far stronger and more resilient that the USAs

Image

User avatar
Vareiln
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13052
Founded: Aug 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Vareiln » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:27 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Socialdemokraterne wrote:
You...cannot...be...serious. Do you know what the word "relative" means? If so, what is Sweden's % GDP spending, after the contraction (or even during) relative to any other country on that graph? How about afterward? They're right up there with France, which is exactly what the table I presented showed you. And the contraction tapered off and then flattened out, as I said. So how exactly am I missing the fucking forest for the trees if I've been talking about the very trends you're now pointing out the entire time?



comparing sweden to any other country is not a sound method to best analyze the effect of government spending.

for example, i posted sweden's significant drop in government spending as a % of GDP immediately after the financial crisis to show that this was a necessary step to address the destructive effects of the welfare state.

Morever, you still havent answered a single challenge I have thrown at you ---preferring instead to engage in these fallacious anecdotal statistical arguments.

however, if your interested in statistics -- here is one showing canada's reduced spending as a % of GDP and not surprisingly canada's economy has emerged far stronger and more resilient that the USAs

Image

You know, I may not have been on this forum very long, but I've been on the internet for quite some time.
And if you're going to post a picture showing a graph, it's a good idea to also post the source of said picture and the statistics behind it so that others can actually reasonably accept it.

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:28 pm

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
AuSable River wrote:Do you refute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990's?


Do you refute the fact that govt, spending as % of GDP decreased after the collapse ?


In the words of our friend Sibirsky:

:palm:

more importantly, due to the infinite number of independent variables influencing economic outcomes within society --- it is more effective to engage in a logical refutation of your statistical anecdotal, circumstantial, minutia.


Anecdotal and circumstantial minutiae? I presented you half a decade's worth of quantitative data illustrating that the contraction tapered off and then stopped, stopping at a point well above the spending of most other countries. And that's under the direction of a center-right government with a finance minister who is openly hostile to social protection spending!

Hence, do you seriously think that politicians allocating scarce resources will insure more economic growth than private sector participants ??


Seems to be that way in Norway, as I've shown in the data.



read my previous post.

I debunked your cherry picked half decade.

it is irrelevant because it does not start at the baseline of sweden's economic collapse in the 1990s because of the destructive welfare state.

hence, my data is valid and reliable because it juxtaposes the beginning of sweden's attempt to rescue its collapsed economy by beginning the process of reducing governments role in the economy.

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:28 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Socialdemokraterne wrote:
You...cannot...be...serious. Do you know what the word "relative" means? If so, what is Sweden's % GDP spending, after the contraction (or even during) relative to any other country on that graph? How about afterward? They're right up there with France, which is exactly what the table I presented showed you. And the contraction tapered off and then flattened out, as I said. So how exactly am I missing the fucking forest for the trees if I've been talking about the very trends you're now pointing out the entire time?



comparing sweden to any other country is not a sound method to best analyze the effect of government spending.

for example, i posted sweden's significant drop in government spending as a % of GDP immediately after the financial crisis to show that this was a necessary step to address the destructive effects of the welfare state.

Morever, you still havent answered a single challenge I have thrown at you ---preferring instead to engage in these fallacious anecdotal statistical arguments.

however, if your interested in statistics -- here is one showing canada's reduced spending as a % of GDP and not surprisingly canada's economy has emerged far stronger and more resilient that the USAs

Image


You know what's funny? You keep bitching and moaning about how unsubstantiated and unworthy other people's posts are...and yet your assertions are the most baseless and subjective ones in this entire thread.
The only one being fallacious here is YOU, permanently sidestepping every talking point and even misinterpretating whatever little reliable empirical sources you actually find.
Last edited by Liriena on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:29 pm

Liriena wrote:
AuSable River wrote:

Do you have a substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment ?

I didn't see one in your post -- perhaps I missed it.


With all the respect due to a disrespectful, arrogant know-it-all with an attitude...you wound't see a "substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment" if it fell on you like a ton of Economy, History and Philosophy books...starting for Keynes.

Besides, I see no reason to argue with you.


Image

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:29 pm

AuSable River wrote:
The UK in Exile wrote:
many competitive coercive corporations means much more efficent coercive instruments.

how do you respond to this?


i can respond to your illogic this way.

1) a corporation cannot become coercive in a free society -- they get thrown in jail.
by your own argument government is inefficent. if it is forced to compete in the sphere of coercive instruments it will quickly be overshadowed by a a more efficent private competitor. hence it will not be able to throw them in jail. they will be "too well armed to fail"

2) a corporation cannot screw the consumer in a free society --- because consumers cant be coerced to buy something they think is not valued correctly.
it can lie to them, kill anyone who reports the truth, sue or squash lawsuits by brute force lawyering.

3) a corporation cannot screw the consumer or society --- because I will open a firm to compete against them.
only if the compete to sell the best product, rather than to coerce the most customers. or race to make the cheapest product. or form a monopoly.


try reading Jennifer Government, it explains this very well.

how do you respond?
Last edited by The UK in Exile on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:30 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Liriena wrote:
With all the respect due to a disrespectful, arrogant know-it-all with an attitude...you wound't see a "substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment" if it fell on you like a ton of Economy, History and Philosophy books...starting for Keynes.

Besides, I see no reason to argue with you.


Image


Hahaha.... :rofl:


Nope. Keep trying.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:31 pm

Vareiln wrote:
AuSable River wrote:

comparing sweden to any other country is not a sound method to best analyze the effect of government spending.

for example, i posted sweden's significant drop in government spending as a % of GDP immediately after the financial crisis to show that this was a necessary step to address the destructive effects of the welfare state.

Morever, you still havent answered a single challenge I have thrown at you ---preferring instead to engage in these fallacious anecdotal statistical arguments.

however, if your interested in statistics -- here is one showing canada's reduced spending as a % of GDP and not surprisingly canada's economy has emerged far stronger and more resilient that the USAs

Image

You know, I may not have been on this forum very long, but I've been on the internet for quite some time.
And if you're going to post a picture showing a graph, it's a good idea to also post the source of said picture and the statistics behind it so that others can actually reasonably accept it.



cato -- http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ight-north

they presented data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations

feel free to cite your own data or refute mine.

User avatar
Vareiln
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13052
Founded: Aug 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Vareiln » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:35 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Vareiln wrote:You know, I may not have been on this forum very long, but I've been on the internet for quite some time.
And if you're going to post a picture showing a graph, it's a good idea to also post the source of said picture and the statistics behind it so that others can actually reasonably accept it.



cato -- http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ight-north

they presented data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations

feel free to cite your own data or refute mine.

Another piece of advice:
Don't cite a source that is biased, and don't cite a source that claims to be supported by statistics, but doesn't link to, nor present, said statistics.

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:35 pm

AuSable River wrote:comparing sweden to any other country is not a sound method to best analyze the effect of government spending.


however, if your interested in statistics -- here is one showing canada's reduced spending as a % of GDP and not surprisingly canada's economy has emerged far stronger and more resilient that the USAs

(Image)


See how you just contradicted yourself? We're done. Also, CATO? Fucking CATO? We're definitely done.

for example, i posted sweden's significant drop in government spending as a % of GDP immediately after the financial crisis to show that this was a necessary step to address the destructive effects of the welfare state.


I dispute the cause of that banking crisis, and I won't say that again.

Morever, you still havent answered a single challenge I have thrown at you ---preferring instead to engage in these fallacious anecdotal statistical arguments.


No, you've asked me my opinion several times. I challenged your interpretation of the data and you called my argument "fallacious" because it didn't end the way you would've liked it to. The results say that in spite of high levels of government spending in Sweden, even in the presence of relatively high levels of spending on social protection, the Swedish economy (which was stable in the presence of a much larger level of government spending) is stabilizing.

Furthermore, you've yet to establish that "big government" and "corruption" are directly tied to one another. I've given up even trying to drill it through your skull that you're wrong.
Last edited by Socialdemokraterne on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:36 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Vareiln wrote:You know, I may not have been on this forum very long, but I've been on the internet for quite some time.
And if you're going to post a picture showing a graph, it's a good idea to also post the source of said picture and the statistics behind it so that others can actually reasonably accept it.



cato -- http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ight-north

they presented data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations

feel free to cite your own data or refute mine.


Do you want me to talk about Argentina's recovery from the 2001 Crisis, see how far your "everything's better with less spending" argument goes?
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Hebalobia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 06, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Hebalobia » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:42 pm

AuSable River wrote:For example, the reckless and irresponsible financial institutions that engaged in questionable business practices prior to the 2008 crisis successfully went to Washington to get bailed out by Bush, RINO republicans and virtually every democrat in Congress (including obama).

You don't see the irony of this statement?

I suppose we should place our faith in those "irresponsible financial institutions?" And by the way, what allowed them to act so irresponsibly? It was the deregulation pushed through by the Republicans in the early part of the Bush administration.

Here's the bottom line, there is enormous pressure on management in the business world to cut corners and cheat whenever they think they can get away with it. Who's more corrupt, the government or the special interests trying to influence the government?

Here's a news flash for you, don't judge government by politicians. The overwhelming majority of the regulatory professionals at the FAA, FDA, Housing, Education, CDC and the other professional civil service agencies are not corrupt. They're honest middle class employees trying to do their job and protect you and me despite being underpayed and outgunned financially and in terms of knowledge and talent by industry. Yet they show up every day and do a pretty good job. If that's what you call "big government," you're damn right I'm in favor of it.

I interface with government employees in the DoD all the time and I've never met one that's corrupt.

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:43 pm

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
AuSable River wrote:I will debunk your arguments in detail, starting with the following challenges.

1) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

2) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?


...this is what you call debunking my arguments in detail? Fine. I'll baby you.

1. do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

I dispute that this is what caused the banking crisis, an argument you've still yet to address. I said that it was the doing of Bildt Dennis' deregulation of credit markets during the 1980s, which led to a housing bubble, which led to a banking crisis.

So...relevance?

2. do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

I acknowledged the contraction. What I said, if you'd actually read my post, was that even after the contraction Sweden is still among the highest-spending countries in Europe in terms of % of GDP. I also demonstrated that the right-wing coalition whose leg you're humping has not resulted in a net decline in that percentage. Finally, I demonstrated that Sweden's spending on social protection as a % of GDP is still very high.

So...relevance?

Do you believe that politicians using other people's money taken by involuntary means will naturally allocate this wealth in a way to maximize economic growth ?

Or do you believe as I do that when politicians allocate wealth it is largely based on political motives versus economic motives ?


...the fuck? This is your big, "irrefutable" logic? Asking me my opinion and then presenting your own without substantiation? I've already demonstrated to you that there are several countries with low levels of corruption.

Lastly, do you believe that free market participants allocate their own wealth for primarily economic or political motives -- and which of these goals do you believe will lead to the greatest level of economic growth ?


This is not argumentation. This is asking my opinion. Make an argument and substantiate it. Show me a "free society" with a "free market" and I'll examine it and compare it to the societies that I'm advocating for. Get serious.


1) your uninformed on the cause of bubbles --- for example, I am most familiar with the US housing bubble so let me enlighten you with information that you probably havent been exposed to:

a) the FED artificially lowered interest rates in the years leading up to the housing bust because they wanted to spur growth in the economy by making credit available and cheap.

b) by artificially lowering the interest rate -- they dangerously inflated the bubble by creating incentives to borrow money to fund long term capital projects like building and buying homes -- both heavily dependent on interest rates.

c) this artificially low rate led to the bubble caused by misallocation of resources into enterprises (home buying and building) that under free market interest rates and conditions would have been deemed by many investors due to the quantity of scarce resources to be unsound investments.

d) secondary incentives were heated by the government in the form of fannie mae insuring bad loans that free market participants would never insure (without tacitly guaranteed government bailouts), community reinvestment act, et al.

e) one of the biggest factors encouraging reckless investments in the derivatives market and others was that the financial firms who were the most reckless had a seat at the table in government (both obama and bush's table) and they knew that they would get bailed out thing went awry. this is moral hazard and it doesnt exist in the free market.

2)contradictorially you say that my data from 1990 to present is 'irrelevant' while your data on the same subject from 2005-2009 is 'relevant' is kinda of funny for obvious reasons.

3) lastly, i will expose your ignorance by challenging you to answer the question of whether the removal of glassman-steagal had a large part in causing the crisis?

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:48 pm

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
AuSable River wrote:comparing sweden to any other country is not a sound method to best analyze the effect of government spending.


however, if your interested in statistics -- here is one showing canada's reduced spending as a % of GDP and not surprisingly canada's economy has emerged far stronger and more resilient that the USAs

(Image)


See how you just contradicted yourself? We're done. Also, CATO? Fucking CATO? We're definitely done.

for example, i posted sweden's significant drop in government spending as a % of GDP immediately after the financial crisis to show that this was a necessary step to address the destructive effects of the welfare state.


I dispute the cause of that banking crisis, and I won't say that again.

Morever, you still havent answered a single challenge I have thrown at you ---preferring instead to engage in these fallacious anecdotal statistical arguments.


No, you've asked me my opinion several times. I challenged your interpretation of the data and you called my argument "fallacious" because it didn't end the way you would've liked it to. The results say that in spite of high levels of government spending in Sweden, even in the presence of relatively high levels of spending on social protection, the Swedish economy (which was stable in the presence of a much larger level of government spending) is stabilizing.

Furthermore, you've yet to establish that "big government" and "corruption" are directly tied to one another. I've given up even trying to drill it through your skull that you're wrong.



I believe that CATO also asserts that 2+2= 4

hence, if you refute the data -- provide your own.

CATO's is from the following sources:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations

I debunked your data as irrelevent because of the scope it covers is cherry picked 2005-2009, just like mavoren who similiarly tried to argue that obama's administration expanded govt less than any other president by citing data from 2010-present instead of 2009-present.

in sum, I cited data from 1990 to present which is valid and reliable since it represents the inflection point from a welfare state to a more responsible governance (albeit still heavily government).

and lastly, you dont understand that sweden's economy is stable precisely because it significantly downsized government from the crisis in the 1990s to present ---- not because of relatively flatlined growth of goverment between 2005-2009.

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:49 pm

AuSable River wrote:1) your uninformed on the cause of bubbles --- for example, I am most familiar with the US housing bubble so let me enlighten you with information that you probably havent been exposed to:

a) the FED artificially lowered interest rates in the years leading up to the housing bust because they wanted to spur growth in the economy by making credit available and cheap.

b) by artificially lowering the interest rate -- they dangerously inflated the bubble by creating incentives to borrow money to fund long term capital projects like building and buying homes -- both heavily dependent on interest rates.

c) this artificially low rate led to the bubble caused by misallocation of resources into enterprises (home buying and building) that under free market interest rates and conditions would have been deemed by many investors due to the quantity of scarce resources to be unsound investments.

d) secondary incentives were heated by the government in the form of fannie mae insuring bad loans that free market participants would never insure (without tacitly guaranteed government bailouts), community reinvestment act, et al.

e) one of the biggest factors encouraging reckless investments in the derivatives market and others was that the financial firms who were the most reckless had a seat at the table in government (both obama and bush's table) and they knew that they would get bailed out thing went awry. this is moral hazard and it doesnt exist in the free market.

2)contradictorially you say that my data from 1990 to present is 'irrelevant' while your data on the same subject from 2005-2009 is 'relevant' is kinda of funny for obvious reasons.

3) lastly, i will expose your ignorance by challenging you to answer the question of whether the removal of glassman-steagal had a large part in causing the crisis?


We weren't talking about the US housing bubble. We were talking about the Swedish housing bubble. Asking me about the circumstances in the USA is irrelevant. I don't want to talk to you anymore. Expect no further replies, I've head-desked enough on your account.
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:50 pm

AuSable River wrote:I debunked your data as irrelevent because of the scope it covers is cherry picked 2005-2009, just like mavoren who similiarly tried to argue that obama's administration expanded govt less than any other president by citing data from 2010-present instead of 2009-present.


Mavorpen wrote:
AuSable River wrote:amusingly, this intellectually dishonest mavoran tried to post data that showed govt expanded very little under obama -- however, his baseline was 2010 and not 2009 when obama passed the biggest spending increase in history.


Mavorpen wrote:Lolwhut? Only one of the links leaves out Obama. The other two include him. Also, I'm tired of the right saying that Obama increased the debt by $5 trillion. No, he did not. It increased UNDER him, not because of him. Here, more evidence you're full of shit:

http://gooznews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/changes_deficit.jpg

Image


2009 was Bush's fiscal year.

No, it's not. You just don't like facts. I've shown that liberals aren't the ones that make government bigger. You've given no evidence otherwise.

It doesn't. My whole post was about how you're full of shit claiming that liberals want to make government bigger. I agree Obama has been shit when it comes to not giving in to corporations.

What am I surprised about? Enough with the straw men.

Nope, but nice straw man.

You've dealt with nothing, you've dodged everything and refuse to give any evidence.


Here we observe the OP's inability to read.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:54 pm

Hebalobia wrote:
AuSable River wrote:For example, the reckless and irresponsible financial institutions that engaged in questionable business practices prior to the 2008 crisis successfully went to Washington to get bailed out by Bush, RINO republicans and virtually every democrat in Congress (including obama).

You don't see the irony of this statement?

I suppose we should place our faith in those "irresponsible financial institutions?" And by the way, what allowed them to act so irresponsibly? It was the deregulation pushed through by the Republicans in the early part of the Bush administration.

Here's the bottom line, there is enormous pressure on management in the business world to cut corners and cheat whenever they think they can get away with it. Who's more corrupt, the government or the special interests trying to influence the government?

Here's a news flash for you, don't judge government by politicians. The overwhelming majority of the regulatory professionals at the FAA, FDA, Housing, Education, CDC and the other professional civil service agencies are not corrupt. They're honest middle class employees trying to do their job and protect you and me despite being underpayed and outgunned financially and in terms of knowledge and talent by industry. Yet they show up every day and do a pretty good job. If that's what you call "big government," you're damn right I'm in favor of it.

I interface with government employees in the DoD all the time and I've never met one that's corrupt.



read my posts.

we dont need to put our faith in any corrupt or reckless firm because -- in a free society --- they will go bankrupt.

and your wrong -- the financial industry before, during, and after bush was heavily regulated. INdeed, govt has a monopoly on interest rates, monetary policy, fiat money, FDIC, dept of treasury, SEC, et al.

there were dozens of government bureaus and departments whose sole responsibility was regulating banking and finance.

Lastly, the very fact that the reckless participants got bailed out is confirmation that the market was rigged because there was no risk to the big financial firms to engage in reckless investing because they and government are one in the same.

take away government's ability to pick winners and losers and these firms wouldnt have been bailed out and I guarantee that future participants in banking, insurance, and finance will exercise far more due diligence.

IN sum, govt incentivised bad decisions by insulating these actors from the consequences of their actions.

hence, private gain, public responsibility --- this is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism. two opposites.

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:54 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
AuSable River wrote:I debunked your data as irrelevent because of the scope it covers is cherry picked 2005-2009, just like mavoren who similiarly tried to argue that obama's administration expanded govt less than any other president by citing data from 2010-present instead of 2009-present.


Mavorpen wrote:


Here we observe the OP's inability to read.


sorry,

I dont feed trolls

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:55 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
AuSable River wrote:I debunked your data as irrelevent because of the scope it covers is cherry picked 2005-2009, just like mavoren who similiarly tried to argue that obama's administration expanded govt less than any other president by citing data from 2010-present instead of 2009-present.


Mavorpen wrote:


Here we observe the OP's inability to read.


I feel like I'm back in youtube, really. All thick heads and no intellectual honesty.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Vareiln
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13052
Founded: Aug 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Vareiln » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:57 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:


sorry,

I dont feed trolls

And my final piece of advice to you:
Just because someone brings up an argument that you don't like or disagree with yet you can't refute for some reason, don't call them a troll or make other insults. Take what they say into consideration and admit you were wrong or that their argument has a point. You'll be a better person if you try to see different ways of looking at things and realize the flaws in your own ideology.
Last edited by Vareiln on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:57 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:


sorry,

I dont feed trolls


Here we have the OP admitting to being a troll.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57200
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:58 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:


sorry,

I dont feed trolls


The only one even close to ressembling a troll in this thread is you.
Once again, you prove to be nothing short of a hypocrite, begging for "worthy rebuttals" and then your only answer to solid proof that you have failed to answer to other people's responses accordingly is name-calling.

Pathetic.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:59 pm

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
AuSable River wrote:1) your uninformed on the cause of bubbles --- for example, I am most familiar with the US housing bubble so let me enlighten you with information that you probably havent been exposed to:

a) the FED artificially lowered interest rates in the years leading up to the housing bust because they wanted to spur growth in the economy by making credit available and cheap.

b) by artificially lowering the interest rate -- they dangerously inflated the bubble by creating incentives to borrow money to fund long term capital projects like building and buying homes -- both heavily dependent on interest rates.

c) this artificially low rate led to the bubble caused by misallocation of resources into enterprises (home buying and building) that under free market interest rates and conditions would have been deemed by many investors due to the quantity of scarce resources to be unsound investments.

d) secondary incentives were heated by the government in the form of fannie mae insuring bad loans that free market participants would never insure (without tacitly guaranteed government bailouts), community reinvestment act, et al.

e) one of the biggest factors encouraging reckless investments in the derivatives market and others was that the financial firms who were the most reckless had a seat at the table in government (both obama and bush's table) and they knew that they would get bailed out thing went awry. this is moral hazard and it doesnt exist in the free market.

2)contradictorially you say that my data from 1990 to present is 'irrelevant' while your data on the same subject from 2005-2009 is 'relevant' is kinda of funny for obvious reasons.

3) lastly, i will expose your ignorance by challenging you to answer the question of whether the removal of glassman-steagal had a large part in causing the crisis?


We weren't talking about the US housing bubble. We were talking about the Swedish housing bubble. Asking me about the circumstances in the USA is irrelevant. I don't want to talk to you anymore. Expect no further replies, I've head-desked enough on your account.


indeed, I am not familiar with the specifics of the swedish banking crisis, but I guarantee a little analysis will undoubtedly uncover the fact that the heavily dominated government-centric swedish economy led to the collapse.

but for review, explain the causi belli for the swedish collapse as I did for the USA collapse and where you have not refuted my arguments, I will refute yours with little knowledge of the events in sweden.

and, for the third time.

do you think that politicians who use coercive means can better allocate resources than free market participants using voluntary means?

and do you think that glassman-steagal contributed to the housing collapse and subsequent

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Barchadi, Betelgeuse Alliance, Bortslovakia, Cannot think of a name, Dazchan, Estanglia, Ethel mermania, Gallist Amonize, Galloism, Genivaria, Google Adsense [Bot], Gravlen, Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States, Hammer Britannia, Kasa Tkoth Sphere, MSN [Bot], Necroghastia, Ostroeuropa, Page, Proctopeo, Scorpio Spikal, SD_Film Artists, Shazbotdom, Shrillland, The Blaatschapen, The Black Forrest, The New California Republic, The United Provinces of North America, Unstoppable Empire of Doom, Veceria

Advertisement

Remove ads