Economic Schools of thought late 1800's and early 1900's.

[opebo]

Those things are bad if you want to maximize growth, yes.

[k-onmmunist]

Of the four, Austrian, but I see myself more as a Distributivist.  The Austrian school works quite well if your only economic goal is maximizing GDP, but it lacks any consideration of the ethical consequences of doing so.

Respect.

Fail.

[War on Want]

Of the four, Austrian, but I see myself more as a Distributivist.  The Austrian school works quite well if your only economic goal is maximizing GDP, but it lacks any consideration of the ethical consequences of doing so.

Respect.

Fail.

I don't see how it is a fail, unless you enjoy the top 0.1% owning huge amounts of your country's wealth while the bottom 50% lives in squalor. There has always been a huge downside in GDP maximization.

[RScannix]

Of the four, Austrian, but I see myself more as a Distributivist.  The Austrian school works quite well if your only economic goal is maximizing GDP, but it lacks any consideration of the ethical consequences of doing so.

I concur. Predominantly Austrian, but with some regulation to prevent monopolization and with enough taxation to provide a few government-run services (education, military, police/fire)

[RScannix]

But are crashes, deflation, and depression necessarily a bad thing looked at economically? They certainly cause people to reassess what they should be doing economically and seek more optimum ways of doing things.  They cause a considerable amount of personal pain in the the short term, and certainly more than is desirable, but to achieve a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster.

That's more of a philosophical question. Empirically, people will always behave as if crashes, deflation and depression are necessarily bad, especially the latter two. The people who live through them generally seem to feel that way. And frankly, given what else happened the last time one occurred on a worldwide scale, I'm not particularly keen on finding out. What are you thinking of on "a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster."?

I would argue that crashes and depressions are a necessary and inevitable part of the business cycle. Governments can do little things to alter them slightly, but it's generally best to let them come and go. The only reason that I would argue for any kind of government reaction at all is to stave off popular demands for greater activism (i.e., socialism).

[Earth]

Out of the four, Marxian economics.

[Sewer]

Thay all suck.

[Sewer]

pro-worker freedom (read: anti-union)

wow.


Your a dumbass.

[War on Want]

NOTA

Protectionism+pro-worker freedom (read: anti-union)

What? This doesn't make any sense. Unions are the main institution in this country promoting Protectionism. No other group really solidly is against Protectionism, if you get rid of them you lose your whole support base. A few half-brain dead farmers is all you'll get solidly on your side.

Anyways Protectionism is stupid in most cases.

[Alexander Hamilton]

NOTA

Protectionism+pro-worker freedom (read: anti-union)

What? This doesn't make any sense. Unions are the main institution in this country promoting Protectionism. No other group really solidly is against Protectionism, if you get rid of them you lose your whole support base. A few half-brain dead farmers is all you'll get solidly on your side.

Anyways Protectionism is stupid in most cases.

It's a nationalistic approach to a pro-growth attitude aimed at expanding the middle class.

[Beet]

But are crashes, deflation, and depression necessarily a bad thing looked at economically? They certainly cause people to reassess what they should be doing economically and seek more optimum ways of doing things.  They cause a considerable amount of personal pain in the the short term, and certainly more than is desirable, but to achieve a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster.

That's more of a philosophical question. Empirically, people will always behave as if crashes, deflation and depression are necessarily bad, especially the latter two. The people who live through them generally seem to feel that way. And frankly, given what else happened the last time one occurred on a worldwide scale, I'm not particularly keen on finding out. What are you thinking of on "a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster."?

I would argue that crashes and depressions are a necessary and inevitable part of the business cycle. Governments can do little things to alter them slightly, but it's generally best to let them come and go. The only reason that I would argue for any kind of government reaction at all is to stave off popular demands for greater activism (i.e., socialism).

What do you think of things like unemployment insurance and bank deposit insurance?

Also, your second point is pretty much what FDR did; at a time when communist sympathies were at their all time peak in the US, FDR made modest reforms to capitalism which protected and preserved the basic system. In other countries, you saw more radical changes arising out of the slump, worst of all in Germany and Japan.

[War on Want]

NOTA

Protectionism+pro-worker freedom (read: anti-union)

What? This doesn't make any sense. Unions are the main institution in this country promoting Protectionism. No other group really solidly is against Protectionism, if you get rid of them you lose your whole support base. A few half-brain dead farmers is all you'll get solidly on your side.

Anyways Protectionism is stupid in most cases.

It's a nationalistic approach to a pro-growth attitude aimed at expanding the middle class.

Did I mention nationalism is stupid too? Anyways chances are pro-free traders will be seriously injured once oil prices start to spike high during the next few decades. Globalization should be hampered pretty hard once we start having those problems.

[RScannix]

But are crashes, deflation, and depression necessarily a bad thing looked at economically? They certainly cause people to reassess what they should be doing economically and seek more optimum ways of doing things.  They cause a considerable amount of personal pain in the the short term, and certainly more than is desirable, but to achieve a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster.

That's more of a philosophical question. Empirically, people will always behave as if crashes, deflation and depression are necessarily bad, especially the latter two. The people who live through them generally seem to feel that way. And frankly, given what else happened the last time one occurred on a worldwide scale, I'm not particularly keen on finding out. What are you thinking of on "a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster."?

I would argue that crashes and depressions are a necessary and inevitable part of the business cycle. Governments can do little things to alter them slightly, but it's generally best to let them come and go. The only reason that I would argue for any kind of government reaction at all is to stave off popular demands for greater activism (i.e., socialism).

What do you think of things like unemployment insurance and bank deposit insurance?

Also, your second point is pretty much what FDR did; at a time when communist sympathies were at their all time peak in the US, FDR made modest reforms to capitalism which protected and preserved the basic system. In other countries, you saw more radical changes arising out of the slump, worst of all in Germany and Japan.

Yeah, I have a mixed reaction to FDR. I don't like what he did, but I'll admit that it staved off even worse possibilities.

I'm not sold on unemployment insurance. I think if people saved more, then much of the need for it would be reduced.

I don't like the idea of bank deposit insurance either. But if we had had it in some limited capacity in the late 1920s, then much of the worst of the Great Depression may have been muted. Maybe we could have avoided the New Deal, or at least the extent to which it was promulgated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But are crashes, deflation, and depression necessarily a bad thing looked at economically? They certainly cause people to reassess what they should be doing economically and seek more optimum ways of doing things.  They cause a considerable amount of personal pain in the the short term, and certainly more than is desirable, but to achieve a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster.

That's more of a philosophical question. Empirically, people will always behave as if crashes, deflation and depression are necessarily bad, especially the latter two. The people who live through them generally seem to feel that way. And frankly, given what else happened the last time one occurred on a worldwide scale, I'm not particularly keen on finding out. What are you thinking of on "a pain free economy requires placing a national economy in a torpor that enables more energetic economies to grow faster."?

I would argue that crashes and depressions are a necessary and inevitable part of the business cycle. Governments can do little things to alter them slightly, but it's generally best to let them come and go. The only reason that I would argue for any kind of government reaction at all is to stave off popular demands for greater activism (i.e., socialism).

What do you think of things like unemployment insurance and bank deposit insurance?

Also, your second point is pretty much what FDR did; at a time when communist sympathies were at their all time peak in the US, FDR made modest reforms to capitalism which protected and preserved the basic system. In other countries, you saw more radical changes arising out of the slump, worst of all in Germany and Japan.

Yeah, I have a mixed reaction to FDR. I don't like what he did, but I'll admit that it staved off even worse possibilities.

I'm not sold on unemployment insurance. I think if people saved more, then much of the need for it would be reduced.

I don't like the idea of bank deposit insurance either. But if we had had it in some limited capacity in the late 1920s, then much of the worst of the Great Depression may have been muted. Maybe we could have avoided the New Deal, or at least the extent to which it was promulgated.

There is absolutly no point at which in my case we could have saved enough to sustain us through this period. My dad didn't even get his highest paying job, $17.00 an hour till mid 2006 after a period of Unemployement from 2005-2006. There wouldn't have been enough time to save plus we had to move twice in 2007 cause of sky high rent the first time and sky high and wildly fluctuating electric bills the second time. An by Mid 2008 he was unemployed again, thanks to high tranportation costs to ship the equiptment to his place of work for him to repair and poor fiscal management by the company.

Bank deposit insurance is a wonderfull program that helps maintain faith in the banking system. In my opinion a larger one should be created just for the investment banks on the one hand to avoid collapses like Lehman and on the other reducing the need for bailouts of companies like AIG. Companies would be allowed to fail and the deposits would be guarrenteed so no panic would ensue like happened in September after Lehman. Dozens of small banks have failed around the country, yet because of FDIC there has been no great panic because of it. The other beauty is the banks themselves would pay for it through premiums.

[RScannix]

There is absolutly no point at which in my case we could have saved enough to sustain us through this period. My dad didn't even get his highest paying job, $17.00 an hour till mid 2006 after a period of Unemployement from 2005-2006. There wouldn't have been enough time to save plus we had to move twice in 2007 cause of sky high rent the first time and sky high and wildly fluctuating electric bills the second time. An by Mid 2008 he was unemployed again, thanks to high tranportation costs to ship the equiptment to his place of work for him to repair and poor fiscal management by the company.

Bank deposit insurance is a wonderfull program that helps maintain faith in the banking system. In my opinion a larger one should be created just for the investment banks on the one hand to avoid collapses like Lehman and on the other reducing the need for bailouts of companies like AIG. Companies would be allowed to fail and the deposits would be guarrenteed so no panic would ensue like happened in September after Lehman. Dozens of small banks have failed around the country, yet because of FDIC there has been no great panic because of it. The other beauty is the banks themselves would pay for it through premiums.

I can certainly sympathize with your case regarding the unemployment insurance. I don't necessarily advocate an absolutist position on the issue; it can be a good tool when one is in a prolonged period of transition from one job to another. The question is, how prolonged? If one is actively searching for work, and avoid being overly selective by rejecting offers that they view as beneath them, then I don't have a problem. My issue is when there are people who put very little effort into a job search and are content to collect unemployment checks rather than find work.

I speak not as knee-jerk fiscal conservative, but as someone who has personally known people in the situations described above. Inherently, I tend to distrust any program which offers incentives to non-productivity.

That said, I would allow for unemployment and bank insurance in a limited capacity, with controls that try to minimize the incentives for unemployment and high-risk bank investments as much as possible. The key is to commit to the minimal possible interference to prevent panic and loss of confidence in the market system.

If human beings were non-emotional machines, one could allow the labor market to play out in a totally natural manner. However, it is not feasible in many cases. Even setting ethics aside, I do not believe an absolutely pure free market could not be sustained in a democracy, for at the first moment of panic people will demand that the government "do something". Any democratic government which refuses to do so will be promptly turned out. The trick is to do just enough to reassure the people without totally undermining the principles of a free economic system.