Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Mercator Terra]

Didn't even work. Mass transportation of people just to dig ditches really helps the economy. So what does he do he sends us into WW2. All it did was take possible workers away from jobs and sent them to government camps.

I think your ignoring the fact that there weren't that many private jobs to claim. The workers were being paid for the public projects.

Lower regulations and there would have been jobs. Get rid of the New Deal and the depression wouldn'tof been that long. Stop printing money no depression.
EDIT: See underline

[Genivar]

I think your ignoring the fact that there weren't that many private jobs to claim. The workers were being paid for the public projects.

Lower regulations and there would have been jobs. Get rid of the New Deal and the depression would of been that long. Stop printing money no depression.

Lower regulations!? You serious? It was Laissez-faire capitalism that CAUSED the depression.
You'd have to rewrite history to make FDR the bad guy here.

[St George of England]

Didn't even work. Mass transportation of people just to dig ditches really helps the economy. So what does he do he sends us into WW2. All it did was take possible workers away from jobs and sent them to government camps.

I think your ignoring the fact that there weren't that many private jobs to claim. The workers were being paid for the public projects.

Shhh. The Free Market Fairy finds it inconceivable that jobs might not be available.

[Mercator Terra]

Lower regulations and there would have been jobs. Get rid of the New Deal and the depression would of been that long. Stop printing money no depression.

Lower regulations!? You serious? It was Laissez-faire capitalism that CAUSED the depression.

lol laissez faire... Your kidding me Hoover's interventionist policies and regulations caused the depression.

[Genivar]

I think your ignoring the fact that there weren't that many private jobs to claim. The workers were being paid for the public projects.

Shhh. The Free Market Fairy finds it inconceivable that jobs might not be available.

Yes all hail the Free Market, Don't Question Just Spend.

[Loftgren]

Stop printing money no depression.

Too much money in circulation had nothing to do with the Great Depression. One of the causes was actually a contraction in the money supply.

[Genivar]

For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[50] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[51]-----Wikipedia
He he, a Republican Socialist that's funny.

[Staenwald]

Yes, I did. There isn't much to say about her other than she uses her beliefs as a crutch for bad writing.

Good argument.

That was like a dagger to the heart man...cold...lol...

[Genivar]

It was Calvin Coolidge who was the laissez-faire idiot.

[Mercator Terra]

It was Calvin Coolidge who was the laissez-faire idiot.

Yet it was Herbert Hoovers fault that is happened.

[Genivar]

It was Calvin Coolidge who was the laissez-faire idiot.

Yet it was Herbert Hoovers fault that is happened.

You came to that conclusion how exactly?

[Mercator Terra]

Yet it was Herbert Hoovers fault that is happened.

You came to that conclusion how exactly?

Because he placed an income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. He spent to much (Like what FDR said).

[Neu Leonstein]

Keep on printing the dough!

Yes! Because that's all the economy needs. That's why counterfeiting should be legal.

Oi. While you're busy agreeing with each other, take the time out and tell me why what is being done right now is wrong.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I addressed the reasons for the monetary stimulus (for example here) and the reasons it is unlikely to lead to any massive inflation outcomes earlier. Either tell me why you disagree, or agree with me. Just ignoring it and continuing these one-liners is not cool.

[Staenwald]

In the recession that followed the 1929 stock market crash, we had the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff, which raised the average tariff on imports by 70%, sparking a trade war with Europe, crippling international trade and reducing U.S. exports and U.S. GDP. In 1932, Hoover, in an attempt to balance the budget in an election year pushes and congress passes a tax increase (the revenue act of 1932) further depressing consumer demand. Then we had the failure of the FED to recognize the rising real interest rates, as reduced aggregate demand lowered the average price level (deflation) but the increasing number of bank failures caused the money supply to shrink, which raised nominal interest rates. These rising nominal interest rates, coupled with a falling price level resulted in even higher real interest rates. High interest rates slows business investment spending on capital goods and reduces consumer spending on "big ticket" items.
By the time many of Roosevelt's programs were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1936 the economy was begining to recover. Unemployment was down to 14% from it's 1933 high of 25%. But then Roosevelt pushes the 1937 tax hike and unemployment shoots back up to 17%!
Don't blame the free market for the Great Depression. This brief synopsis reveals that it was indeed failed government policy that caused the Great Depresion. It was (as we now see) a laissez-faire economy at the time.

However to add, in 1936 the top tax rate raised to 79 percent and economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent. In 1937 Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
some poepl argue that tax hikes didn't cause the economy to slump back into a recession. It was the cut in spending that led to the plunge.

BUT, if we acknowledge that fiscal and monetary policy can cause economies to grow outside their natural parameters, then of of course there will be a shortfall once government spending is cut. If we all depend on government spending to keep our economy going and then they stop, there is going to be an issue in the economy. Regardless of whather it's reducing or introducing regulation into the economy, it will always have an bad effect that will be felt somewhere. Government spending creates an artificial economy that cannot hold tiself up independantly, and once these regulations are removed there will be an economic downturn.

[Staenwald]

oh and i found this which i though was interesting (note the marxist view which I can't take seriously for a second)

Different Views of the Great Depression

Monetarists View

Monetarists highlight the importance of a fall in the money supply. They point out that between 1929 and 1932, the Federal reserve allowed the money supply (Measured by M2) to fall by a third. In particular, Monetarists such as Friedman criticise the decisions of the Fed not to save banks going bankrupt. They say that because the money supply fell so much an ordinary recession turned into a major deflationary depression.

Austrian View

Austrian school of Economists such as Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises place much of the blame on an unsustainable credit boom in the 1920s. In particular, they point to the decision to inflate the US economy to try and help the UK remain on the Gold standard at a rate which was too high. They argue after this unsustainable credit boom a recession became inevitable. The Austrian school doesn't accept the Friedman analysis that falling money supply was the main problem. They argue it was the loss of confidence in the banking system which caused the most damage.

Keynesian View

Keynes emphasised the importance of a fundamental disequilibrium in real output. He saw the Great Depression as evidence that the classical models of economics were flawed.

•Classical economics assumed Real Output would automatically return to equilibrium (full employment levels); but the great depression showed this to be not true.

•Keynes said the problem was lack of aggregate demand. Keynes argued passionately that governments should intervene in the economy to stimulate demand through public works scheme - higher spending and borrowing.
•Keynes heavily criticised the UK government's decision to try balance the budget in 1930 through higher taxes and lower benefits. He said this only worsened the situation.

•Keynes also pointed to the paradox of thrift.
Marxist View

The Marxist View saw the Great Depression as heralding the imminent collapse of global capitalism. With unemployment over 25%, Marxists held that this showed the inherent instability and failure of the capitalist model. Furthermore, they pointed to the Soviet Union as a country which was able to overcome the great depression through state sponsored economic planning.

[Neu Leonstein]

Different Views of the Great Depression

There are some overlapping truths in there. Keynes for example was also critical of attempting to help the UK stay on the gold standard at the given rate - not for the same reason as the American paleocons but because he figured the earlier the gold standard collapsed, the better...

[Sungai Pusat]

If you know that, why do you want government control over some means of production then? Doesn't really make sense.



Exactly, it is becas of the selfishness and the benefit to themslves that people form companies, groups and such that benefit both themselves and the group and company.

People are not inherently selfish (in the sense your talking about. I can talk about psychological egoism but thats not what you think it is

I'm just pointing out that there is a form of selfishness, but yes, like you said, not everyone is inherently selfish. I never said that they were. Here, I'm gonna quote to show my status on people psychologically:

I have this idea that everyone would have some form of greed and materialism, just for different reasons.

[Mercator Terra]

People are not inherently selfish (in the sense your talking about. I can talk about psychological egoism but thats not what you think it is

I'm just pointing out that there is a form of selfishness, but yes, like you said, not everyone is inherently selfish. I never said that they were. Here, I'm gonna quote to show my status on people psychologically:

I have this idea that everyone would have some form of greed and materialism, just for different reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
My view

[Greater American Union]

I'm just pointing out that there is a form of selfishness, but yes, like you said, not everyone is inherently selfish. I never said that they were. Here, I'm gonna quote to show my status on people psychologically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
My view

"All men desire only satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Satisfaction of their desires."

"Their desires for what?"

"Their desires for satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Their desires."

"For what?"

"For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum.

The circular logic is exposed in the article, yet you claim this view is correct?

[Mercator Terra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
My view

"All men desire only satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Satisfaction of their desires."

"Their desires for what?"

"Their desires for satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Their desires."

"For what?"

"For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum.

The circular logic is exposed in the article, yet you claim this view is correct?

Yes.... I've already read the article.

[Sociobiology]

I'm just pointing out that there is a form of selfishness, but yes, like you said, not everyone is inherently selfish. I never said that they were. Here, I'm gonna quote to show my status on people psychologically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
My view

of course the problem with that article is the assumption that people are somehow always aware they will benefit which we know isn't true, you really should look at evolutionary psychobiology, which does talk about how selfless behavior can arise because it has selfish repercussions, whether or not the brain involved is aware of them. dying to save children does not have any positive effect on the brain doing the dying, it does however have a positive effect on the genes that built that brain.
your not helping yourself, but then again the genes that built you, just built you to make more of themselves, not the other way around.
basically Psychological egoism just confuses the ultimate actor.

[Mercator Terra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
My view

of course the problem with that article is the assumption that people are somehow always aware they will benefit which we know isn't true, you really should look at evolutionary psychobiology, which does talk about how selfless behavior can arise because it has selfish repercussions, whether or not the brain involved is aware of them. dying to save children does not have any positive effect on the brain doing the dying, it does however have a positive effect on the genes that built that brain.
your not helping yourself, but then again the genes that built you, just built you to make more of themselves, not the other way around.
basically Psychological egoism just confuses the ultimate actor.

It doesn't assume that, like I said people presume that the action will either a give them pleasure or b an attempt to not be in pain. No but when before you die or you make that choice you get pleasure from knowing you are doing something "good".

[Staenwald]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
My view

of course the problem with that article is the assumption that people are somehow always aware they will benefit which we know isn't true, you really should look at evolutionary psychobiology, which does talk about how selfless behavior can arise because it has selfish repercussions, whether or not the brain involved is aware of them. dying to save children does not have any positive effect on the brain doing the dying, it does however have a positive effect on the genes that built that brain.
your not helping yourself, but then again the genes that built you, just built you to make more of themselves, not the other way around.
basically Psychological egoism just confuses the ultimate actor.

I'd say that generally people know what the effects are of their actions if they have done it once before. like- 'i won't lend that guy my stuff anymore because he doesnt give it back', so i'll be more cautious when i lend things to people. And i think it'd be rare that people would have enough time to work out what the effect of something would be, for the fact of seeing it happen elsewhere to other people. There is precious little that people don't know will benefit them with the amount of information we have on hand to day- and it's very rare that we'd get put in a situation where we have no knowledge of something and a very big responsibility to carry it out.

for objectivists it's a value judgement. If you believe you're lover or your child etc is worth more than your life than you would die for them and it's your choice. it's a hard concept, because i'd have no clue what i'd do at the time, i'm not even sure i'd even want to die for my whole family..i don't know, i guess as of yet i've never known anything more important than myself- what a narcissist i am lol.

To give a lighter example, what if you decided that you wouldnt spend so much on yourself every week and had to economise, giving yourself a harder life, but saving the money up for something which will make your life better than it was before the hardship- like a car, or college. Surely that isn't hedonisic because it's not avoiding pain, but it's rational, as you are going through some hardship in order to be better off at the end of it.

[Sociobiology]

of course the problem with that article is the assumption that people are somehow always aware they will benefit which we know isn't true, you really should look at evolutionary psychobiology, which does talk about how selfless behavior can arise because it has selfish repercussions, whether or not the brain involved is aware of them. dying to save children does not have any positive effect on the brain doing the dying, it does however have a positive effect on the genes that built that brain.
your not helping yourself, but then again the genes that built you, just built you to make more of themselves, not the other way around.
basically Psychological egoism just confuses the ultimate actor.

It doesn't assume that, like I said people presume that the action will either a give them pleasure or b an attempt to not be in pain. No but when before you die or you make that choice you get pleasure from knowing you are doing something "good".

the physiological position assumes it.
of course it also means reflexes don't exist. the people who rush into buildings don't know why they made the decisions, (there has been some great research along similar lines dealing with learned instincts) people do all kinds of things without ever conscious decisions involved.

[Staenwald]

It doesn't assume that, like I said people presume that the action will either a give them pleasure or b an attempt to not be in pain. No but when before you die or you make that choice you get pleasure from knowing you are doing something "good".

the physiological position assumes it.
of course it also means reflexes don't exist. the people who rush into buildings don't know why they made the decisions, (there has been some great research along similar lines dealing with learned instincts) people do all kinds of things without ever conscious decisions involved.

learned instincts don't count for a priori knowledge, obviously you've had enough experience of a situation for it to be internalised and become instinctive. Like you never forget how to swim or ride a bike. Anyway- you'd not run into a burning building if there was nothing valuable in it, and so so you've obviously at least sub-consciously thought about something. Then again people make stupid decisions sometimes without thinking.