ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
They're not that different from earlier big philosophical issues in the U.S. landscape. In fact, they may be described as eternal. They underlie our momentary disagreements.
1) (Highlighted by the 08 meltdown and response): Does Keynesian stimulus work?
The data say yes, but our actions say no, at present. I will not trot out the facts that make Keynesian economics the de facto model on which western economies are for the most part based (our recent few decades of deregulatory spasming notwithstanding.)
But if you think Keynesian stimulus works, your concern with debt and/or deficits is tempered by the timing of response to said concerns.
If you think Keynesian stimulus does not work, your concern with debt/deficits is a holy grail without unintended consequences.
This will be a constant trend in the '10s, and will continue to be a topic into the future.
2) Should the U.S. have a government, and if so, what should it do?
The Constitution does not, in fact, specifically ban cabinet departments that are not named therein. It also does not demand, specifically, the various departments that the U.S. has. It certainly does not describe their "sub-branches." I'm pretty certain the air force isn't in there.
So - other than the military which we all have to stipulate is always good - what is the purpose of the government at the federal level? The state level? The local level?
Do we want it "off our backs?" Really?
Getting the government "off our backs" had a lot to do with the pickle we got into in '08. Meanwhile, we want government "off our backs" but also "in our bedrooms/wombs" in many cases.
Is there in fact a "small-government" movement, or are there only "let's make the part of the government I don't like small" movements?
If there are in fact small-government movements, how small is small enough?
Conservative voices have opined that modern governments have become primarily insurance companies, that deal with what happens in our extended old age.
How valid is it to respond by scaling back a government that deals with lifespans of 80, to government predicated on a life-span of 70 or 60?
3) Are we our brothers' keepers?
If my neighbor is in trouble, should I help him?
Without regard to voluntarism and community involvement, what if my neighbor's trouble isn't attended by his community or his family?
Should there be anything a society does to help someone other than oneself? Is there one America, or many Americas -- a white one, black one, and latin one... a rich one and a poor one (with a disappearing middle class one...) etc.
4) Will corporate interests help the middle class and/or the poor?
At the heart of pure corporate capitalism/market purism, is the preposition that the reason it's okay is that the goals of markets always end up helping everybody.
In other words, if everybody is greedy enough, the poor and the middle class are helped by a great deal of greedy activity. If we all try to enrich ourselves in the most amoral way possible, the theory says, it's okay: Those we would otherwise feel beholden to help will benefit from that greed.
Is this proposition true?
If it is not true, and in fact the purpose of greed and the effect of greed are identical -- the enrichment of the greedy party, with no predictable benefit to the less prosperous population -- what other force exists for the benefit of those who do not meaningfully participate in the wealth perpetuation industry?
5) Perhaps underlying all these questions: Are some of us just better than others, and deserve all the goodies, based on some entitlement? Or are all of us responsible to all the others of us, to make sure that birth -- whether by economic class, race, or other superfluous factor -- does not significantly determine destiny?
To truly ruffle all the feathers, you could make (5) an international question. But for right now let's leave it purely within our borders.
I think these are among the big questions, and we only see the momentary responses reflected in the issues of the day.
Discuss.
PFnV
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Let us all rather lurch to and fro and respond to the latest bumper stickers.
We'll get the policy that we're capable of voting for, and therefore, discussing. If that's "my bumper sticker vs. yours," okay.
If we cannot respond to these basic underlying challenges, I do not understand the sense of trying to apply reason to specific flashpoints channeling one or another larger theme into a specific issue. We'll all just decide a "side" and scream.
Those are all such big questions that we'd have to write treatises to give proper answers. But, in the think in many cases we've already discussed some of these issues indirectly, if not directly.
1. I for instance think Keysian economics is fine. It's just that in recent years taxation has been driven by ideological purists, so it's no longer looked upon as a tool for managing the economy. Instead it's seen that we must have a flat tax, can't charge some people higher tax rates, etc. No one ever said our economic system is perfect. Taxes go up and go down; tax loopholes appear and disappear; they are simply a tool for regulating an economy and we need to return to that simple logic.
2. I think the the federal government is the most scrutinized. Considering that it's constantly monitored by public interest groups, the media, the opposition parties, and various special interest groups, it's no surprise that significant scandals are rare. The greater danger for corruption exists in state and local government. Keep the federal government strong but continue to improve transparency, and I think you have the best system. The federal governments role is to maintain and advance individuality (and certain the US government has done a good job of that by preventing local prejudices from discriminating), economic stability (through job training program, investments in alternative energy, etc.), social welfare (through things like Medicare and SS), physical and economic safety (through the militay, FBI, SEC, etc.), among others.
3. Yes, we are our brothers' keepers? Our government would naturally reflect the degree to which we want to help others. If you had a government made up of caring people, it would more than likely implement programs that reflected that. If you had a government made up of selfish people, it would cut such programs. To the extent our government helps the poor, it reflects that natural mentality of our nation to care for our neighbor.
4) Corporate interests only help the poor and middle class if they are mandated to do so. The American philosophy has been for a long time that a corporation's only responsibility is to increase shareholder wealth. To the extent that corporations do more, it's to create an illusion that serves marketing purposes.
5) In any society but a utopian one, those with more money, more power, or who are part of the dominant demographic will always have advantages, but the government through anti-discrimination laws, anti-hate laws, support for health and education, and so on does try to make things more equal. Over time, our national educational system has helped a larger number of people be more respectful to others. Despite the cries of the anti-PC crowd, our schools continue to discourage the kind of sexist, racist, homophobic language and behaviors that were considered fairly normal 50 years ago.
They're not that different from earlier big philosophical issues in the U.S. landscape. In fact, they may be described as eternal. They underlie our momentary disagreements.
1) (Highlighted by the 08 meltdown and response): Does Keynesian stimulus work?
The data say yes, but our actions say no, at present. I will not trot out the facts that make Keynesian economics the de facto model on which western economies are for the most part based (our recent few decades of deregulatory spasming notwithstanding.)
But if you think Keynesian stimulus works, your concern with debt and/or deficits is tempered by the timing of response to said concerns.
If you think Keynesian stimulus does not work, your concern with debt/deficits is a holy grail without unintended consequences.
This will be a constant trend in the '10s, and will continue to be a topic into the future.
Discuss.
PFnV
I would add:
6) The challenge of non-state actors (as discussed in another thread). This includes global conglomerates that are bigger than some countries, like Exxon-Mobil, as well as informal military groups like al-Qaeda. Globalization doesn't just bring benefits. It presents a whole new set of challenges, particularly for regulating commerce and enforcing the rule of law.
I haven't waded into this yet because of a lack of time. I still don't have the time for the whole thing, so let's try them one at a time.
1) Does Keynesian stimulus work? Sure, in the short-term. As a permanent fiscal policy I think we can both agree that the answer is emphatically "no". As discussed elsewhere, the debt accumulated by running an intentional deficit needs to be paid off after the stimulus supposedly restores the economy ahead of schedule. Otherwise, you are essentially planning for the eventual demise of your currency and all financial wealth.
To wit:
From the IMF via Agence France Presse via the much-maligned Breitbart:
In a report on the world's financial health released Tuesday, the IMF warned that many advanced countries are living beyond their long-term fiscal means, especially in the wake of the 2008-2009 crisis.
Debt for an average of 29 developed countries was at 97 percent of the size of their economies, and 103 percent for the G20 group of advanced economies.
To get to a sustainable debt level of 60 percent of GDP by 2020 -- the median for the same countries before the crisis -- many have to begin cutting spending sharply, even as they confront greater social spending costs for aging populations.
Those with the highest debt levels -- Japan, Ireland, the United States and Greece -- would have to reduce their fiscal deficits by 10 percent of GDP over the next decade.
Last edited by The Brandon Five; 04-13-2011 at 09:56 AM..
Reason: deleted section by mistake
They're not that different from earlier big philosophical issues in the U.S. landscape. In fact, they may be described as eternal. They underlie our momentary disagreements.
1) (Highlighted by the 08 meltdown and response): Does Keynesian stimulus work?
The data say yes, but our actions say no, at present. I will not trot out the facts that make Keynesian economics the de facto model on which western economies are for the most part based (our recent few decades of deregulatory spasming notwithstanding.)
But if you think Keynesian stimulus works, your concern with debt and/or deficits is tempered by the timing of response to said concerns.
If you think Keynesian stimulus does not work, your concern with debt/deficits is a holy grail without unintended consequences.
This will be a constant trend in the '10s, and will continue to be a topic into the future.
2) Should the U.S. have a government, and if so, what should it do?
The Constitution does not, in fact, specifically ban cabinet departments that are not named therein. It also does not demand, specifically, the various departments that the U.S. has. It certainly does not describe their "sub-branches." I'm pretty certain the air force isn't in there.
So - other than the military which we all have to stipulate is always good - what is the purpose of the government at the federal level? The state level? The local level?
Do we want it "off our backs?" Really?
Getting the government "off our backs" had a lot to do with the pickle we got into in '08. Meanwhile, we want government "off our backs" but also "in our bedrooms/wombs" in many cases.
Is there in fact a "small-government" movement, or are there only "let's make the part of the government I don't like small" movements?
If there are in fact small-government movements, how small is small enough?
Conservative voices have opined that modern governments have become primarily insurance companies, that deal with what happens in our extended old age.
How valid is it to respond by scaling back a government that deals with lifespans of 80, to government predicated on a life-span of 70 or 60?
3) Are we our brothers' keepers?
If my neighbor is in trouble, should I help him?
Without regard to voluntarism and community involvement, what if my neighbor's trouble isn't attended by his community or his family?
Should there be anything a society does to help someone other than oneself? Is there one America, or many Americas -- a white one, black one, and latin one... a rich one and a poor one (with a disappearing middle class one...) etc.
4) Will corporate interests help the middle class and/or the poor?
At the heart of pure corporate capitalism/market purism, is the preposition that the reason it's okay is that the goals of markets always end up helping everybody.
In other words, if everybody is greedy enough, the poor and the middle class are helped by a great deal of greedy activity. If we all try to enrich ourselves in the most amoral way possible, the theory says, it's okay: Those we would otherwise feel beholden to help will benefit from that greed.
Is this proposition true?
If it is not true, and in fact the purpose of greed and the effect of greed are identical -- the enrichment of the greedy party, with no predictable benefit to the less prosperous population -- what other force exists for the benefit of those who do not meaningfully participate in the wealth perpetuation industry?
5) Perhaps underlying all these questions: Are some of us just better than others, and deserve all the goodies, based on some entitlement? Or are all of us responsible to all the others of us, to make sure that birth -- whether by economic class, race, or other superfluous factor -- does not significantly determine destiny?
To truly ruffle all the feathers, you could make (5) an international question. But for right now let's leave it purely within our borders.
I think these are among the big questions, and we only see the momentary responses reflected in the issues of the day.
Discuss.
PFnV
Thats all well and good but I need some time to think about the ramifications and what all this will do to the distribution of food stamps.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
6) The challenge of non-state actors (as discussed in another thread). This includes global conglomerates that are bigger than some countries, like Exxon-Mobil, as well as informal military groups like al-Qaeda. Globalization doesn't just bring benefits. It presents a whole new set of challenges, particularly for regulating commerce and enforcing the rule of law.
Let's add (6) as described above. How do we deal from actors that seek to supercede the state, the the detriment of the state and its citizens?
(response to your AFP quote below, have to do some backup.)
In advanced economies, longer-term adjustment needs remain large. The
customary illustrative exercise conducted in the Fiscal Monitor reports the
level to which the cyclically adjusted primary balance must improve by 2020,
and subsequently be maintained until 2030, for advanced economies to
gradually reduce their debt to 60 percent of GDP (approximately the median
precrisis level) by 2030 (Table 1.5a) (40 percent for emerging economies, also
the median precrisis level) (Table 1.5b). On average, the required
improvement in the cyclically adjusted primary balance between 2010 and
2020 amounts to about 8 percent of GDP. The necessary measures rise to
about 12 percent of GDP when one takes into account the projected increase
in age-related spending between 2010 and 2030 (Statistical Table 9).
Required adjustment exceeds 5 percent of GDP in one-third of the advanced
economies. Japan, Ireland, the United States, and Greece all confront
adjustment needs of 10 percent of GDP or more. For Japan and Ireland, the
challenge stems from large current deficits combined with the need to run
large future surpluses to service a sizable debt. For the United States, the
pressure comes from the large deficit. For Greece, considerable progress has
already been made in reducing the primary deficit, but significant further
adjustment is needed to stabilize and then reduce the debt ratio. Compared
with the November 2010 Fiscal Monitor, adjustment needs have been revised
notably upward for Greece, New Zealand, and Portugal and downward for
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, and the Netherlands.
These adjustment needs are sensitive to assumptions about interest rate–
growth differentials and about the extent to which past stimulus will be
automatically reversed. The assumption of a uniform long-term interest rate–
growth differential r–g in the baseline exercise (Table 1.5a; Figure 1.12,
panel a) may be unduly favorable to highly indebted countries because it
ignores the impact of high debt on growth and interest rates (see also
Chapter 3). Using country-specific differentials that are assumed to be
positively linked to countries’ debt ratios, adjustment needs increase by
2 percent of GDP in Greece and Japan and by 1 percent in Italy. By contrast,
in most advanced economies, the 2010 cyclically adjusted primary balance
includes temporary discretionary stimulus measures. Assuming these
measures are unwound upon expiration (Figure 1.12, panels c and d) reduces
additional adjustment needs significantly in the United States, Japan, and
Germany.
How does the data suggest that Keynesianism works? Who's determined so, and by what standard?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
How does the data suggest that Keynesianism works? Who's determined so, and by what standard?
We've certainly seen the economic growth of the US and the quality of life, at least in terms of income, since Keysian economics was introduced. Prior to Keysnians economics we'd have recessions and depressions every few years. While they still happen, they happen far less frequently than they did since we became an industrial country. In addition, the simple logic of Keynsian economics makes sense in terms of our current lives. If we invest, we generally do okay. If the nation invests in its infrastructure, including roads, sewers, schools, and so on, it creates new opportunities, not only for those building the roads, for instance, but for those using the roads. Also, most of the countries with very low deficits are underdeveloped:
Big philosophical issues for the '10s
Linear Mode
