If US could not raise its debt limit and the govt in shutdown mode, can the Feb still continue its stimulus program? Where is the Feb going to find US$85 billion a month to pump into the economy? Are they connected or independent of each other? These things are too complex for me to understand.
(07-10-2013, 12:51 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2013, 05:10 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]anyway, in terms of politics, it is much easier to agree to disagree, than to argue continuously.
We just have totally different political ideology.
We already establish our difference in political ideology more than once. There is no need for further argument. I will not accept your populist thinking and I don't intend to convince people to accept my thinking.
All has been said.
I have no issue if you tout your capitalistic ideals. But I have issue if you equate socialism to populism or lazy/stupid when you obviously don't have a clue what socialism means. I respect those who knows what they are talking about even if I disagree.
Ultra capitalist is as dangerous as communist. Anything in excess or dogmatic is dangerous. I am not suggesting reckless spending or entitlement. But you are saying ALL entitlements are wrong. Probably human rights are wrong too unless it comes with a price tag.
Secondly I also have an issue when one thinks we should have a supercar lane rather than a bus lane because the former pays more tax. This example essentially divides our views. Capitalism is efficient, but it is not effective... until you understand that, your arguments is as sound as Fox Network.
Socialism does not solve all problems, but Singapore's model of socialism with capitalistic tools shows it can work. But the first principle must be right. Putting capitalism first instead of as a tool in the past 13 years has not been beneficial for the nation as a whole. That's obvious.
My pro capitalism does not reject socialism completely. And it's harder for capitalism to eliminate socialism. Even in the wild nature, not all the weak are eliminated. A lot of weak execute certain functions to provide for and survive in the pack.
But for any sustained survivability, lean structure is required. You simply can't overwhelm the society with too many weak and too few productive ones. Don't blame the industrialist for not hire more people if you are going to implement minimum wage. Capitalism in human nature ensures that those without productivity for the wage will be left behind. Could US have more people working? Sure it could, but it has to abolish or lower significantly minimum wage. There are plenty things to be done in the US. The world has not reached a stage that does not require improvement.
The trend in US does indicate there are going to be more and more of the weak and fewer and fewer of the productive ones. So should the government continue to encourage it just to gain popularity and win election?
(09-10-2013, 09:16 AM)Ben Wrote: [ -> ]If US could not raise its debt limit and the govt in shutdown mode, can the Feb still continue its stimulus program? Where is the Feb going to find US$85 billion a month to pump into the economy? Are they connected or independent of each other? These things are too complex for me to understand.
Fed creates money to purchase/ in exchange for governement bonds, mortgage backed securities, etc.
As for the US government, when it has to spend money, say to pay the civil workers, run public programs, etc, it has to first look at its bank account. Currently, there's only tens of billions left. Once it has finished spending this remaining money, it will have to raise money. It does so by selling government bonds.
However, by law, if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government cant sell more bonds.
Even if the fed wants to print more money to buy bonds, it can only buy existing government bonds, it cant buy newly issued ones because the government cannot issue new bonds soon.
Haha, hope i didnt make it more complicated for you
(09-10-2013, 09:16 AM)Ben Wrote: [ -> ]If US could not raise its debt limit and the govt in shutdown mode, can the Feb still continue its stimulus program? Where is the Feb going to find US$85 billion a month to pump into the economy? Are they connected or independent of each other? These things are too complex for me to understand.
The treasury is the one collecting money ie taxes manages the country obligations ie paying bills giving paychecks, the federal reserve print's the currency.
The Federal reserve is part of the US gov but an Independent entity outside of anybody's oversight even the President cannot touch. The fed by law can print money, lends money to nations, contributes to imf and wields a lot of influence in the world.
The US treasury sells bonds to raise capital it needs to cover shortfalls. If they default ie fail to get anymore money to pay their obligations the first thing I see interest rates are going to go up. The Fed because they are special will still print money to buy it. Remember they are the reserve currency.
(09-10-2013, 09:46 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013, 12:51 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2013, 05:10 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]anyway, in terms of politics, it is much easier to agree to disagree, than to argue continuously.
We just have totally different political ideology.
We already establish our difference in political ideology more than once. There is no need for further argument. I will not accept your populist thinking and I don't intend to convince people to accept my thinking.
All has been said.
I have no issue if you tout your capitalistic ideals. But I have issue if you equate socialism to populism or lazy/stupid when you obviously don't have a clue what socialism means. I respect those who knows what they are talking about even if I disagree.
Ultra capitalist is as dangerous as communist. Anything in excess or dogmatic is dangerous. I am not suggesting reckless spending or entitlement. But you are saying ALL entitlements are wrong. Probably human rights are wrong too unless it comes with a price tag.
Secondly I also have an issue when one thinks we should have a supercar lane rather than a bus lane because the former pays more tax. This example essentially divides our views. Capitalism is efficient, but it is not effective... until you understand that, your arguments is as sound as Fox Network.
Socialism does not solve all problems, but Singapore's model of socialism with capitalistic tools shows it can work. But the first principle must be right. Putting capitalism first instead of as a tool in the past 13 years has not been beneficial for the nation as a whole. That's obvious.
My pro capitalism does not reject socialism completely. And it's harder for capitalism to eliminate socialism. Even in the wild nature, not all the weak are eliminated. A lot of weak execute certain functions to provide for and survive in the pack.
But for any sustained survivability, lean structure is required. You simply can't overwhelm the society with too many weak and too few productive ones. Don't blame the industrialist for not hire more people if you are going to implement minimum wage. Capitalism in human nature ensures that those without productivity for the wage will be left behind. Could US not have more people working? Sure it could, but it has to abolish or lower significantly minimum wage. There are plenty things to be done in the US. The world has not reached a stage that does not require improvement.
The trend in US does indicate there are going to be more and more of the weak and fewer and fewer of the productive ones. So should the government continue to encourage it just to gain popularity and win election?
Pure ideologies have no place in actual government, just politics. For any system to work in a democratic country, it is necessary that it is to the benefit of the majority. It just so happens that at this stage of technological advancement and globalization, the US economy does not need as many workers as it did in the past. Let's take this to an extreme. Say in 10 years time, working nuclear fusion reactors have lowered energy costs and advances in robotics technology has rendered 70% of the labour force obsolete, should our economic systems adjust to provide for them? Shouldn't social science and public policy keep up with the times?
(09-10-2013, 10:18 AM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2013, 09:46 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]My pro capitalism does not reject socialism completely. And it's harder for capitalism to eliminate socialism. Even in the wild nature, not all the weak are eliminated. A lot of weak execute certain functions to provide for and survive in the pack.
But for any sustained survivability, lean structure is required. You simply can't overwhelm the society with too many weak and too few productive ones. Don't blame the industrialist for not hire more people if you are going to implement minimum wage. Capitalism in human nature ensures that those without productivity for the wage will be left behind. Could US not have more people working? Sure it could, but it has to abolish or lower significantly minimum wage. There are plenty things to be done in the US. The world has not reached a stage that does not require improvement.
The trend in US does indicate there are going to be more and more of the weak and fewer and fewer of the productive ones. So should the government continue to encourage it just to gain popularity and win election?
Pure ideologies have no place in actual government, just politics. For any system to work in a democratic country, it is necessary that it is to the benefit of the majority. It just so happens that at this stage of technological advancement and globalization, the US economy does not need as many workers as it did in the past. Let's take this to an extreme. Say in 10 years time, working nuclear fusion reactors have lowered energy costs and advances in robotics technology has rendered 70% of the labour force obsolete, should our economic systems adjust to provide for them? Shouldn't social science and public policy keep up with the times?
Firstly, I don't buy the argument that there aren't enough jobs. There are plenty of things to be done for mother earth. If there is really no job, why would the Mexicans move to US? Is the infrastructure in the US so good that does not require any improvement? Plus, robots are expensive and can't do everything that human being can do. There will always be a place for human being as long as they are willing to work.
Naturally, if the world requires fewer people, there would be fewer people living in the world. Either by force, or by natural selection. The riches can move to another planet, just like the movie Elysium.
(09-10-2013, 10:48 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2013, 10:18 AM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2013, 09:46 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]My pro capitalism does not reject socialism completely. And it's harder for capitalism to eliminate socialism. Even in the wild nature, not all the weak are eliminated. A lot of weak execute certain functions to provide for and survive in the pack.
But for any sustained survivability, lean structure is required. You simply can't overwhelm the society with too many weak and too few productive ones. Don't blame the industrialist for not hire more people if you are going to implement minimum wage. Capitalism in human nature ensures that those without productivity for the wage will be left behind. Could US not have more people working? Sure it could, but it has to abolish or lower significantly minimum wage. There are plenty things to be done in the US. The world has not reached a stage that does not require improvement.
The trend in US does indicate there are going to be more and more of the weak and fewer and fewer of the productive ones. So should the government continue to encourage it just to gain popularity and win election?
Pure ideologies have no place in actual government, just politics. For any system to work in a democratic country, it is necessary that it is to the benefit of the majority. It just so happens that at this stage of technological advancement and globalization, the US economy does not need as many workers as it did in the past. Let's take this to an extreme. Say in 10 years time, working nuclear fusion reactors have lowered energy costs and advances in robotics technology has rendered 70% of the labour force obsolete, should our economic systems adjust to provide for them? Shouldn't social science and public policy keep up with the times?
Firstly, I don't buy the argument that there aren't enough jobs. There are plenty of things to be done for mother earth. If there is really no job, why would the Mexicans move to US? Is the infrastructure in the US so good that does not require any improvement? Plus, robots are expensive and can't do everything that human being can do. There will always be a place for human being as long as they are willing to work.
Naturally, if the world requires fewer people, there would be fewer people living in the world. Either by force, or by natural selection. The riches can move to another planet, just like the movie Elysium.
That is where our views differ. I am of the view that the government's responsibility is to it's citizens. As there is no way to please everyone, they should pursue policies wanted by the majority, as reflected by election results. Governments should not be held hostage to monied interest threatening to leave or move elsewhere.
Our views differs indeed greatly.
My view is that the government's responsibility is to its tax payers, not merely its citizens, but those paid tax to the government. If the government stops listening to its tax payers, it will soon find out its tax payers are gone and it can't survive without tax revenue.
Thanks freedom for a more balanced response.
Like I said below that's a good summary of where we differ:
(07-10-2013, 12:51 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Secondly I also have an issue when one thinks we should have a supercar lane rather than a bus lane because the former pays more tax. This example essentially divides our views. Capitalism is efficient, but it is not effective.
Your focus is again primarily on efficiency... that's where capitalism excel. But you are confusing efficiency with effectiveness. As a government I don't think I should take care of those hot money fly-by-night "taxpayers". These people come for very specific mercenarious purposes. I would suggest we treat them merceneriously as well. I would take care of my citizens that stick through thick and thin with me. That is also Buffett's principles when he talks about long term shareholders.
I'm constantly bringing Buffett up because he blends the ideology of capitalism and socialism pretty well. At least in theory
When a score of people in a trading rooms can destroy the lives of millions and not get charged
When SuperPac allows faceless corporates to wield more influence in a democracy for the people, of the people and by the people, and supreme court actually thinks that is constitutional
When taking care of the less fortunate when it is no fault of their own (luck of the draw ie Buffett quote of "members of the lucky sperm club")for eg diseases, poverty trap, etc is considered entitlement
We know something is wrong structurally. It is obvious unless we stuck ourselves in a dogma that efficiency is best, or liberalism is best, regardless of the environment and circumstances.
(09-10-2013, 11:31 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks freedom for a more balanced response.
Like I said below that's a good summary of where we differ:
(07-10-2013, 12:51 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Secondly I also have an issue when one thinks we should have a supercar lane rather than a bus lane because the former pays more tax. This example essentially divides our views. Capitalism is efficient, but it is not effective.
Your focus is again primarily on efficiency... that's where capitalism excel. But you are confusing efficiency with effectiveness. As a government I don't think I should take care of those hot money fly-by-night "taxpayers". These people come for very specific mercenarious purposes. I would suggest we treat them merceneriously as well. I would take care of my citizens that stick through thick and thin with me. That is also Buffett's principles when he talks about long term shareholders.
I'm constantly bringing Buffett up because he blends the ideology of capitalism and socialism pretty well. At least in theory
When a score of people in a trading rooms can destroy the lives of millions and not get charged
When SuperPac allows faceless corporates to wield more influence in a democracy for the people, of the people and by the people, and supreme court actually thinks that is constitutional
When taking care of the less fortunate when it is no fault of their own (luck of the draw ie Buffett quote of "members of the lucky sperm club")for eg diseases, poverty trap, etc is considered entitlement
We know something is wrong structurally. It is obvious unless we stuck ourselves in a dogma that efficiency is best, or liberalism is best, regardless of the environment and circumstances.
My apology that "all entitlement are wrong". That's too extreme. Maybe I should narrow it to all wasted/ineffective/inefficient entitlements.
As I said before, those less fortunate are mostly covered. They can get as much help as they want at a reasonable level.
The problem in US now is not about those less fortunate, but more broadly, a huge part of the population. Social securities/medicare/meadiaid, I would not say all are wasted, but quite a significant part of them is simply transfer. So how does transfer improve effectiveness? How does long unemployment benefit improve effectiveness?
What I see here is quite some money is wasted. There are plenty of work to be done and there are plenty of people unemployed. If the government is really effective, at least it can bridge these two. But I ain't see any.