Post-Iraq/Afghanistan Vets have sad homecoming

[Bradylama]

No, it simply became obsolete almost a century ago.

Like the alternative is better? I suppose you also think the New Deal ended the Great Depression.

 

[Elric]

Wild liberism is no solution, anyway. State controlled economy on the other hand has some advantages. It's just difficult to find a good compromise between the two systems, the real problem is the human factor.

 

[welsh]

The New Deal helped keep the US from the same appeal of facism that swept through central Europe. SO did it cure the Great Depression? Well it helped keep the country democratic.

(I've posted that explanation elsewhere on this board.)

Bradylama- the fact that every major industrialized country benefits from both government intervention and to some degree of government planning has in fact become a wider phenomena now during the ascent of neo-liberal orthodoxy.

Those countries that have most benefitted from globalization- the core states of Europe, Japan and the US, have also had an increase in their state capacity and control over economic matters.

In fact developing countries- especially in Asia, have required significant state planning and control to rapidly industrialize. Not just China, but S.Korea, Japan and the other Asian Dragons. Even in Africa, two states that have had the greatest performance- Botswana and Mauritius- have benefitted from central planning.

The problem has less to do with central planning than levels of influence and corruption, which are seperate issues.

The libertarian argument emphasizes a free market based on protection of property, fair adjudication of law, etc. This is also true in the better economies which have significant state intervention. The state can play a role in either safeguarding those rights or utilizing its power to concentrate wealth and power in constituencies. The question is often does the state have autonomy over social interests or do the social interests have power over the state.

However, the libertarian response- to deny the existence of the state and thus remove the question itself to the power of the market fails in two ways. First by removing the state from the market it denies the fact that the market requires the state in order to overcome the collective action problem inherent in markets. Secondly, it undermines the possibility of the state in being a leveling force for society without providing a real alterative. Without the state, market forces would allow the rich to prosper and insulate themselves, and the poor to becoming increasingly poor = a world of walmarts in which workers receive Chinese wages with little opportunity for social advancement.

Elric is right- and the proof is in globalization- those countries that had done "best" have been those that are the largest and most powerful. The problem is in the balance.

But this goes back to the central function of states. States are essential but by their very existence they get caught in the problem of wealth distribution. Do you have a state that distributes from the top down (rich to poor) or from the bottom up (poor to rich).

The argument here is that by failing to support those family businesses that are ruined because the primary breadwinner goes off to fight in Iraq (which can also be seen by weak support for VA hospitals) suggests that we live in a state in which the distribution goes from poor to rich.

 

[Bradylama]

The New Deal helped keep the US from the same appeal of facism that swept through central Europe. SO did it cure the Great Depression? Well it helped keep the country democratic.

The New Deal did no such thing. In fact, the New Deal itself practically mirrored the programs used by Hitler in order to end unemployment.

The New Deal only succeeded because Roosevelt duped the nation into believing that things would actually be better. The illusion of hope. Hardly support for an economic argument.

Bradylama- the fact that every major industrialized country benefits from both government intervention and to some degree of government planning has in fact become a wider phenomena now during the ascent of neo-liberal orthodoxy.

So because of the spread of neo-liberalism, that means that an interventionist state is the correct one?

Those countries that have most benefitted from globalization- the core states of Europe, Japan and the US, have also had an increase in their state capacity and control over economic matters.

That is because of social trends, not economic ones. Trends generated by post-modernist communal thinking. Trends that had fuck all to do with economic sense and individual rights.

You forget that there was a strong trend of globalization in free market nations before post-modernism that we're just now beginning to re-create.

In fact developing countries- especially in Asia, have required significant state planning and control to rapidly industrialize. Not just China, but S.Korea, Japan and the other Asian Dragons. Even in Africa, two states that have had the greatest performance- Botswana and Mauritius- have benefitted from central planning.

We're not talking about Developing Nations, though. We're talking about the United States. A country that was already industrialized, and one of the most powerful economic entities in the world by the time of The New Deal.

The US was founded on principles of individual rights and property ownership that do not apply to Central Asian and sub-Saharan nations. Obviously, when you're enhancing your economy from Pre-Industrial Age to Information Age over the course of a few decades, some central planning and order is needed.

The same does not apply to the United States, which had already gone through the Industrial Age, and kept economically modern in no small part due to extensive global trade, trade made all the easier by the Free Market.

First by removing the state from the market it denies the fact that the market requires the state in order to overcome the collective action problem inherent in markets.

Collective Action, while inherent, isn't necessarily a problem.

Secondly, it undermines the possibility of the state in being a leveling force for society without providing a real alterative.

Only, our state was never meant to be a levelling force in society. The purpose of the American state was to provide assurances of rights, property, protection from foreign threats, and legal access. The American state was never meant to guarantee comfortable living.

Without the state, market forces would allow the rich to prosper and insulate themselves, and the poor to becoming increasingly poor = a world of walmarts in which workers receive Chinese wages with little opportunity for social advancement.

Only, the market is no longer industrial, and lacks the emphasis on material forces. The workforce itself, is also more educated, and capable of rendering services considered to be in high value.

That Wal-Mart employees earn minimum wage is due to the fact that their work is considered of minimum wage value. You can train any idiot to work a cash register.

But this goes back to the central function of states. States are essential but by their very existence they get caught in the problem of wealth distribution. Do you have a state that distributes from the top down (rich to poor) or from the bottom up (poor to rich).

If the state didn't involve itself in economic matters, there would be no such thing as "wealth distribution." Wealth is not just a finite resource to be mined and utilized, its something created. If the wealthy are receiving an unequal amount of money for their efforts, it is because they have placed themselves in a position where they acquire that wealth.

The argument here is that by failing to support those family businesses that are ruined because the primary breadwinner goes off to fight in Iraq (which can also be seen by weak support for VA hospitals) suggests that we live in a state in which the distribution goes from poor to rich.

No it doesn't. It merely suggests that we live in a state that doesn't interfere in natural business practices. The duty of a business is to generate profit. If a business owner has created a negative impact on his business's profit because he goes off to war, that is a failing of the business owner. Not of society, not of the market, not of the government, but of the man.

 

[welsh]

The New Deal helped keep the US from the same appeal of facism that swept through central Europe. SO did it cure the Great Depression? Well it helped keep the country democratic.

The New Deal did no such thing. In fact, the New Deal itself practically mirrored the programs used by Hitler in order to end unemployment.

The New Deal only succeeded because Roosevelt duped the nation into believing that things would actually be better. The illusion of hope. Hardly support for an economic argument.

Nonsense. First off you are failing to look at the type of policies that existed before the New Deal. Where-
- Labor unions could not exist because they interferred with the right to contract.
- Women were paid a fraction of the salaries of men and could not receive legislative support because that would interfere with their right to contract.
- Child labor was ok in the mines because after all.... right to contract.

These were the days of Laissez Faire when corporate attorneys controlled the high court, and in the process maintained the social distinctions and insulation of the rich and power, and when class conflicts were on the rise.

As for the New Deal-

You forget that a lot of the projects done during the New Deal set up the infrastructure that made the industrial boom in the US before, during and after the Second World War a reality. You also have to take that into consideration that this was the beginning of Keynsian economics for the US, recognizing the important role of the state in the economy. We are talking about the growth of both the welfare state and democracy. That the state is an essential part of the globalized economy and the ability of economimes to navigate the globalized economy is widely recognized today. One good example is MITI in Japan, but you can find similar determinants in other countries. Honestly, I give a lot of credit to Greenspan, the FED chairman for keeping the US economy on course.

I often look at the New Deal primarily as a set of legal reforms. Look at some of the Supreme Court decisions before the New Deal on issues like child labor (oh what's wrong with a 12 year old in a coal mine?) or women's labor ("making sure that women get a fair rate of salary violates their freedom to contract!) or worker safety- (Yes health standards for bakers because we don't want them spreading their diseases into our cakes) and you can see some of the social progress being formed. Labor was allowed to organize and campaign effectively- which ironically allowed labor to become incorporated into the system.

Look at how labor was incorporated in other parts of the world and you see both the relationship of labor in communism and in the rise of nazism.

(Oh wait, I forgot- you still think in terms of America's exceptionalism, right?)

In facist countries, worker's parties and working class movements were both extremely strong and radical. Facism grew by the need of leaders who believed that force was needed to smash those movements and control the population.

In communist countries, weak working class parties never gave birth to Nazis. THe Bolshevik's come to power as a minority representative group after the first revolution fails to get Russia out of the war.

In the US workers were strong, but were also not radicalized. Policy reforms allowed for their inclusion in the decision making process of government. Keynsian economics recognized that the market could not provide for certain social goods. The welfare states is really a set of policies that partially decommidify the core elements of the prevailign social understanding of what constitutes a just and dignfied standard of living. By substituting political determination for market determination, of selecting prices and quantities, one sees an increasing opportunity to lead a decent life.

That's one of the benefits of the New Deal.

Wait- facism couldn't happen in the US because, well, we're exceptionally good and honest people who can do no wrong? Yeah...

Considering the great number of unemployed workers during the New Deal, the massive poverty, the danger such a class would present to both a middle class under pressure and the small upper class that took a hit during the Crash of 1929, one fines in the New Deal not only the creation of a new compromise that linked shared interests between classes that sustained the stability of the union, but also helped create the infrastructure that catapulted America's massive industrialization during and after World War 2.

The scary part is that if you where to compare levels of inequality to day with those shortly before the Great Depression, you might find that our levels are comparable. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/10399.htm
Yet during the periods of America's industrial growth, levels of inequality were significantly lower - suggesting a rise in the middle class (especially as War Vets take advantage of the GI Bill to get better educated and create new businesses. (the Kopczuk and Saez table for "Top Wealth Shares in the United States" can also be found on page 43 of Wade's paper http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/TaskForceDiffIneqDevWade.pdf )

Oops, that's more state intervention.

So because of the spread of neo-liberalism, that means that an interventionist state is the correct one?

No the support of neo-liberalism- in which the state is pushed to remove itself from the market, has caused more problems than it has answered. The answer is not in withdrawing the state from the market. The market needs the state to operate, and society needs the state to administer where markets fail. Rather, the answer is in fixing corrupt states to favor developmental polices through better institutions and social cohesion.

Those countries that have most benefitted from globalization- the core states of Europe, Japan and the US, have also had an increase in their state capacity and control over economic matters.

That is because of social trends, not economic ones. Trends generated by post-modernist communal thinking. Trends that had fuck all to do with economic sense and individual rights.

You forget that there was a strong trend of globalization in free market nations before post-modernism that we're just now beginning to re-create.

"Before post-modernism that we're just now beginnning to recreate"? WTF are you talking about?

And to assume that the increase in the state under globalization is due to social rather than economic realities flies in the face of the withering of the welfare states over the last 20 years. As states have tried to cut back on their budgets- thereby allowing more investable capital to more widely circulate, they have also become more involved in managing those economic transaction as globalization has increased the levels of economic complexity, especially among those states that most benefit from globalization- the core states of Europe, Japan and the United States.

In fact developing countries- especially in Asia, have required significant state planning and control to rapidly industrialize. Not just China, but S.Korea, Japan and the other Asian Dragons. Even in Africa, two states that have had the greatest performance- Botswana and Mauritius- have benefitted from central planning.

We're not talking about Developing Nations, though. We're talking about the United States. A country that was already industrialized, and one of the most powerful economic entities in the world by the time of The New Deal.

The US was founded on principles of individual rights and property ownership that do not apply to Central Asian and sub-Saharan nations. Obviously, when you're enhancing your economy from Pre-Industrial Age to Information Age over the course of a few decades, some central planning and order is needed.

The problem that you keep having is that you see the state as antithetical to the protection of individual rights, and you assume that those same principles do not apply to developing areas. In fact they do. The importance of property rights and individual liberties has strongly correlated in some of the same countries in which the state has been active in economic management.

The same does not apply to the United States, which had already gone through the Industrial Age, and kept economically modern in no small part due to extensive global trade, trade made all the easier by the Free Market.

First by removing the state from the market it denies the fact that the market requires the state in order to overcome the collective action problem inherent in markets.

Collective Action, while inherent, isn't necessarily a problem.

Which neglects the problem that to create a market- in which parties must bargain, deal, and resolve disputes over distances and at arms length- itself is a collective action problem that is resolved not by the market but by the state.

And why the state? Because of it's legitimized use of coercive power. How that power is utilized- either to pursue a tyranny in which the state's power is utilized to empower specific social groups (be they a ruling class in African dictatorships or the communist party in China or the Soviet Union) or is it utilized to provide greater social cohesion and opportunity to society in general.

Secondly, it undermines the possibility of the state in being a leveling force for society without providing a real alterative.

Only, our state was never meant to be a levelling force in society. The purpose of the American state was to provide assurances of rights, property, protection from foreign threats, and legal access. The American state was never meant to guarantee comfortable living.

Actually it's less than that. The Constitution only pushed the Bill of Rights down the throats of federal authorities and not States- you can't even get your protection of property, individual rights, or legal access based on what the founders wanted. You'd have to go to the states which where notoriously corrupt and influenced by special interests.

But thank God it has changed. Based on your logic slavery would still be kosher, because afterall the issue of slavery was still a matter of state soveriegnty and not national sovereignty. What did that create-

In the Northeast- small farmers and rising industrialists who wanted cheap primary goods from the south.

In the West- small farmers who made their money by shipping food to the Northeast urban centers.

In the South- large plantations owners who became a political elite based on the use of slave labor and who wanted access to foreign markets to get a better deal on their goods.

Consequence- a long period of difficult political crises and compromises in which the slave states were protected by Senate vote until that compromise collapsed, then civil war as the political and economic elite of the south saw the source of their prosperity- plantation agriculture- threatened with the end of slavery.

And as a result of war- the Civil War Amendments which included the expansion of the Bill of Rights to states as well as the federal government.

But you get more- you also get the growth of the US as the largest economy in the world including the industrial revolution which propels that growth. But you also get abuse of workers rights, the Muckrakers, creation of Monopolies and Cartels, and a lack of social policies- all in the name of freedom of contract.

Yet you want to go back to 1900?

Without the state, market forces would allow the rich to prosper and insulate themselves, and the poor to becoming increasingly poor = a world of walmarts in which workers receive Chinese wages with little opportunity for social advancement.

Only, the market is no longer industrial, and lacks the emphasis on material forces. The workforce itself, is also more educated, and capable of rendering services considered to be in high value.

Tell that to the 25K people GM is laying off. Also tell that to the telemarketers, the accountants, the software designers who are seeing their jobs go to Bangalore.

That Wal-Mart employees earn minimum wage is due to the fact that their work is considered of minimum wage value. You can train any idiot to work a cash register.

Or because there are so few opportunities for people to get better jobs? Because when a few industries dominate a labor market they can set the labor rates? And what happens when the workers unionize- walmart closes off that particular store.

But this goes back to the central function of states. States are essential but by their very existence they get caught in the problem of wealth distribution. Do you have a state that distributes from the top down (rich to poor) or from the bottom up (poor to rich).

If the state didn't involve itself in economic matters, there would be no such thing as "wealth distribution." Wealth is not just a finite resource to be mined and utilized, its something created. If the wealthy are receiving an unequal amount of money for their efforts, it is because they have placed themselves in a position where they acquire that wealth.

That has got to be the most silly thing you have thus said- as if the state could avoid economic matters?

By the very fact that the state is involved in the protection of the national defense means that the government is involved in wealth distribution. Guns, uniforms, missiles- need to be paid for and who gets what is a consequence of lobbying. That's why the base closing round is so politically controversial.

The mere fact that the government is entrusted with protecting the indivdual rights means that it is stuck with the problem wealth distribution.

For example- in legal policy- Who is favored by the law- the worker who gets fired or the business that fires them? Who should pay the taxes that are necessary to sustain the state and the national defense, each person as an individual or those who profit most from the nation's defense? Should companies be allowed to monopolize? What assurances should a person have stocks are not subject to insider trading? Who should get more protection in shareholder disputes- shareholders or officers? What are the rules that we rely on to make sure property is conveyed, contracts are enforced? How should the bidding for national contracts be decided? Who should be favored in our environmental laws? Should a person be entitled to inherit wealth as a matter of birthright or should that wealth be redistributed back to the society from which that wealth originally came?

Those are all issues that states must address that deal with the problem of wealth distribution. The question of who or what class that state decides to benefit shapes the types of inequality and economic policies of that state.

And because politics and economics go hand-in-hand, you cannot divide the two. All laws are issues of moral choice decided through political processes. But those political processes themselves are favored by interests- are they corporate or worker interests? Do they support the poor, the middle class or the rich?

Because in politics - social groups use whatever they can to their advantage in order to create institutional changes that favor their distributional advantage. Thus we have- students- demonstrate, workers strike, middle class campaign, peasants rebel, the rich give bribes and occassionally the military launches coup d'etat. But their power to act politically also requires overcoming collective action problems. As Mancur Olson taught us- overcoming the collective action problem is easier if you are a small and discrete group - like a group of wealthy oil or automobile makers who want to get favorable treatment, or a group from the military-industrial complex, than from the middle or lower classes.

The argument here is that by failing to support those family businesses that are ruined because the primary breadwinner goes off to fight in Iraq (which can also be seen by weak support for VA hospitals) suggests that we live in a state in which the distribution goes from poor to rich.

No it doesn't. It merely suggests that we live in a state that doesn't interfere in natural business practices. The duty of a business is to generate profit. If a business owner has created a negative impact on his business's profit because he goes off to war, that is a failing of the business owner. Not of society, not of the market, not of the government, but of the man.

Natural business practices? You assume that capitalism is the natural order? It isn't. Capitalism- in terms of modern rational capitalism is a rather new creation that has (in some places) overcome mercantilism. There is nothing natural about business- it is a creation of human imagination and drive subject to legal sanctions and controls. The UCC, property law, the Securities and Exchange Act- these are the instruments that guide business so that they might lead to the natural human tendency of promoting one's self. It is the beauty of capitalism that collective good is created from selfish individualism.

If the middle class contractor loses his job and becomes homeless because he risked his life for his country through an act of loyalty, the least the government could do is help him rebuild his lose business. Instead the government decides to favor overpaid corporations for providing expensives services, which in the end profits the owners of those industries.

I'd like to think a government could at least help out the guy who has lost so much in the service of his country rather than let him go helpless. But apparently you don't.

Thus the rich benefit and the middle and poor class get screwed and that's what's consistent about this administration.

 

[Bradylama]

Natural business practices?

Yes, Natural business practices. You think that if you go off to war and leave your business stagnant, somebody isn't going to take advantage of that situation?

Of course Capitalism is an invention that follows a set of guidelines. By Natural Business Practices, I refer to actions that generate the greatest profit. If you see an opportunity to generate profit, it would be only natural that you pursue it. By making the concious decision not to pursue profit, you are making an unnatural (foolish) business decision.

So no, I don't particularly think that the government should step in and protect incompetence.

That has got to be the most silly thing you have thus said-

Ceded.

Or because there are so few opportunities for people to get better jobs? Because when a few industries dominate a labor market they can set the labor rates? And what happens when the workers unionize- walmart closes off that particular store.

And if all Wal-Mart workers unionize?

Job losses are natural downturns in an economy. If people don't buy enough stuff, or purchase enough services then the demand for those goods decreases. The demand for work decreases.

Keynesian economics maintains that in order to keep the market afloat, government revenues must be injected into key parts of the economy in order to keep it afloat. However, if you're accomplishing this feat by taxing the public and borrowing the money, then you've created an investment defecit. Taxing income creates less demand for products and services, and borrowing money sinks the government further into debt. What you've created is a situation where a dead industry is kept alive at the cost of the people and the nation.

So what is the end result of this practice? We're in debt up to our eyebrows, and those debts aren't going to go away. The collector has to call sometime, and if you can't pay then you only sink further into debt through interest. Americans don't actually own America anymore, the Asians do. So when Asian banks no longer see the unnatural propagation of the dollar as key to their interests, what do you think will happen then?

Crash and burn.

you can't even get your protection of property, individual rights, or legal access based on what the founders wanted.

Actually, you could. The end result isn't even what the founders wanted. The nation was only able to become founded because concessions had to be made to the South in order for the country to survive. Those concessions were rendered irrelevant by the Civil War, and the 14th Ammendment.

Besides, I don't base my arguments on what-ifs, so you can talk about kosher slavery all you like.

Yet you want to go back to 1900?

Yes. The state of the nation as it was in the 1900s was much better off than the position we've placed ourselves in now. Sure you and I be living more comfortably, but how long will that comfort last?

The problem that you keep having is that you see the state as antithetical to the protection of individual rights, and you assume that those same principles do not apply to developing areas. In fact they do. The importance of property rights and individual liberties has strongly correlated in some of the same countries in which the state has been active in economic management.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the state violates the protection of individual rights, but that the state as it is now does.

What you have now is a sense of communal rights, and that people are entitled to something simply for being in a majority.

Which neglects the problem that to create a market- in which parties must bargain, deal, and resolve disputes over distances and at arms length- itself is a collective action problem that is resolved not by the market but by the state.

Yes, in order for me to sell my house, I have to receive recognition that the house is in fact mine. This recognition is provided by the state. If my ownership is violated in any way, I have the ability to involve the state as per my ability as the rightful landowner.

That is the basis of a market, recognition and protection through the threat of force.

In order for the state to protect my rights as a landowner, however, I must pay the state in order for the state to be able to protect my rights. That's why we have property taxes.

There is no justification, however, for the practice of income taxing. Actually, that's wrong. There was justification in that we were in wartime conditions, and heavy taxing was required in order to finance the war machine. Are we in war conditions now?

WTF are you talking about?

http://www.globalizzazione2000.it/20th_century.htm

Globalization is not just a recent phenomenon. Some analysts have argued that the world economy was just as globalized 100 years ago as it is today. But today commerce and financial services are far more developed and deeply integrated than they were at that time. The most striking aspect of this has been the integration of financial markets made possible by modern electronic communication.

Globalization ended solely because of World War 1. Though, I think we've already had an entire thread on that. The boom experienced after the second world war was the exact same situation present in the United States after the first World War. These booms were created due to the lifting of repressed demand caused by a wartime economy. In the case of the post-World War 2 boom, that growth was facilitated due to the expansion of industry caused by the war, and new industries created by the wartime innovations.

You forget that a lot of the projects done during the New Deal set up the infrastructure that made the industrial boom in the US before, during and after the Second World War a reality.

Yes, and those projects would have been absolute wastes of capital if there never was a war. Think about that.

recognizing the important role of the state in the economy.

Recognizing the role, or expanding the state's role in it?

(oh what's wrong with a 12 year old in a coal mine?)

I don't know, you tell me.

("making sure that women get a fair rate of salary violates their freedom to contract!)

That doesn't violate their freedom to contract, it violates their contract. Workers do not need the state in order to levy what they perceive to be a fair deal. It is just a matter of resolve.

In facist countries, worker's parties and working class movements were both extremely strong and radical. Facism grew by the need of leaders who believed that force was needed to smash those movements and control the population.

Bullshit. Fascism grew due to the success of labor parties. Or does the concept of National Socialism fail you somehow? A fascist seeks not to smash some opposition, but to smash all opposition. Labor movements are just one aspect of dissent.

In communist countries, weak working class parties never gave birth to Nazis. THe Bolshevik's come to power as a minority representative group after the first revolution fails to get Russia out of the war.

Through force, yes.

Wait- facism couldn't happen in the US because, well, we're exceptionally good and honest people who can do no wrong? Yeah...

Fascism couldn't have happened in the US because our government is set up to seperate power. Roosevelt could have been the first American dictator if it weren't for congress, and the people's belief in the constitution. His rise to power and popularity practically mirrors the methods used by Hitler if you compare them. The difference is that Roosevelt didn't use racial scapegoats.

Considering the great number of unemployed workers during the New Deal, the massive poverty, the danger such a class would present to both a middle class under pressure and the small upper class that took a hit during the Crash of 1929, one fines in the New Deal not only the creation of a new compromise that linked shared interests between classes that sustained the stability of the union, but also helped create the infrastructure that catapulted America's massive industrialization during and after World War 2.

Yet you're still arguing for the appeal of an illusion. You're still claiming that the only success of the New Deal was the promises it made, which is exactly what I'm saying. Unemployment went unchanged from the beginning of the Depression to mobilization.

 

[MrMarcus]

Or because there are so few opportunities for people to get better jobs? Because when a few industries dominate a labor market they can set the labor rates? And what happens when the workers unionize- walmart closes off that particular store.

And if all Wal-Mart workers unionize?

Job losses are natural downturns in an economy. If people don't buy enough stuff, or purchase enough services then the demand for those goods decreases. The demand for work decreases.

Keynesian economics maintains that in order to keep the market afloat, government revenues must be injected into key parts of the economy in order to keep it afloat. However, if you're accomplishing this feat by taxing the public and borrowing the money, then you've created an investment defecit. Taxing income creates less demand for products and services, and borrowing money sinks the government further into debt. What you've created is a situation where a dead industry is kept alive at the cost of the people and the nation.

So what is the end result of this practice? We're in debt up to our eyebrows, and those debts aren't going to go away. The collector has to call sometime, and if you can't pay then you only sink further into debt through interest. Americans don't actually own America anymore, the Asians do. So when Asian banks no longer see the unnatural propagation of the dollar as key to their interests, what do you think will happen then?

Crash and burn.

So you'd rather have the country crash and burn as a result of blindly believing in a fictional "free market" (which doesn't exist - tarriffs make sure of that) which can resolve all of America's problems with the loosening of regulations.

After all - what we've done is create a dead country kept alive propped up by the people of the rest of the world.

 

[Bradylama]

It is better than the alternative debt-riddled welfare state, yes.

 

[TorontoReign]

I don't mean to interupt on your little debate, but you both bring up interesting points. If someone enlists in the National Guard or Reserves they should expect to get deployed to Iraq for at least a year or more. It aint like it used to be folks were you could join up, do your job for a couple days out of the year, and reap benefits without sacrifice. I feel sorry for the people that got reemed while they were in Iraq , but shit happens when you aren't prepared.

 

[welsh]

Natural business practices?

Yes, Natural business practices. You think that if you go off to war and leave your business stagnant, somebody isn't going to take advantage of that situation?

Of course Capitalism is an invention that follows a set of guidelines. By Natural Business Practices, I refer to actions that generate the greatest profit. If you see an opportunity to generate profit, it would be only natural that you pursue it. By making the concious decision not to pursue profit, you are making an unnatural (foolish) business decision.

So no, I don't particularly think that the government should step in and protect incompetence.

But this is less about incompetence than that a lot of guys who went in the reserve keep getting sent back to Iraq, and that once they are there, to serve in a patriotic capacity, they lose their businesses. Agreed, their choice suffered from conflicting interests- the desire to maintain a business vs a duty to their country. That said, it has been a damn long time since the US has been vested in long-term colonial wars.

But there is a second cost- you are also putting a hurt on the middle class small businesses, and it is this class that has been deemed necessary for the stability of democracy.

The question is one of social fairness- should the government support big corporations that have profitted greatly from this war at tax payers expense, or should it bail out small businesses (the primary employers in the US) that have suffered as a consequence of this war?

You would argue as a Libertarian that the government should stay out of the market, but as argued above- it can't help itself. Remove the government from regulation of the market and the market is controlled by large vested interests that more easily overcome collection action. By failing to act upon the market, the government inherently supports a distortion of power- into the hands of corporate elite which has been insulating itself for the past few years- a new aristocratic class.

The funny thing about this, is that in some ways I share your concerns about the danger of government and economics. But intervening the government can manipulate the economy in ways adverse to other interests. But by taking a Laissez Faire approach, the government allows political power to vest itself in the elites as economic power is transition to political power and the democracy is forced to exclude itself from the economy despite the demands by middle and lower classes for more participation in the economy.

In essence by taking a "hands off" approach, the government adopts a "pro-big business" approach. Worse, because the government can't intervene in the market it must find other strategies to deal with demands from lower classes- repression and co-option become viable alternatives leading to a corporatist state.

But this is also not without problems. Pro-business creates cronyism. Kang's recent book on Cronyism illustrates the problem in South Korea during the Asian Financial Crisis of what happens when bureaucrats and business get too cozy. Business will use politics for profit- because that's their nature. Governments need to control economics to maintain their political position, at core if we accept that the state's principle mission is to prepare for war, protect property and safe guard the public order, it might deal.

Who does it deal with- business. Because only business would have the power to negotiate with the state. What does business want- to stay in power, to control the state so that the state is not a threat to it's hold, and to insulate itself as a class against the demands of lower classes.

Honestly this is the problem with libertarianism- it sounds good but the course of events it champions points to disaster, especially in the extreme. Its' no wonder that most of the economic libertarians you find are educated white middle and upper classes. It's not a surprise that the period of Laissez Faire was also a period of Social Darwinism that sanction the power of the elites over the middle and lower classes, or the period of Supreme Court Opinions of that time (the Lochner Era) were written primarily by corporate lawyers representing that class.

Or because there are so few opportunities for people to get better jobs? Because when a few industries dominate a labor market they can set the labor rates? And what happens when the workers unionize- walmart closes off that particular store.

And if all Wal-Mart workers unionize?[/quote]

Based on your notion of a turn back to 1900- unions would not be allowed to unionize as that violates freedom to contract.

Job losses are natural downturns in an economy. If people don't buy enough stuff, or purchase enough services then the demand for those goods decreases. The demand for work decreases.

Keynesian economics maintains that in order to keep the market afloat, government revenues must be injected into key parts of the economy in order to keep it afloat. However, if you're accomplishing this feat by taxing the public and borrowing the money, then you've created an investment defecit. Taxing income creates less demand for products and services, and borrowing money sinks the government further into debt. What you've created is a situation where a dead industry is kept alive at the cost of the people and the nation.

Yet the irony of this is also that businesses, if protected through the Laissez faire system you espouse, would also seek subsidies and protection by government. It was these industries that sought protectionism from foreign industries during the same period that you support- protection against demands from labor and protection from foreign industries. Thus the corporations are protected from below (from society) and from beyond (by external competition). And this has been the same consequence on every country in which business has been given a free hand by the state.

What you miss though, was who the borrowing comes from and who gets paid. When you discuss taxes on the middle and poor classes, who are not making enough to get by, and support the wealthy you support an inequality in poor support the rich. Alternatively if business is taxed and wealth is dispersed downward, so that people get paid and can support themselves, you again have the chance to reinvest in small and middle business, more money in circulation, more employment, more competitive small industries that succeed or failr by innovation and progress. It is this group that large industry, with its captial vested, is most afraid of. The upstart new comer who can challenge industries hold. It is little wonder that this industry will use the state to protect itself.

Again, you are mistaking two different things- But destroying the role of the state in the economy you believe that this unburdens the economy from painful distortions. But you confuse this with corruption and cronyism. But removing the state from the economy you remove the possibility of the state in support the growth of middle and lower classes and allow the upper classes to have a stronger role in shaping state policy and insulating itself- and in that sense allowing dead industries to live. It is the support for small and middle industries that push for innovation and change in the market- and these could be fueled by support from the state.

So what is the end result of this practice? We're in debt up to our eyebrows, and those debts aren't going to go away. The collector has to call sometime, and if you can't pay then you only sink further into debt through interest. Americans don't actually own America anymore, the Asians do. So when Asian banks no longer see the unnatural propagation of the dollar as key to their interests, what do you think will happen then?
Crash and burn.

Actually I think it's mostly English capital.
Or when the banks turn their eyes on their own industries?

But looking at the Asian banks again- compare two countries of the Asian Financial Crisis- Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan survived mostly because the economy is dominanted by small and middle industries that are allowed to die off if they are not performing. S.Korea was dominanted by big industries with strong ties to the state. Because of the danger of these companies falling apart, the state bent over backwards to protect them- so when the Asian crisis came, the country crashed.

The question is not whether the state should be involved in the economy- it is by virtue of its function. The question is more about how the state should use it's financial and political power- to support the big industries by crushing worker unions and maintaining unfair salaries, or by supporting small and medium size competitive industries that can challenge competitors with innovation and technologies. Should the state remove itself from market failures- and let the environment go toxic, education remain the bastion of the rich, or should it create more opportunities and a better quality of life for more people- so that individuals of talent can climb the social ranks based on merit rather than birthright?

Yet you want to go back to 1900?

Yes. The state of the nation as it was in the 1900s was much better off than the position we've placed ourselves in now. Sure you and I be living more comfortably, but how long will that comfort last?[/quote]

That depends on who "you" are. If you are a woman, a minority, a lower class indiviudal, you up shit creek- we're back to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (the irony of which can be seen in some of our modern muckraking books that criticize the beef industry and others).

From Muckrakers we got legislation- starting the Theodore Roosevelt- a whole different kind of Republican that the shithead in office.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the state violates the protection of individual rights, but that the state as it is now does.

What you have now is a sense of communal rights, and that people are entitled to something simply for being in a majority.[/qutoe]

This I agree is dangerous. On social issues, Libertarians get a lot more support from me. But one has to be careful to think that social, economic and political boundaries are sharp. In fact they overlap.

There is no justification, however, for the practice of income taxing. Actually, that's wrong. There was justification in that we were in wartime conditions, and heavy taxing was required in order to finance the war machine. Are we in war conditions now?

Yes, and we have been since the end of the Second World War (Ok, since the beginning of the Cold War). It is the maintanence of that military posture that justifies government involvement in the economy. To maintaining a military the state must extract wealth, and the bigger the economy, the more extraction- therefore the government has an interest in maintaining a hand in the economy if only to assure its wealth extraction. This has been true of all modern states throughout the last 1000 years (see Tilly, Capital, Coercion and European State Making for an explanation).

But there is more to it than that- a democratic state also survives because it defends the values of the people. Our national security might first be based on our notion of existence, but its a quick step up to ask what are the values of life that are worth defending- Property? Equality? The Pursuit of Happiness? (what does that mean?).

Yes, and those projects would have been absolute wastes of capital if there never was a war. Think about that.

Hardly. Governments often vest themselves in providing employment because few things are more dangerous to a state than a lot of unemployed people with grievances. It has been usually starving peasants or unemployed workers that are the makers or rebellion and revolution.

(oh what's wrong with a 12 year old in a coal mine?)

I don't know, you tell me.

Besides black lung and frequent deaths? The denial of individuals of an opportunity to be more productive members of society on the simple basis that they are poor.

Ironic that this is the same problem with the funding of education.

("making sure that women get a fair rate of salary violates their freedom to contract!)

That doesn't violate their freedom to contract, it violates their contract. Workers do not need the state in order to levy what they perceive to be a fair deal. It is just a matter of resolve.

That and forming a union- which employers might be against. Lochner era case- Adkins vs Children's Hospital, 261 US 525 (1923) speaks to that issue- overthrowing a minimum wage law for women as beginag against the "freedom to contract." This was overthrown in 1937 in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish- where the Court upheld minimum wage laws for women as defending their "inferior bargaining position" and thus allowed them a living wage.

In facist countries, worker's parties and working class movements were both extremely strong and radical. Facism grew by the need of leaders who believed that force was needed to smash those movements and control the population.

Bullshit. Fascism grew due to the success of labor parties. Or does the concept of National Socialism fail you somehow? A fascist seeks not to smash some opposition, but to smash all opposition. Labor movements are just one aspect of dissent.

Wrong. You might want to take a look at two sources.
Your local library should have a copy of the Columbia History of the World as a reference. Also try Gregory Luebbert's Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy: Social Classes adn teh Poltiical Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe, which tackles the issue head on and updates Barrington Moore's Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy

The attack of the nationalist socialists were primarily against communists, who at the dominated labor and trade unions. Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany all targetted labor and trade unions as part of their attack.


Columbia History of the World- On Benito Mussolini- '.. In 1922 Mussolini led the "March on Rome" to claim and be given political power. His Regime relied on two faces. It relied in part on naked force, expressed in the organized ruffianism of the "Black Shirts", the destruction of trade unions, censorship of the press and repression of dissent, and a grwoing tendency to regiment all of society. At the same time much of the new regime was welcome to the powerful parts of the Italian society."

Likewise- on Nazi Germany, "All parties but the Nazi Party and all trade unions were eliminated..."

Luebbert makes the distinction between Facism and the dictatorships of Eastern Europe of that time, " Facism was distinguished from traditiona dictatorship in funamdnetal ways: it its complete suppression of represtnative institutions and autonomous working class parties and trade unions..."

Where labor unions were accepted into coalitions you had social democracies (Scandinavia). Where urban and rural middle classes crashed down on working classes- facism.

Your average Nazi was often a nationalists and a war veteran who feared the rise of communism in working class parties. To defeat that they turned to a strong man who was willing to use violence and terrorism to win. Hitler himself wiped out 1000 of his followers because they were too radical.

Once in power the Facist regimes did provide services to workers- employment, education,health care- but at the expense of both political organization and voice (the destruction of organized labor unions) and of wages. Thus the workers became co-opted into the system with jobs in exchange for political voice and salaries.

Fascism couldn't have happened in the US because our government is set up to seperate power. Roosevelt could have been the first American dictator if it weren't for congress, and the people's belief in the constitution. His rise to power and popularity practically mirrors the methods used by Hitler if you compare them. The difference is that Roosevelt didn't use racial scapegoats.

Funny, but one might have said that Hitler could have have risen to power under the Wiemar republic's democratic system. Racism was unique to Germany, not really part of Italy or Spain's facism. We normally think of the rise of the Nazi's as a racist party- but the main enemy was communism- which was centered in worker's parties. Prior to the great depression the Nazis were the 9th most powerful party in Germany, but when the depression kicked in, their ranks swelled because of its protests against the state and because people were fearful of the danger of worker parties.

Could that have happened in the US? Perhaps. You are putting a lot of faith in institutions, but institutions exist because people want them to exist. What was "New" about the "New Deal" was that the state showed that it cared about the workers, gave them jobs and was trying to make it work. This was enfranchising workers into the system- protection of unions, opportunities, etc. Mollified, workers (both urban and rural) did not press for income redistribution and thus demands from middle classes to repress (though Pinkerton agents got a reputation for beating on workers). Don't forget, the US was afraid of communism- the First Red Scare occurs about this time.

Considering the great number of unemployed workers during the New Deal, the massive poverty, the danger such a class would present to both a middle class under pressure and the small upper class that took a hit during the Crash of 1929, one fines in the New Deal not only the creation of a new compromise that linked shared interests between classes that sustained the stability of the union, but also helped create the infrastructure that catapulted America's massive industrialization during and after World War 2.

Yet you're still arguing for the appeal of an illusion. You're still claiming that the only success of the New Deal was the promises it made, which is exactly what I'm saying. Unemployment went unchanged from the beginning of the Depression to mobilization.

No, what I am arguing is that the New Deal allowed the state to weather the storm of the Great Depression by including workers into the system, by overcoming market failures, and replacing a Laissez faire system with one that that sought greater social justice. The infrastructure, was a side benefit but is consistent with industrialization in other parts of the world where the infrastructure of economic growth is built to reduce employment pressures and then used to expand industry.

 

[tired007]

Man has it been a crappy year.

Well,

I just happened to be able to get back to this site hoping that someone somewhere had made a post apocolyptic game of sometype so that I can forget about what a crappy year I've had when I ran across this discussion in the forums.

It's kind of interesting the experience I had with a returning military vet AKA my wife. you can read all about it here:

www.militaryass.org

Needless to say a couple months ago, I lost my job, lost my wife, and now when I lose the 20 pounds I need to lose to get back in the Army, I'm jumping in the first unit that is going overseas. Yeah, I'm the type of guy that just can't help but make really bad decisions

Anyway, I know that when quite a few of my friends came back from overseas is was a really difficult adjustment period for them. I couldn't believe some of the stories that I've heard. It's like when people get deployed, they lose thier frontal lobe or something. Before my soon to be ex left , she told me of at least 7 couples that are now getting a divorce or are seperated....hmm I guess that would make my divorce number 8.

Well, I just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth and slap on my website that I've been working on. If anyone has any suggestions about any games I can play while I ride out my severance package. I just happened across this topic and had to vent. Sorry if I sounded a little crass or pesimistic about the whole deployment ie returning home thing.

Greg