Very silly, when sovereign nations print their own money.
We need vast public works; we need to build (even holes in the road). Anything. Though there's plenty to do without digging holes and filling them, it would be better than cuts. Crazy......demand falling precipitously and so everyone.....cuts.
Post-Keynesian Modern Money Theory (MMT) offers a way out. Strikes me intuitively and instinctively as the way to go. Spend! Deficits don't matter - the money is "free" - we can print what we like.....owe it to ourselves....it doesn't matter. Just get things moving, for chrissakes!
But no-one's listening. Everyone is cutting. Madness. Doom. God, it's depressing.
Some good sources for MMT
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/
http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/soft-currency-economics/
The act of government spending and concurrent taxation gives the illusion that the two are inextricably linked. The illusion is strengthened by the analogy of government as a business or government as a household. Businesses and households in the private sector are limited in how much they may borrow by the market’s willingness to extend credit. They must borrow to fund expenditures. The federal government, on the other hand, is able to spend a virtually unlimited amount first, adding reserves to the banking system, and then borrow, if it wishes to conduct a reserve drain.
An especially good essay: TAXPAYERS DON'T FUND ANYTHING
49 comments:
Hey last dude. Don't forget to check your spam bin. And I know you must hate having to put on comment moderation. Certain trolls ruin it for everyone else. I like having it, because say something happens, knock on wood, one can be at peace knowing some dork isn't taking a dump on the blog in one's absence.
TLNL, you need to check your spam bin once in a while. One of my posts from a while back is in there. You might as well delete it at this point. Those don't show up in email notifications.
AH - whoopsie - sorry. :D I thought I had turned moderation off after Larry's last deluge. Apparently not.
Hope all is well in S land. ;)
"AH - whoopsie - sorry. :D I thought I had turned moderation off after Larry's last deluge. Apparently not."
You're even lying to your sock puppet Cockrates. I KNOW you're lying by the mere fact that I have RECENTLY posted comments on your blog and they NEVER appeared [meaning never accepted and posted]---which means one thing: You had to have REJECTED the comments I posted, therefore meaning you HAD to have known moderation was still enabled.
You fucking liar.
You'd have more respect from me if you just ADMITTED that the ONLY reason you JUST took comment moderation down is because you KNOW you'd look like a colossal hypocrite by posting TWO recent stories of you being banned by others while still having your comment moderation enabled.
Right?
Right.
You're mad, Larry.
Fact is, comments were still on moderation - because I had not turned it off. I thought I had. I thought I had turned it off once you stopped your deluge of spam and abuse [the only reason I had put moderation on in the first place - you]
As soon as I switched moderation off - yesterday (when I realised it was still on) - you show up again, straight back into your vicious groove.
You say you get censored, but you don't - your shit fills up this blog. Your shit is everywhere.
Grow-up and behave reasonably or you'll face banning again.
"Fact is, comments were still on moderation - because I had not turned it off. I thought I had. I thought I had turned it off once you stopped your deluge of spam and abuse [the only reason I had put moderation on in the first place - you]"
Re-read what I said above [that's IF you read it the first time]....
I said:
"I KNOW you're lying by the mere fact that I have RECENTLY posted comments on your blog and they NEVER appeared [meaning never accepted and posted]---which means one thing: You had to have REJECTED the comments I posted, therefore meaning you HAD to have known moderation was still enabled."
I can't get any clearer than that.
You don't get it, do you? I have posted comments WHILE the comment moderation was ON that you did NOT let go through [in other words, you REJECTED the comment]----meaning only ONE thing: You HAD to have known the comment moderation was STILL enabled during those few times [recently] that you REJECTED my comment and didn't let it go through.
There's NO WAY you can REJECT a comment that is posted [that is WAITING IN LIMBO TO BE POSTED, BECAUSE MODERATION IS STILL ENABLED] and NOT KNOW that comment moderation is still enabled. Because you HAD to REJECT the comment I made---and the only way it even comes to you TO reject, is if comment moderation is enabled.
Get it NOW? Douche?
well, I've no idea what comments you are on about.
I'm sure they were really ground-breaking comments. What has the world been deprived of - do tell? Nothing stopping you.
There is some irony in the fact you're here complaining about being censored. And you're being your usual humble civil self, of course. Gosh, such a charm.
You have a small blog, LastDudeLeft. There's no reason to allow swine like this to smear his soiled panties all over it. What's that word ye use over on the old sod? Aaah yes, forget about this wanker, laddie.
This person is clearly insane. That in itself is no big deal. That can be entertaining at times. But his potty mouth is definitely a problem. His screaming and spamming is also. And let's face it. He's anything but entertaining, even when he's on his meds.
There's no need to ever justify banning and deleting on sight such a sadistic loser. He's clearly in need of a change in medication and more efficient psychanalysis.
You're actually doing him no favours by allowing him a platform. The bulk of his posting patterns show him to be deeply mentally disturbed and potentially violent. This could be adding fuel to a psychotic fire.
"There's no need to ever justify banning and deleting on sight such a sadistic loser."
But OTHER sites have to justify their banning TLNL????
Please do tell WHY?
Indeed socrates. I do think it's an important point to make clear the difference though - as tiresome as it is. I don't like banning people - I would rather they just act with the minimum of civility.
Larry wilfully fails to follow the most basic rules of social intercourse - so as to deepen his delusions of importance.
---
Larry, step out of line again and you won't be posting here anymore. Simple. You've had chance after chance after chance.......and you always return to your default mode of spewing vitriol and all the rest of it.
Fact is, within moments of switching-off moderation you were back, and writing in your usual fashion. Yet moderation was only on to prevent you from spamming your filthy mouth in the first place. If you honestly believe you are being censored rather than simply treated with the contempt you deserve for your childish behaviour.....then you are delusional. That's a concrete test of whether you're deluded - though you won't see it like that, esp. if you're delusional.
I understand you disagree with most everything I say and believe - FINE. Only.....can you stop being such a childish potty-mouth about it? GROW UP?
It's funny, you don't recognise the fact that you've been published here today, yesterday, whenever - without even moderation - and you are clearly still being published here - complaining about being censored. lol.
Anyway, no more rubbish from you LArry. Step out of line, and you are GONE. I'd rather you just tried to follow simple rules of social intercourse - keep to that and you can post whatever criticism you like. But break those simple rules and you are gone.
The idea that you have anything to say which requires 'censorship' by me here is laughable, frankly.
If I really wanted to "censor" you, I would have done so.
To prove it's your content which is getting you 'censored', Larry, you would need act with a certain civility first. You can't get past the first hurdle. And it certainly is not your substance which gets you banned from here - you'd need be delusional to imagine that.
So, why don't you at least try it? I'd prefer you kept posting, even though I disagree with everything you say. But I won't put up with your spam, personal vitriol, your coarse childish insults, etc.
So, stop complaining....and if you have something to say, say it.
"Fact is, within moments of switching-off moderation you were back, and writing in your usual fashion."
You're a fucking liar. As I have ALREADY said, I posted comments DURING THE COMMENT MODERATION PERIOD, and you REJECTED them---hence you HAD to know comment moderation was STILL enabled. Jesus, I've already said that THREE times! That doesn't stop you from LYING, does it?
blah blah blah larry.
I don't know what comments you are on about, I don't know when you posted them, nor when I was supposed to have "censored" them, or anything at all about them.
But anyway - moderation was only on because you forced it on with your.....awful behaviour.
And supposedly I "rejected" some comments you posted.....? Well, that's the whole point of moderating comments was to prevent you spouting your spam and filth. So why wouldn't I have rejected whatever comments you sent after you'd behaved so abysmally (and have done for years, let's not forget)
Fact is, once it went quiet - ie my email box stopped filling up with your malicious spam - I thought I had turned moderation off again......seeing as the only reason it was on (you!) had disappeared.
Clearly I was wrong - I had forgotten to turn it off - and you have not disappeared.
I suspect you will be gone soon.
"And supposedly I "rejected" some comments you posted.....? Well, that's the whole point of moderating comments was to prevent you spouting your spam and filth. So why wouldn't I have rejected whatever comments you sent after you'd behaved so abysmally (and have done for years, let's not forget)"
Ahhh, so you ADMIT you MAY have rejected my comments. Oh but wait, you said you "didn't know" comment moderation was still enabled.
That's impossible. If you REJECTED comments recently, you HAD to know it was still enabled. Face it, you are caught in a LIE. Admit you lied.
Lying? No.
Think what you will.
"Lying? No.
Think what you will."
Great comeback!
LOL
Odd, you claim that you despise profanity, but yet, look at the title of your post:
"Without major stimulus, we're fucked"
If I had said these words in the thread, you would accuse me of pointless profanity and like always, you'd focus on THAT rather than the plethora of profound points I make. But, those of us with brains know that the profanity bullshit is just a smokescreen so you can avoid the excellent questions I ask and the points that you can't refute.
Does that sound about right, douche?
Saying "we're all fucked" is different to saying "you are a fucking douchebag dickwad blah blh blah blah blah".
You either understand that or you don't.
The point is, likely you would say "CUT!", wouldn't you, Larry?
But you know that will be harmful too. So you don't like it say it too clearly. Right?
Cut or spend? That's the choice facing governments atm, at bottom, isn't it?
RonPaul would say CUT (severely)
Nobody is saying SPEND.
Correct? Or not?
I'm all for defence cuts and making the rich pay their dues......but....cutting defence spending reduces employment and all the rest of it....and taxing the rich takes money out of the system (unless it is spent productively).
If one accepts taxes don't actually pay for anything, then taxing the rich is simply vindictive.
I enjoyed economics at a basic level, but when it got complicated I lost all faith in it. That was in the 80s, mind. I had philosophical problems with economics, as taught to me. Spending was the last thing on any orthodox economist's mind in the 80s. It was anathema. And yet here we are...20 odd years later.....spending too much, so they say. (again)
The whole point of a fiat currency is you can print as much of it as you like. And yet that is being seen as its weakness.
Well, which is it? Do you want to print and spend - and put people to work? Or do you want to cut, and put people out of work?
True, the idea of cuts is that it will lead to growth....somehow....eventually. But quite how that works......ah well, eh?
"Cut or spend? That's the choice facing governments atm, at bottom, isn't it?
RonPaul would say CUT (severely)
Nobody is saying SPEND.
Correct? Or not?"
It's a FALSE choice. It's putting two options on the table when NEITHER is the best thing to do. Included in that choice should be option 3: END ALL WARS. That would add TRILLIONS to our coffers and practically OBLITERATE our deficit. The ONLY reason Ron Paul is saying CUT, is because there are about 10 Federal programs/agencies right now that are IRRELEVANT and costing taxpayers money. He's picking the lesser of 2 evils---and he HAS been saying END the wars for YEARS now---UNLIKE Obama is saying DESPITE promising to end the wars when he became Prez.
Why don't you learn SOMETHING about our Constitution and then get back to me when you do. Question: Do you know ANYTHING about our Constitution? Anything at all??
"The whole point of a fiat currency is you can print as much of it as you like. And yet that is being seen as its weakness."
That's been our problem! Printing money out of thin air is killing us---it perpetuates DEBT and it causes higher and higher inflation and weakens the value of our dollar. Our dollar right now is worth like 3 cents.
Do you know ANYTHING about inflation, debt or currency? You think just printing more and more money is the answer? Look what it's done so far!! That is EXACTLY why we are in this predicament!
"Ending all wars" is presumably a CUT in spending.
If it isn't a cut in spending, it isn't going to help your plan much, is it?
You say it's a false choice.....however, cutting defence spending is CUTTING SPENDING.
See, you don't like to call it CUTS, do you?
Before you get all pompous about the economics you've imbibed from the internet, why don't you read something on MMT for example? You haven't bothered following the links have you?
And before you start lecturing people about economics, what's your qualification for doing so? Nothing.....yours is just an uneducated opinion.
I'll happily admit my loathing of economics, and my ignorance. Will you do the same? [I have studied it at university, and I grew to hate it - but as I say, this was the 1980s, and I was taught the orthodoxy of the time, which I have never really believed.]
So what's your qualification to tell me about economics? You support RonPaul, therefore you support his extreme free-market, Miseian rubbish, presumably? Arguably that's because RP supports it, rather than any economic theory discrimination on your part.
The miseian stuff asserts all increases in money supply lead to inflation. Clearly that's wrong.
You're entitled to an opinion, but don't get all jumped-up as if you know anything much about economics, Larry?
L: "Printing money out of thin air is killing us---it perpetuates DEBT and it causes higher and higher inflation and weakens the value of our dollar. Our dollar right now is worth like 3 cents. "
=-==
No, 3 cents is worth 3 cents. A dollar is worth a dollar.
Printing money does NOT perpetuate debt at all. Borrowing does - but printing (and spending) does not.
If increases in money supply cause inflation, why is US inflation so low now? It was far higher in early 80s.....yet there's far more money now. So how come?
The value of the dollar compared to other currencies is dependent on what is happening to other country's currency - and their economies - relative to the USA.
A low dollar makes exports cheaper, imports more expensive. And vice versa.
exchange rates
1995 $/£ = 1.6
2011 $/£ = 1.6
You were saying?
Larry, if there was full employment, and industry was working to near capacity, then yes....additional spending (increased money supply) would lead to inflation - because there's nowhere else for the money to go.
However, in an economy that is stagnant, or even facing deflation (which is present risk) and depression, then increased government spending on roads, infrastructure (even digging holes and filling them in) will NOT be inflationary - but it will drive demand.
Yes, I know you probably believe otherwise - doubtless you believe the same things Ron Paul does (just coincidence, right?)
You don't like to call it CUTS, but that's what you advocate. Severe cuts - that's RPs prescription.
You just don't like to admit. Just like RP doesn't like to spell out what his views really mean - SEVERE MASSIVE CUTS.
The simplest way to pay down any deficit is growth. The hardest way is through austerity.....which reduces growth so severely it becomes recession....increasing the scale of the deficit and increasing social costs. There's also all the lost capacity to figure-in to any cuts program too. That's something nobody advocating military cuts seems prepared to do.
And btw - you know you like to claim "there's no left or right"?
Well, clearly there is disagreement over stimulus vs austerity.
Broadly speaking, stimulus would be left, and austerity right.
But anyway, if there's no left/right, what do you call such a disagreement? How is there such a disagreement if there's no left/right? Face it, saying there's no left/right is vacuous and denies reality.
On defence spending.....let's get some things clear?
Wiki: "The military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard."
-----
All the personnel on the military payroll are employees. Cut those jobs and you raise unemployment. That isn't without a cost. Likewise, all the private-sector suppliers to the military.....if defence is cut, there will be job-losses in the private sector too.
The military budget $685 Bn.
Operations and maintenance - $283.3
Military Personnel - $154.2
Procurement - $140.1
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation- $79.1
Military Construction $23.9
Family Housing $3.1
Total Spending $685.1 billion
That includes Iraq and Afghan costs btw.
So what do you want to cut? How much and from where?
Current US forces are circa 1,580,255 personnel.
Sure, cut defence entirely.....but what to do about 1.5m troops who immediately become unemployed? What about the suppliers to the military - how many job losses there? All of these employees would stop paying taxes too...fwiw...also the companies involved too.
Moreover, cuts to the military will be politically difficult. You might not agree with the wars, but some do.
How many Americans really want to cut defence spending? How much want a radical cut in defence spending? Is it a realistic proposal?
And what would be the effect of reducing defence spending? Another reduction in GDP, with the funds instead being used to pay down debt, presumably. So, it would be another (serious) reduction in aggregate demand. [All to pay off your favourite people, internmational bankers, at the expense of working americans, and american self-defence] A tough sell?
Whereas the alternative is for government to raise spending (without borrowing - but rather by printing money).
If government puts people to work, building infrastructure, developing green renewable economy, etc....it will raise aggregate demand....by putting money into the economy....thereby raising GDP....raising economic activity....raising tax receipts....which will better allow any debt to be repaid.
Only sovereign governments can do this, of course, because they can print "money from nothing". It isn't the same with domestic or business budgets - they can't print money - only the government can. [Greece/Ireland/Spain etc cannot, because they are part of Euro - they have relinquished their sovereign ability to print money in return for the safety of a single currency]
spending equals income – income drives output – output drive employment.
From a proponent of MMT:
The world economy is slowing again and there is only one reason for it – policy makers are being seduced by an economics approach that fails to accord with the way the economic system works.
It fails basic tests – like an appreciation that spending creates income. We cannot expect real output to rise when a major component of the marginal growth in aggregate demand is reduced (public spending).
We cannot expect private investment to be strong when consumers are unwilling to return to pre-crisis (credit-driven) consumption levels.
We cannot expect consumers who are saddled with massive debts and/or are enduring entrenched unemployment to bounce back and drive economic growth.
We cannot expect all nations to suddenly experience an export boom which overwhelms the import side of the current account and adds more to aggregate demand than is lost from fiscal austerity.
For all those reasons, budget deficits should be larger at present and governments should be demonstrating up their commitment to full employment and renewed economic growth. The best place to start is to introduce a Job Guarantee – large-scale employment creation programs.
Such a scheme – putting solid income into the hands of the poor and unemployed – would stimulate aggregate demand in essential sectors – food, retail, housing, schooling, health etc and within two quarters the recession would be over and investors would start getting bright-eyed again.
Harvard Business Review Op Ed last week (August 8, 2011) – The Real Solution Is Growth – by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu.
He wrote:
Recent headlines have focused on the debt ceiling, the recent credit rating downgrade, unemployment, and the other thorny fiscal challenges facing the United States. But consider this: increasing the country’s average growth rate by one percentage point over the next 20 years would not only result in much higher incomes and more jobs for all Americans but would also obviate the need for drastic spending cuts today to reign in the government deficit. With a 2% increase per year, average incomes in the United States, and to a first approximation government tax revenues, would be 49% higher in 20 years than they are today; with a 3% increase per year, they would be 81% higher.
=================
"You say it's a false choice.....however, cutting defence spending is CUTTING SPENDING.
See, you don't like to call it CUTS, do you?"
My definition of "cuts" is "something that is needed". The wars ar NOT needed, so therefore does not fall into my definition of "cuts".
"No, 3 cents is worth 3 cents. A dollar is worth a dollar.
Printing money does NOT perpetuate debt at all. Borrowing does - but printing (and spending) does not."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Oh and....WRONG.
How much had we borrowed by the late 20's [from 1913 to 1929] when we had the great depression? Not a whole lot----BUT we HAD created massive debt and printed alot of money by then. Watch the first two Zeitgeist films---Peter Jospeh gets this exactly right.
If 3 cents is worth 3 cents and a dollar a dollar----then tell me why a candy bar was a quarter 30 years ago and now it's like 75 cents [this is just one of thousands of examples]? Inflation, caused by debt, caused by the printing of money.
Looks to me like all you did was type in the words "money growth does not cause inflation" into your search bar and when something actually came up and there was an actual article with that title, you just copied and pasted it onto your blog. I bet you didn't even READ it. RIGHT?
Watch this video and see how it works
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=67OmYvzr9tY
I've studied economics at university. I don't claim any great insight, but don't insult me claiming I never even read the article I posted (in another post).
I'm happy to concede my economic ignorance - it's the dreariest subject imaginable to study. But I have a grounding, and I also possess Association of Bankers qualifications and I am also a part-qualified accountant, able to produce company accounts to trial balance, P+L, balance sheet.......
So, get it right.
Don't send me to watch a film - make the case.
L: My definition of "cuts" is "something that is needed". The wars ar NOT needed, so therefore does not fall into my definition of "cuts".
-----
Don't be ridiculous. Use language as everyone uses it, not how The Queen in Alice does.
Zeitgeist film says
"once the money has been created (out of nothing) it sits in a commercial bank account...."
WRONG.
How did it get from the FED into a commercial bank account?
That film says money supply increases beyond the needs of demand. WRONG.
How can it do so? If nobody wants a loan, then nobody will borrow.
You can't force people to take out loans......and if they DO take out loans, it's reasonable to assume it was DEMANDED.
We have that situation now - where people don't want to borrow money. How is the money supply being increased, therefore? It can't be - therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to increase the money supply without there being a demand for it.
"I've studied economics at university."
But apparently you didn't study GRAMMAR, unless it was Tonto University and your roommate was The Lone Ranger. LOL
"I'm happy to concede my economic ignorance - it's the dreariest subject imaginable to study. But I have a grounding, and I also possess Association of Bankers qualifications and I am also a part-qualified accountant, able to produce company accounts to trial balance, P+L, balance sheet......."
LOL, Funniest fucking thing I ever read. So, you ADMIT youre stupid about economics, BUT...BUT you have an "Association of Bankers" qualifications---WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
So, am I an expert TOO because Ive been INSIDE banks?? LOL
"Don't send me to watch a film - make the case."
Ahhh, I cant post films, but YOU are allowed to copy and paste other peoples articles to make YOUR case. Ha ha.
TWIT.
You never knew there were banking exams and qualifications....but I'm the twit for having them?
Yes, Larry - I am happy to admit my ignorance of economics. I've given the level of my academic acquaintance with the subject.
On the other hand, you imagine you have sufficient expertise to "school" me in the subject.
But you've never shown any more aptitude for the subject than myself. In fact, you've made several most basic errors when discussing the workings of the Federal Reserve - simple things about banking, the knowledge of which goes towards getting stupid banking qualifications......ok?
re the film - it's 15 mins.....and what point is it making?
What is its relevance to the point that we need stimulus?
Videos are a rubbish way of guiding proper reasoning. Video is not the way to do it - words are.
I wish I'd never mentioned education in this, but anyway, the point with getting all noncey about (my) education is simply to state that most people surely don't possess even my limited education in finance, accountancy, banking and economics.... so they are presumably even less able to understand and determine a sensible course through the economic mire.
But one wouldn't think so, to listen to everyone talk. That's the point.
I spent 5 years working as a credit analyst....determining monthly credit limits for companies, up to tens of millions per month. These were insured limits...so they had to be right. I was also a financial news reporter for an information company - mergers and acquisitions, spot prices, market conditions, blah blah blah.
What I am getting at is...that stuff was my life....and yet I don't claim to have all the answers, though I do see an awful lot of people who do believe they have all the answers, despite the fact they (obviously) possess even less qualification and 'expertise' than myself.
Suddenly everyone's an expert. Just like they're architects and firemen re 911 WTC. And dogmatic too.
A read of G Edward Griffin, Eustace Mullins and a few videos of Money Masters and a finance expert ye shall be.....no, sorry.
Ron Paul plays on all this ignorance - well, it is all typical Bircher rubbish, so why wouldn't he? Does he really believe all that stuff? He certainly allows and encourages himself to be presented as the champion of people with such views and he does what he can to not disillusion them [He once said Americans were overpaid. Waaay overpaid. Keep it quiet, right....he never said it...honest....]
And we already know what sort of things his supporters believe in - conspiracy (911, gold, NAFTA, UN, FED, socialism etc)
And we know how they behave - dogmatism, cherry-picking, distortion and outright lies....
And now these people are picking up the cudgel for Mises? Clearly many don't know what they are letting themselves in for.
Extreme free-market approach (a la Mises/RonPaul) is somewhat antagonistic to economic nationalism - that really should be a problem for his constituency. But it seems not. So, how aware of what they're supporting can they be? And how honest is RonPaul being to keep them ignorant? At some point his nationalism and his extreme free-market libertarianism must necessarily conflict, imo.
Unless perhaps we call Paul (and what he represents) National Libertarianism. That seems a reasonable description, and surely suggests a position from which we might expect a particular american fascism to emerge.
See, how can a free-marketeer assure Americans (or anyone else) of work, a living wage, housing, education whatever? What will happen to US jobs under extreme free-market approach? Why will jobs move from China back to USA under free-market? Why would they? Why would US producers gain advantage over foreign competitors - all of which would presumably be granted free and unimpaired access to american markets?
Why would corporations play a smaller role with less regulation, fewer environmental restrictions, fewer health restrictions, etc? Why would the economy turn to production over financialism? What market forces are there to drive all this? All the forces are pushing the other way.....greater 'liberalisation' will only speed the processes.
All this is stuff RonPaul elides and his support never questions. Just like all the crap about the FED, currency issued at interest, debt-dollars, etc - Paul lets it all pass without correction, so he can claim these people's support.
So, they end up supporting his extreme free-market approach. Nationalists supporting Miseian extremes? How can that hold?
So, let's take a look at it?
What are the implications for American Nationalists of support for Ron Paul's Miseian extreme free-market approach?
Larry?
From Lord Wiki. Economic nationalism:
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which emphasize domestic control of the economy, labour and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital. It opposes globalization in many cases, or at least it questions the benefits of unrestricted free trade. Economic nationalism may include such doctrines as protectionism and import substitution.
The objective is to support economic activity and promote social cohesion. The supporters of economic patriotism describe it as a kind of self-defence of local economic interests (national or European in case of the countries of the European Union). Some manifestations of economic patriotism are attempts to block foreign competition or acquisitions of domestic companies. An often cited example is France, where economic patriotism was the main rationale used in the Pepsico-Danone, Mittal-Arcelor, and GDF-Suez affairs.
In the United States, an example of economic patriotism would be the numerous bumper stickers: "Be American, Buy American".
============
The antagonism between free-markets and economic nationalism is obvious.
But not so for the RonPaul supporters who are nationalists.
From The Cato Institute:
"Free trade is losing its grip on the conservative movement. In recent years a growing minority of conservatives, led by Patrick Buchanan, has swung to the opposite end of the spectrum and embraced outright protectionism. "
===
Mr New World Order himself, uh huh.
Makes sense for Buchanan to be protectionist - he's a nationalist.
So what about Ron Paul?
Cato again:
"... the direction of trade negotiations in recent years suggests a connection between free trade and the progressive diminution of U.S. national sovereignty. The scope of trade agreements has broadened far beyond simple tariff-cutting to encompass sweeping forays into traditional domestic policy areas. In particular, efforts to "harmonize" national policies on labor and the environment are working their way onto negotiating agendas at both the regional and multilateral levels. And to enforce these increasingly ambitious agreements, new and more powerful international institutions -- most notably, the World Trade Organization -- have been created and empowered to pronounce judgment on national laws’ fidelity to international obligations.
During the twilight struggle with communism, conservatives suppressed their normal nationalist sensibilities in deference to the greater cause. Now that the Cold War has ended, though, it’s not surprising that a growing number of conservatives are ready to throw the free-trade baby out with the internationalist bath water. If trade liberalization is part of a package deal that seemingly sacrifices America’s national economic interest and erodes its sovereignty in favor of some incipient world government, then thanks but no thanks. Even many conservatives who know enough economics to reject Pat Buchanan’s full-throated protectionism are finding it ever harder to maintain allegiance to the free-trade agenda as currently constituted."
=====
Well, indeed - this is precisely the constituency to which Ron Paul appeals.
And yet.....how to square nationalism with free trade? Buchanan's protectionism seems more obviously appealing to the nationalist, so why isn't it an issue for RonPaul and his (nationalist) support?
Well, RP keeps quiet about it, and his supporters don't raise the issues.
Cato again:
Such a campaign [for free trade] would have no shortage of inviting targets: high tariffs and restrictive quotas on food and clothing, the anti-competitive antidumping law, the Jones Act ban on foreign shipping between U.S. ports, and foreign ownership limits on airlines and broadcasting, to name a few. These trade barriers punish American businesses and consumers; they restrict choices and drive up prices; they blunt the forces of competition that promote improved productivity and rising standards of living. They are a tax on American economic health for the benefit of narrow interests that cannot possibly justify their special immunity from market discipline. The fact that other countries have similar policies or worse is no reason for us to cling to our own folly.
======
This is what RonPaul elides - the implications of his position.
RP supports huge spending cuts and a willingness to allow major banks (the entire sector?) to collapse.
Would his supporters have been happy to see the remnants of a crash and burn policy being bought up for pennies on the dollar by China, Japan, Germany and Saudi oil money?
Would his supporters willingly allow ownership of large amounts of american real estate to disappear overseas? Of corporations closing to be replaced by subsidised foreign competitors? All in the name of "liberty" and "free-markets"? And all whilst China, Japan and France refuse to do the same? And whilst all the limited social/state protection for Americans was being unilaterally removed and sold to the highest bidder and the sharpest operator?
See, this is from a Nationalist forum:
"Free market capitalism is incompatible with nationalism and therefore it is every nationalist's duty to reject free market capitalism."
"Free market capitalism" is indeed anti-nationalistic in nature.
The state either exercises control over its economy with regulating the products that can possibly be imported or exported, and also regulating, directing and controlling the money flow, then you can maintain a nationalist attitude as well.
Or you have free market capitalism, where the "profit from money" (not work or products) is what directs the money flow, because it is the determining factor of every single aspect of economy. The money world is easy, either something generates profit, then it is good, or it does not generate profit, then it is bad.
Let's see what is good for "profit":
- cheap labor
- competition on the labor market (to make labor ever cheaper and to generate therefore more profit)
- open borders for more competition on the labor market
- no limits / regulations of tradeable goods
- no limits for private ownership (including governments and the nations themselves).
Let's now see what is good for your nation:
- proper payment for work in order that people can live well and can effort to get many children
- competition on all levels kills community sense and makes team work impossible
- open borders and the influx of all sorts of cheap labor scum obviously is not good for a nation
- you really dont want each and every crap in your nation, from weird ideologies to chinese cheap products, all damage your internal economy, and when you export likewise unlimited, you also export knowledge and core technology which in turn also damages your internal economy
- the "nation" belongs to the community of the folk, not in private profit-greedy hands. It is not a trade object. The government of the nation are servants to this highest common good under whose protection your nation-folk can florish. They are not in a sphere of competition, nor do their tasks require "profit thinking".
Unlimited "free market capitalism" is a lethal enemy of the nation state.
===================
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=137186
Where is this debate within RonPaul's support? It doesn't seem to be happening at all - rather RP has succeeded in drawing nationalists over to his free-market extremism.
Over at OpEd News someone was making the popular complaint that companies were more interested in profit than wider public/national interests. (They called it fascism - which clearly it isn't - because of its anti-nationalistic character.)
There's some very confused thinking about?
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how Ron Paul's views of economics/banks DIFFER from the founding fathers.
Easy question
Will I get an answer?
Why would I listen to a SOCIALISTS view of economics? Socialism and our founding documents couldn't be further apart
I kinda figured you'd ignore my previous two posts.
I probably wouldn't argue with you over the fact that America is constitutionally anti-socialist.
You're proud of it - I think that's it's failing. But oh well, eh?
So why would you or any American (or anyone else) listen to a socialist? No particular reason.
What about nationalism vs capitalism, Larry?
What about stimulus vs austerity?
oh, and let's take notice that you are not "censored"....., Mr Larry AKA Mr RealTroofOnline.
all your complaints about being censored appear where you posted them. funny.
"You're proud of it - I think that's it's failing. But oh well, eh?"
It's failing because the Constitution is being IGNORED.
"What about nationalism vs capitalism, Larry?"
Absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism. What's that have to do with socialism?
Nothing wrong with nationalism as long as people are devoted to our founding documents instead of our flags or patriotic songs. Once you start saluting a flag, you're borderline Hitler-esque.
Post a Comment