/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.1620085]

What do you guys think of reaganomics?

[Anonymous No.1620088]

Liberals will tell you that "trickle down" doesn't work, except for when government does it though

[Anonymous No.1620090]

I'm not sure if it will work with the current U.S. debt

[Anonymous No.1620093]

Those of us who graduated college in the 80s know that it was fantastic

[Anonymous No.1620097]

>>1620088
There is no evidence for Reagonomics working, all evidence points to the contrary. Liberals are deluded but for different reasons, mainly the "welfare" they support doesn't address underlying economic issues. Conservatives just want tax cuts for their own businesses- extremely selfish wealth redistribution policy as the tax shortfall then has to be made up elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.1620100]

>>1620085
Liberals who say it doesn't work are just parroting one another and have no idea what it means.

[Anonymous No.1620103]

>>1620088

There's a difference between the government giving money to rich people and the government giving money to poor people

[Anonymous No.1620136]

>>1620097

/ thread

There is zero evidence that trickle down helps the population as a whole.

[Anonymous No.1620145]

>>1620097
>"...tax cuts for their own businesses..."
>implying this isn't one of the only ways to make money in an industry with high barriers to entry and stiff regulation/tax laws

[Anonymous No.1620179]

>>1620085
Doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1620193]

>>1620097
>Conservatives just want tax cuts for their own businesses

What's wrong with wanting tax cuts for businesses?

[Anonymous No.1620196]

>>1620085
It doesnt work. The rich doesnt spend more if they get more money nor do they create more jobs. Ideas and demand creates jobs, not just money.

[Anonymous No.1620197]

>>1620088
>doesnt work

It doesn't matter whether one policy works or doesn't work. Wealth redistribution and engineering of social welfare is WRONG as it violates basic property rights.

Deontology > Consequentialism

[Anonymous No.1620202]

>>1620103
A tax cut isn't "giving money" to anyone. It's not taking it away.

[Anonymous No.1620203]

>>1620197
He wasn't advocating for wealth redistribution. Also, I suppose you think starving to death is better than stealing bread?

[Anonymous No.1620208]

>>1620203
Taxing one person and subsidizing another is wealth redistribution.

I think individuals should do whatever they'd like but I think our LAW should everyone's individual right to property and enforce such law. So yes, if someone steals bread rather than starving, they should be prosecuted against.

It is morally and legally wrong to steal another individuals property as you have violated their natural right to property. Their right to property doesn't go away just because someone else wants or needs their property.

[Anonymous No.1620214]

>>1620208
>Liberals will tell you that "trickle down" doesn't work, except for when government does it though
He wasn't advocating for wealth redistribution. He made a simple statement on what he thinks liberals say.

Also,
>property rights
>morality
top kek

[Anonymous No.1620227]

>>1620214
I was quoting him to make the point that it doesn't matter whether a socialist policy works or not because socialism is fundamentally morally and legally wrong.

>top kek

This is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.1620233]

>>1620227
>I was quoting him to make the point that it doesn't matter whether a socialist policy works or not because socialism is fundamentally morally and legally wrong.
An irrelevant point, as he never made a point in favor of or against socialism, and also, socialism may or may not involve wealth redistribution via taxes.

>This is not an argument.
Wasn't arguing. Just laughing at your idiocy

[Anonymous No.1620242]

>>1620233
You have no reading comprehension

I never said the first poster was arguing for wealth redistribution.

You're obviously a socialist since you have no respect for property rights

[Anonymous No.1620250]

>>1620088

It didn't create wealth, it transferred it. The technological revolution of the '80s created massive new industries that created tons of jobs and revenue streams while massively increasing productivity. Stock buy-backs, higher salaries, Swiss bank accounts and lower taxes for the top earners meant the rich pocketed most of the gains despite doing very little of the actual work. Considering the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs started in the '80s you could blame Reaganomics for the Rust Belt and Detroit, but it's more complicated than that.

Isolationist policies are blowback for Wall Street favoring extreme efficiency over nationalism; stock traders don't care where the product is made as long as it cuts costs. Republicans and conservatives don't mind because they reward the best earners due to social Darwinism and most of their voting base doesn't understand that that means the end of their genetic lineages. Trump won on populism, but Bernie and even Hillary would have done more for the common American.

Just admit that trickle down is about social Darwinism and has nothing to do with sound economic policy. It's Libertarianism at its finest and if you had your way most of the Rust Belt would be working like Chinese ants in an iPhone factory.

[Anonymous No.1620259]

>>1620193

Nothing, but "tax and spend" Democrats make more financial sense than "tax cut and spend" Republicans.

[Anonymous No.1620261]

>>1620242
>You're obviously a socialist since you have no respect for property rights
You are correct, I am a socialist, though I prefer the term communist, and I don't think your logic is very good.

[Anonymous No.1620262]

>>1620085
The only way to get the rich to part with their money is by creating artificial inflation, forcing them to invest it.

That being said, now that we do this already Reaganomics is more practical than it was at a time when people were comfortable with holding cash.

[Anonymous No.1620349]

>>1620085
It wasn't a bad idea for the stagflation and high interest rates - we're talking credit card 12-18% on mortgages - of the late 70s and early 80s. Volcker had to jack up rates to control inflation, the recession sucked, my parents nearly lost their house, but they were able to prepay before rates went completely apeshit. That left them with enough cash left over that when rates topped out 15%+ they could buy bonds yielding comfy% and either take the payments or sell the bonds. Parents weren't smart, just really fucking lucky. If they'd invested in those bonds too early they wouldn't have been able to afford the house and the bonds would have been worth shit.

But I digress. The conditions that made Reaganomics effective then do not exist today. We're at interest rates of basically zero. The EU countries that went full austerity got completely fucked. In the US, QE worked and would have worked better if we'd spent more fiscally, but the house was determined not to let the guy from the other party take the credit. So it was all up to Bernanke and Yellen.

[Anonymous No.1620513]

>>1620262
>forcing them to invest it
Great, you've stimulated investment by robbing the purchasing power of everyone who holds that currency, rich and poor alike. Truly a public service from the benevolent and wise government.

[Anonymous No.1620525]

>>1620085
the first tax cuts that were passed in 1982 were acceptable. the second set of tax cuts were retard-tier

top marginal tax rate of 28% and raising the "middle class" rate from 10 to 15% would be political suicide these days. i guess it didnt matter to him since he was halfway through his second term and not eligible to run again

>>1620259
>fiscally conservative
>triple the government debt

definitely a quality meme that one

[Anonymous No.1620554]

>>1620197
I am the harshest critic of utilitarianism and other full-blown consequentialist ethics, but let's not kid outselves - full-blown deontology has equally retarded outcomes.

Your brother comes into your house saying he's being chased by a mob that wants to kill him due to a mistaken identity. He hides in your home. A minute late the mob knocks on your door and asks where your brother is.
>Better tell them, because lying is WRONG!

I like a consistent principled approach like the next guy, but they just don't mesh with reality. You run into conflicts all the time. You can frame the same problem in different ways to come to different results.

>You can't tell them, because getting an innocent man killed is WRONG!

The same with property ideas. Stealing is wrong, but so is letting people starve when the loss of a loaf of bread wouldn't hurt you.

Plus, if you take a closer look, I don't think there are many systems out there that put property rights on the same level as human suffering. Since you're such a fan of deontology, let's take a closer look at the grand daddy of deontology. Kants categorical imperative (in one variant) says you should always act according to a maxim you'd want to become a universal law.
I don't think an absolute ban on redistribution of wealth by legal mandate is a good universal law as it would entail a lot of suffering.

Personally I think Rawls is onto something with his veil of ignorance. Would you actually make the aforementioned a general rule when you wouldn't know your position in the world? When after making that rule you could wake up as the poorest person on the planet?

[Anonymous No.1620581]

>>1620262
Wrong, the only way to get the rich to part with their money is by putting more money in their pockets so they build and expand in the interest of making more money. Gotta spend money to make money, and when they spend money, we get money. Macroeconomics 101, kid

[Anonymous No.1620968]

>trickle-down works

When will this meme die?

>government in my country slashed corporate tax rates because it will make us more competitive and create jobs
>employment rates kept falling
>still hasn't recovered to pre-2008 levels
>companies are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars that they haven't invested back into the economy

[Anonymous No.1621008]

>>1620193
Governments need money to function. When they can't make enough money, they have to borrow it. At interest. It's possible to reduce the amount of money needed to function but for some reason these tax cuts come with more spending. At least the Democrats are financially responsible - they raise taxes and spending.

[Anonymous No.1621088]

>>1621008
>At least the Democrats are financially responsible
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaha

[Anonymous No.1621506]

>>1620581

They don't build and expand; they stuff their money in the stock market where it benefits nobody except themselves. Consumption doesn't increase past a certain point and most rich people don't make enough to create new jobs with the money they save from tax cuts.

[Anonymous No.1621511]

>>1620085
Only works if the bottom classes aren't retarded.

They are retarded.

So it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1621517]

>>1620968

It's worse when you learn that stock buybacks are used to manipulate stock prices in the short term and that most large companies use their profit for that instead of investing in growth. CEOs are paid in stock because capital gains taxes are super low and their average tenure is 3-5 years so they don't care about long term viability. It's a cash grab thanks to the 1982 sec rule change.

[Anonymous No.1621601]

>>1621088
Well, republicans traditionally had a hard-on for Keynes (muh defense spending), but Trump has promised to go mad with public spending (muh wall, muh border patrol, muh police, muh job creation) while cutting taxes.

Neither of the main parties is fiscally responsible. But in the current cycle the Dems are substantially more responsible than the Republicans. We live in bizarro world now.

[Anonymous No.1621605]

>>1621511

It doesn't matter what the bottom classes are if you have no plans to service their needs. It's social Darwinism.

[Anonymous No.1621642]

>>1620554
>I don't think an absolute ban on redistribution of wealth by legal mandate is a good universal law as it would entail a lot of suffering.
But the forceful redistribution of wealth by legal mandate already entails suffering. If that's the end goal, you've lost the race right off the bat.

[Anonymous No.1621646]

>>1621506
>stuff their money in the stock market where it benefits nobody except themselves
Do you understand what stocks are?

[Anonymous No.1621660]

>>1621601
Don't argue with Trumptards, a sentence that doesn't have the words 'libtard', 'cuck', or 'niggers' will never be read.

[Anonymous No.1621832]

>>1621642
I think I must be somehow misunderstanding your argument, because I cannot comprehend how taking $1,000 from a millionaire causes him to suffer.
However, giving a hungry person without access to welfare even $100 bucks across a month will prevent so much immediate suffering.

I'm conceding that there are unfair and harmful ways the current tax system affects people. But that's not my argument. I'm arguing that the concept of taxes is not substantially immoral.

[Anonymous No.1622083]

>>1621008
>Democrats are financially responsible
What?!

[Anonymous No.1622104]

>>1621601
We are not saying that the Republicans are better. They both suck.

[Anonymous No.1622198]

>>1620085
I'll just leave this here for you stupid reagan-fags

[Anonymous No.1622219]

Why can't people just admit everyone sucks and they MUST choose a side?

Of course nobody has a problem with Obama's 10 Trillion to boot up the economy again because he has the most dreamy smile eveerrrrrr.

Bitch, please.

At least Reagan had the excuse for designing a new never before tried Economics plan and even if it sucked it was a real plan.

Debt is really no reason to hate Reagan because we all know that debt is imaginary anyway, results only matter, people got rich and had jobs in the 80s, it was the happiest decade ever. /thread

[Anonymous No.1622238]

It's incredibly simple. He was rich and had rich friends, but they wanted more money, so he tried to get stupid poor people to cover their bill.

[Anonymous No.1622241]

>>1622219
>debt is imaginary anyway
lol

[Anonymous No.1622368]

>>1620085
Reaganomics may appear to work, but it ignores the opportunity costs. Enabling the rich to make more money is inferior to enabling the poor to make more money, from an economic standpoint as well as from a social standpoint. And for business, low interest rates are generally better than low tax rates.

[Anonymous No.1622389]

>>1620197
Why do you regard property rights as more important than all other rights?

Property rights involve curtailment of everyone else's rights – specifically their right to access the property owner's property. Shouldn't the public get something in return? I certainly don't think it's right that the benefits of government should flow disproportionally to the rich.

I know property rights are essential to modern society, but so are many other rights. And a lack of taxation is not essential to modern society, and was not a feature of property rights when they were first developed.

[Anonymous No.1622503]

>>1621832
>I'm arguing that the concept of taxes is not substantially immoral.
Is taking a box of chocolates from a Wal-Mart without paying substantially immoral? Society seems to think so, because the punishment for that is significant fines and potential jail time. All this, even though a box of chocolates is such an insignificant a cost to the company. would you argue that society is wrong in this regard, and that this kind of minor theft isn't really theft, but should be seen as wealth redistribution?

[Anonymous No.1622674]

>>1621646

Do you? They are shares of a company which don't increase revenue after the initial buy. An IPO puts money in the corporate bank account, but after that it's daily trading volume among stock traders which doesn't make money for the company. People put their money into funds or individual stocks and let the value of the stocks go up, but that increase in value does not mean more revenue for the company. No extra revenue means no extra jobs or growth.

[Anonymous No.1622682]

>>1622674
A lot of companies issue shares to fund expansion long after the IPO.

[Anonymous No.1622747]

>>1622219
Debt is not imaginary, but nor is it a constraining factor. America only borrows in the currency it prints.

Deficit is far more important. In the Reagan era, the government was running a big deficit so they had to keep interest rates high to control inflation. But right now the private sector's weak, so the government can afford to run much bigger deficits without any inflation problem.

[Anonymous No.1622897]

>>1622219

QE came from the fed after the crazy 2008 crash that was worse than the 1929 crash. The money was needed to cover bad bets by too big to fail companies and that's very different than deficit spending. Don't forget the 2 wars Obama inherited and the costs of those. Bush and Cheney gutted America just like Reagan and bush sr.

>>1622682

Yeah, but my point was that daily trading does not affect their revenue at all. Most stocks are day traded or bought and held.

[Anonymous No.1623136]

>>1622503
I'd certainly be open to the idea. I don't know how your local laws handle this, but mine recognize petty theft out of personal need as a lesser crime. Granted, a box of cholocates is not a prime candiate for a basic need.

I think you've put yourself into a bind though by starting to argue with laws. Taxes are mandated by law as well. If you argue that criminal laws against theft are self-imposed by society, then so are taxes and wealth redistribution. You can't be for one but not the other. Either we trust that the legislature expresses the will of the people or we don't.

Besides, it's not exactly an outrageous concept that we have monopolized power with the state. Say Adam owes you 100 bucks. Even though the money rightfully belongs to you, we as a society have agreed that you can't go over to Adam's place and just take it. You have to go through the court system and finally have the state seize his assets on your behalf. We *do* care about a legitimate process, not only the result. The same is applied to your Wal-Mart story. We don't condone self-righteously taking a box of choloclates from a store. But we do condone receiving (the money for) a box of cholocolates from the government, paid for by the store's taxes.

[Anonymous No.1623143]

>>1623136
>Either we trust that the legislature expresses the will of the people or we don't.
We cannot, through even the most simple examination. First, we are faced with defining what the "will of the people" even means. Which people? All people? >50% of the people? Some specific group of people? Then, we must ask whether a given law is supported by the people in question. Then we must see whether ALL laws are supported by those people. At the end of this, we find that a given law only has the support of some people, the opposition of others, and the ambivalence or most commonly complete ignorance of the rest.

It is also important to note that I wasn't talking about laws specifically, but about immoral action. I just mentioned a common reaction to that immorality. Absent those laws, I'm sure you would agree that people would still respond with violence to instances of theft. It is not immoral because it is against the law, but rather against the law because it is first immoral.

>so are taxes and wealth redistribution
Is there such a thing as an unjust law? Would you say that North Korean society has appointed Kim Jong-Un as their representative, and rejected personal liberty and not dying in labor camps?

[Anonymous No.1623152]

>>1620097
this.
trickle up is the only way

[Anonymous No.1623155]

>>1622368
Low interest rates cause overinvestment in unproductive industries which then fail when interest rates rise to control inflation.

This malinvestment is a major cause in boom and bust business cycles

[Anonymous No.1623180]

>>1623155
That hypothesis is utterly ridiculous! Often we don't know which industries will be productive, and low interest rates don't cause banks to make unprofitable investments. And no matter what interest rates are set to, the least profitable businesses are at risk if interest rates have to rise to control inflation.

[Anonymous No.1623182]

>>1623143
>It is not immoral because it is against the law, but rather against the law because it is first immoral.
Okay. Not paying taxes, not contributing your share to redistribution of wealth is against the law. Is it because it is first immoral?
If you say no, then laws obviously don't matter to this discussion. As you allude to in bringing up unjust laws - there is no causal link between illegality and immorality. I agree with you on that, but that's not your original position:
>substantially immoral? Society seems to think so, because the punishment for that is significant fines and potential jail time.
Not paying your taxes carries the same punishments. So what exactly do you gain from this argument for your position?

I don't know what the "will of the people" means. You brought up "society" first without ever defining it. What does "society" mean? Which society? All society? >50% of society? Some specific parts?

I'm just echoing your arguments. It's strange that you criticise the style of argument when it comes from me but support it when it comes from you.

[Anonymous No.1623185]

>>1623180
It is not ridiculous, it is just applying the principles of supply and demand to physical capital.

Lack of aggregate demand, economic bubbles, malinvestment, inflation and external problems like the oil crisis all have an effect on the economy. Sometimes it is not largely due to aggregate demand and sometimes you have to keep interest rates nice and high.

[Anonymous No.1623233]

>>1622674
Any money going into the stock market at any time is good for the market and therefore good for everyone who has money tied up in the market aka anyone with a pension or retirement plan. You know, people who have actually worked for their living.

[Anonymous No.1623241]

>>1622897
>Bush and Cheney gutted America just like Reagan and bush sr.

And what do you think would have happened if they sat back and allowed saddam to sell oil for euros? Preventing that was more than worth it.

[Anonymous No.1623263]

>>1623233

It's good for the stock market, but that money is being taken from the rest of the economy.

>>1623241

The Iraq war wasn't the only thing that gutted America. Maybe gore would have found a diplomatic solution like reducing sanctions instead of trillion dollar lies that gave billions to halliburton and Bush's oil cronies. It isn't so simple.

[Anonymous No.1623305]

>>1623263
Except when companies are issuing shares, money going into the stock market equals money going out of the stock market. Indeed if you include dividends and share buybacks, more money's coming from the stock market than going into it.

>>1623241
The Iraq war was nothing to do with what currency Saddam was selling oil in. For GWB it was personal; he wanted to succeed where his father had failed.

[Anonymous No.1623311]

>>1623185
>It is not ridiculous, it is just applying the principles of supply and demand to physical capital.
Doing that isn't stupid, but if you do that properly it does not lead to the conclusion that low interest rates cause over investment in unproductive industries.

>Lack of aggregate demand, economic bubbles, malinvestment, inflation and external problems like the oil crisis all have an effect on the economy.
Malinvestment is the odd one out on that list. Bad investments cause problems, of course, but bad investments and "malinvestment" are totally different things.

>Sometimes it is not largely due to aggregate demand
Lack of aggregate demand is one problem the economy can have. But the cure for it is always more aggregate demand, even when the problem was originally caused by something completely different.

>and sometimes you have to keep interest rates nice and high.
High interest rates are far from nice; they greatly strengthen the short term bias of the markets, and ensure that more money flows to the financiers rather than those who actually do the productive work. High interest rates can be used to control inflation, but fiscal policy (raising the tax rate) is a far better way of doing so.

[Anonymous No.1623315]

>>1620085
It was a good policy at the time as the West was coming out of an era of high taxes, high inflation, inefficient businesses and overzealous unions.

Reagan's policies brought inflation down from an all time high of 15% to around 2 - 3%, so they were pretty good.

However, trickle down carried on for too long, and this led to rampant stock market speculation which contributed to the stock market crashes of the 90s and 2000s.

The key thing here to understand is that a one size policy does not fit all economic conditions. You HAVE to adjust monetary and fiscal policies in an objective manner, not afraid to use tools from Austrian, Keynesian and Classical schools of thought from time to time. But strong affiliation to ideologies often cloud politicians' judgments, so when an economy desperately needs lower taxes, the government raises them for literally no good reason.

[Anonymous No.1623318]

>>1623263
>that money is being taken from the rest of the economy
When money goes to the stock market it is invested in businesses rather spent on conveniences and luxuries, it doesn't leave the economy.

Even if you burned money it wouldn't affect the economy, only reduce inflation.

[Anonymous No.1623333]

>>1623315
/Thread
Reagonomics becoming gospel for the IMF was a disaster for most of the countries involved, but at the time it wasn't stupid.

I wish the social darwinists/rand supporters/hardcore libertarians would study world history. If they did, they might see that economies which allow particular interests to snowball wealth and power beyond effective control inevitably collapse due to good old fashioned nepotism and corruption.

[Anonymous No.1623362]

>>1623311
low interest rates for prolonged periods of time can result in severe adverse selection problems for banks looking for profitable investments

[Anonymous No.1623495]

>>1620085
I don't think there was a serious alternative, Carter would have probably went down a similar direction since he surrounded himself with similar monetarist economists.

>>1620581
The rich generally save a larger percentage of their income than others. People who like to spend won't tend to stay rich long if they find themselves in that position.
If everybody starts hoarding gold it doesn't magically make more "money" for everybody by just driving up its scarce demand, it just transfers spending power around.
Insufficient investment spending by business can persist for long periods of time under conditions of uncertainty and weak demand... even low interest rates won't induce manufacturers to borrow and invest or expand when there's little real chance of selling products profitably.

>>1623318
When money is "spent on conveniences and luxuries" it's also flowing into businesses but doesn't create claims on their profits which must be paid out; money flowing into the stock market leads to growing capitalization upon a growing mass of intangible assets and general growing indebtedness.
If you start burning money but not writing off debt you would make it impossible to pay off all the accumulated debt throughout the economy leading virtually all the non-banking institutions of society to the verge of bankruptcy

[Anonymous No.1623522]

>>1620088
I hate it when Americans start lumping together ideologies that are separate, because of their 2 party system. Leading to a complete misunderstanding of the term "liberal", which further leads to the unnecessary term "libertarian", which is just the actual definition of "liberal".

Liberals are per definition for "more freedom"
>less government
>fuck whoever you want to fuck (gays)
>buy whatever you want to buy (guns)
>do with your money whatever you want to (lower taxes)

That is what liberal means in literally every country on the planet so I refuse to pretend that it means "leftist+progressive+socialist+pro-immigration", just because the US can't into politics.

[Anonymous No.1623772]

>>1623182
>there is no causal link between illegality and immorality. I agree with you on that
That was my position all along. I only framed it in the context of laws and society at large because that's the context you used first, so I figured that would be the best place to start. Legality is not necessary for my arguments to stand.

If you'd like, we can define society (or "the people") to mean some minor part of the population within the country. We can see that not everyone in the population knows about all laws (and knowledge of a law must precede consent of that law), and among that set, not all agree with them. So it becomes clear that the legislature cannot possibly represent the "will of the people" unless we narrow the definition of "the people" such that we are left with only those who have expressly consented to the particular law in question (which leaves us with a circular argument). We can only refer to specific laws, since someone who consents to one law may not consent to another; it's not an all-or-nothing situation.

Anyway, back to the original point. If you claim that taxation is not theft, but taking chocolates from a store without paying is theft, then the burden is on you to account for this apparent discrepancy.

>>1623315
>You HAVE to adjust monetary and fiscal policies in an objective manner, not afraid to use tools from Austrian, Keynesian and Classical schools of thought from time to time.
But the Austrian and Keynesian schools are diametrically opposed. You can't say both are right, when each one is saying that the other is fundamentally wrong.

[Anonymous No.1624004]

>>1623495
>claims on their profits
What is wrong with multiple people owning shares in a company?
>If you start burning money but not writing off debt
Only if you have debt. The people who are "taking money from the rest of the economy" through dividends from the stock market and interest from their bank account could burn money with virtually no ill effect besides inflation figures being lower than expected.

In reality most spend it or reinvest it because it is pointless to leave it sitting around doing nothing, it goes back into the economy. The businesses invested in hire people and buy from other businesses, money eventually circulates back into the pockets of consumers.

[Anonymous No.1624055]

>>1624004
>What is wrong with multiple people owning shares in a company?
Noting per se, but understanding corporate structures tells you how money is really moving around and not much is actually going back into real investments or increasing employment... credit doesn't generally go towards really creating goods but to shape the future of a business by capitalizing income flows associated to immaterial assets

>Only if you have debt. The people who are "taking money from the rest of the economy" through dividends from the stock market and interest from their bank account could burn money with virtually no ill effect besides inflation figures being lower than expected.
The accumulation of debt is how most corporations grow... the multiplication of all this credit on previous loans that become collateral for yet more credit creates the foundations for the financial sector to profit from foreclosing on and cannibalizing the real economy

[Anonymous No.1624186]

>>1620208
Bruh taxation is theft

[Anonymous No.1624231]

>>1624186

[Anonymous No.1624263]

>>1620208
Property rights are just as much of an entitlement as anything else. Don't expect a desperate underclass of people who have been cut off the safety net (entitlement) to have any respect for your property ownership (opposing entitlement)

[Anonymous No.1624282]

>>1624263
This just furthers the point that welfare is just a form of weregild. Property rights require nobody to do anything aggressive in order to be preserved. It is a negative right, inasfar as it doesn't require any active effort to have it happen. Welfare, on the other hand, requires property to be taken from one person and given to another, regardless of the "donor's" thoughts on the matter. Call them entitlements if you want, but they are definitely not equivalent in nature.

[Anonymous No.1624494]

>>1624282
>Property rights require nobody to do anything aggressive in order to be preserved
Tell that to the non-owners aggressively excluded from the property!

[Anonymous No.1624507]

>>1624494
Aggressive exclusion first necessitates incursion. The non-owners are not property owners, therefore they are guests.

[Anonymous No.1624519]

Reagan passed tax cuts, raised spending, and massively increased the deficit.

In spite of this, the Republicans declared him the paragon of fiscal responsibility and threw H.W. Bush out for attempting to stem the bleeding by raising taxes.

Then they called Bill Clinton a welfare queen for balancing the budget and voted in Dubya, who prudently enacted more tax cuts while starting two expensive wars and, in the ultimate example of Republicans free market virtues, dumped trillions of dollars into the banking system in order to save it from collapse.

Then they shit on both the method and impact of Obama's stimulus, half of which came in the form of tax cuts.

[Anonymous No.1624568]

>>1624507
The incursion would not be incursion if the property rights hadn't restricted the liberty of the non-owners.

Property rights require the right to use the property to be taken from everyone except the owner, regardless of everyone else's thoughts on the matter. They are very much equivalent in nature to welfare rights.

[Anonymous No.1624596]

>>1623305

No, issuing shares is the only way to direct money into the company. Dividends are almost always <5% of profits and share buybacks are company money going straight to traders who probably put that money back into the stock market.

>>1623318

No, money going to the stock market is not invested in the business. Most shares are day traded and those sales have no effect on the company accounting books. The only time money flows to the actual company is during stock issuance which is a rare occurrence.

[Anonymous No.1624613]

>>1620085
It doesn't work. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.1624673]

>>1624568
The right to any and all property doesn't exist, because accepting it would render any system of rights inconsistent. When an individual invests his labor and ever-dwindling lifespan into some productive means (say, going in the woods and building a cabin, assuming there was no claim to these woods prior to his arrival), he gains ownership of it as an extension of his self-ownership. This is the philosophical argument.

The practical argument is that biologically and socially, humans have evolved to require some form of property. We can see that animals are territorial, and that children are possessive of objects. Humans cannot survive when the food or shelter or other possessions they gathered are perpetually at risk of being taken. No animal can. This is the naturalistic justification for property.

[Anonymous No.1624682]

>>1624596
>Dividends are almost always <5% of profits
Is that really the case in America? I'm pretty sure it isn't in Australia or the UK.

Anyway, I think you've missed my main point completely:
When you buy shares, you're either buying them from the company (in which case, as you say, you're directing money into the company) or you're buying them from previous shareholders. And if you're buying them from a previous shareholder, the money is not being taken from the rest of the economy; it's merely being transferred from one person to another.

[Anonymous No.1624686]

>>1620085
Good for the 1%

Bad for everyone else

[Anonymous No.1624730]

>>1624673
I'm not arguing against property rights! What I'm arguing against is the notion that they're somehow more natural than other rights and should therefore be regarded as more important than other rights.

Of course we need property rights. But we should recognise that we have a duty to those people disadvantaged by our property rights.

If you want to continue the philosophical discussion then there are a couple of things you should note: firstly, people have property rights over a lot more than just the results of their labours. I notice you had to include the assumption about there being no claim to the woods prior to his arrival; if there is, what did the claimant do to gain the right to exclude him from the woods? Secondly, a lot of wealth is inherited; should people be perpetually disadvantaged just because their parents were poor?

As for your practical argument: ownership hasn't existed in isolation. There has always been some sort of obligation, and taxation is a prevalent former that.

[Anonymous No.1624742]

>>1624730
>we have a duty to those people disadvantaged by our property rights.
Justify this.

[Anonymous No.1624805]

>>1622503
>Is taking a box of chocolates from a Wal-Mart without paying substantially immoral? Society seems to think so, because the punishment for that is significant fines and potential jail time.
Something being illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the people think it is immoral.

[Anonymous No.1624818]

>>1624805
That is precisely my point.

[Anonymous No.1624831]

>>1624818
Are you saying that taxes are immoral because property rights are the supreme good?

[Anonymous No.1624869]

>>1624818
pls respond

[Anonymous No.1624889]

>>1624682

But the money is still in the stock market and not in the rest of the economy. The stock market is in a Venn diagram with the economy where only a small portion of it intersects.

[Anonymous No.1624891]

>>1624831
>>1624869
>supreme good
What does this mean, exactly?

I'm saying taxes are immoral because they violate property rights. And the right to property is important because it is a necessary consequence of the right to life. How do you propose to develop a consistent set of ethics by discarding these concepts?

[Anonymous No.1624945]

>>1624889
No, the shares are in the stock market.
The money is with whoever sold the shares.

[Anonymous No.1624963]

>>1620261
>communist
>in a position to assess anyone's logic
why the fuck are you even here

[Anonymous No.1624976]

>>1624945

It's in their trading account, not pocket and able to be spent on things.

[Anonymous No.1624983]

>>1624891
Not who you are replying to but two things:

1) Taxes do not violate property rights.
2) A "necessary consequence of the right to life" implies an individual has the right to live life safely and prosperously. That requires a society with government and taxation.
3) Taxation is a long term benefit to property owners. A society without public goods raises prosperity for those with property. Taxes simply make us better off.

[Anonymous No.1624989]

>>1624983
>1) Taxes do not violate property rights.
And your argument for this?

>That requires a society with government and taxation.
And this?

> A society without public goods raises prosperity for those with property.
I'm assuming it's a typo, but do you mean WITH public goods? Taxation is (nominally) for the provision of public goods, so if taxation is a long-term benefit to property owners (a point with which I disagree, and again is up to you to justify since you proposed it), then it follows that public goods must raise prosperity for property owners.

[Anonymous No.1624993]

>>1624989
>And your argument for this?
1) The State taking back its own currency is not in violation of your property. Nowhere on state money does it say the holder can keep it forever.

2) Certain types of Tax can actually improve property rights. Take for example the Land Value Tax. Having a legal privilege over land which denies others use of that land violates their property rights since land was never produced but is the gift of nature.
>And this?
The history of every society in the world. A basic standard of living was only achieved with central government and that brings the obligation to pay tax.
>I'm assuming it's a typo
Yes it was, I apologise. Public goods are justified on grounds that without government they would not be paid for. This is an example of market failure so we need the government to fix this. Taxation is therefore required.

[Anonymous No.1625028]

>>1624186
I think it's weird that the people who make these think making them longer and longer also makes them funnier.

[Anonymous No.1625062]

>>1624891
>I'm saying taxes are immoral because they violate property rights.
But taxes pay for police, who protect your property rights.
Please though, take your property to Somalia where your property will be free from the evils of taxation and totally respected by all everyone :')

[Anonymous No.1625126]

>>1624993
While you are crotchet taxes do not violate property rights, your explanation of why is completely wrong. State money doesn't need to say the holder can keep it forever; that's a corollary of property rights, not a condition of issue.

States have the right to make laws. They can impose duties on their citizens and residents, as long as they don't do so in an arbitrary way. Taxes are an example of such a duty, but they're not the only example. Many countries have compulsory military service. Others, including Australia, have compulsory voting.

BTW the state has no intrinsic obligation to maintain the currency's value. Without taxation the currency's value could plummet due to lack of demand. So taxation is needed to give value to the currency.

[Anonymous No.1625127]

>>1624976
They are perfectly able to withdraw it from their trading account and spend it on things.

[Anonymous No.1625146]

Trickle down economics has largely been debunked by most economists around the world. Ask the IMF and Argentina

[Anonymous No.1625302]

>>1620085
>that chart
Everytime

[Anonymous No.1625309]

I would be more interested in reading about trickle down economics working than not working. All I can find is information on how it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1625381]

>>1625309
>All I can find is information on how it doesn't work.
That might be because it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1625384]

>all these statists
not an argument

[Anonymous No.1625440]

>>1624055
>The accumulation of debt is how most corporations grow...
Wrong, they grow by selling goods and services and reinvesting the profits and capital they raised by demonstrating they can profit.

>the multiplication of all this credit on previous loans that become collateral for yet more credit creates the foundations for the financial sector to profit from foreclosing on and cannibalizing the real economy
For this to be true you've have to prove that the majority of their profits are from foreclosures.

This is the latest quarterly from US's largest bank.

http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FilingID=11660204&RcvdDate=11/1/2016&CoName=JPMORGAN%20CHASE%20%26%20CO&FormType=10-Q&View=html

"other income" was 782 million, 3% of its 24673 million revenue, whatever fraction of their revenue is due to foreclosures it is tiny and possibly lower than the cost of making bad loans that result in foreclosures, we can be sure JP Morgan at least are not loan sharks

[Anonymous No.1625473]

>>1625440
Businesses generate higher aggregate capitalization without any corresponding increase of material wealth. A good chunk of big companies aren't really profitable... e.g. twitter are just floating on air capitalizing on their income flows associated with intangible assets.
Bankers and investors aren't stupid and recognize that society’s productive powers can't grow fast enough to support the growth of interest-bearing debt. Since the pretension must eventually end, they call in their loans and foreclose on the real property of debtors, forcing the sale of property under crisis conditions as the financial system collapses in a convulsion of bankruptcy.

[Anonymous No.1625552]

>>1625127

True, but most trading accounts are investment accounts where the money will go back in to the market.

[Anonymous No.1625632]

>>1624993
>State taking back its own currency is not in violation of your property
That money was not just distributed for free. It is given in exchange for goods or services. As such, it cannot be considered the property of the state because there is no agreement, implicit or explicit, that this is so. Furthermore, the state loses legitimacy in this because it actively prohibits competing currencies through legal tender laws.

>violates their property rights since land was never produced but is the gift of nature.
This is nonsensical. A field that a farmer plowed and sewed may be a gift from nature originally, but he has most definitely invested his labor and time into it. Unused property (ie. someone arbitrarily fencing a million square miles of land and saying it's his) is a complicated subject, but in the vast majority of cases, ascertaining the owner of a particular piece of land at a particular moment is straightforward. With or without a government, if someone has a house and garden, it's pretty clear that the land is his. If it can be taken with impunity, the whole concept of rights falls apart and the ethical discussion is finished.

>>1624993
>basic standard of living was only achieved with central government
Just because something happened historically (and not at all effectively, let's not forget), doesn't mean that is the only way for that thing to happen. Do you think agriculture could have never developed in colonial America without slavery? People back then certainly did, and they'd argue that it was because of feudalism and slavery in the past that agriculture was able to develop enough to allow cities to arise and civilizations flourish. Does this mean slavery is correct?

>market failure
You are assuming that these goods are necessary even in the absence of demand, and that if there was demand, there would be no way to satisfy it without violent coersion. That's a pretty extraordinary claim, so you're going to need extraordinary justification.

[Anonymous No.1625634]

>>1625062
>muh Somalia
Why bother if you're not even going to try?

[Anonymous No.1625654]

>>1625632
*sowed

[Anonymous No.1625883]

>>1625126
>>1624993

Sorry, just noticed an autocorrect error in my post. It should of course have read:
While you are correct taxes do not violate property rights...

[Anonymous No.1625932]

>>1624742
>Justify this.
The statement that we have a duty to those people disadvantaged by our property rights seems so noncontroversial that I'm baffled as to why you think it needs justifying. So I have to ask: what sort of justification are you after?

From a fairness perspective it's completely straightforward: it is wrong to ignore the needs of those disadvantaged by our restrictions on their liberty. And it's wrong to make so many things dependent on wealth that not everyone has.

From a biblical point of view the case is even stronger. The obligation to help the poor was a big feature of the law of Moses, and was also something that Jesus very strongly emphasised the importance of.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, the same amount of money makes much more difference to the standard of living of the poor than of the rich. Though it's important to recognise that they're not always different people; many people are poor at some stages of their lives and rich at other times, as people's needs are greater when they're younger, but they tend to earn more when they're older.

Even purely from an efficiency standpoint, having people caught in a poverty trap is a bad thing as it limits their productivity. Returning to the topic of this thread, that's something that Reagan failed to understand; he was more concerned with making the rich more productive.


>>1625632
Land tax is best applied to the unimproved value of the land, but this is usually the most valuable component.

Of course agriculture could have developed in colonial America without slavery. Indeed colonial America had agriculture before it had slaves.

And you're wrongly assuming that government intervention amounts to violent coercion.

[Anonymous No.1626252]

>>1625632
>it cannot be considered the property of the state because there is no agreement, implicit or explicit, that this is so.
It says it on the money itself, pic related. At the top "Federal Reserve Note". The note belongs to the Federal Reserve and you choosing to use it doesn't mean you get to keep it forever.
>the state loses legitimacy in this because it actively prohibits competing currencies through legal tender laws.
Not true. I can transact with other economic agents in any currency I wish. I can even do it without a currency if I wish.
>A field that a farmer plowed and sewed may be a gift from nature originally, but he has most definitely invested his labor and time into it.
What entitles that farmer the property rights to that field instead of another farmer?
>Unused property (ie. someone arbitrarily fencing a million square miles of land and saying it's his) is a complicated subject
Without a state enforcing property rights, yes. With a state enforcing property rights, it's clear who owns what.
>if someone has a house and garden, it's pretty clear that the land is his.
I'm not talking about the property built on the land. I'm talking about the land itself.
>Does this mean slavery is correct?
No because we have the counterexample to slavery with even more successful societies. Where is the counterexample demonstrating that economies without the existence of a state thrive? On the contrary, all of the major economic development that has happened over centuries has happened due to state directed industrialism.
>You are assuming that these goods are necessary even in the absence of demand
There is no absence of demand. We use public goods everyday. If we didn't the government would stop and spend money elsewhere.
>no way to satisfy it without violent coersion.
That's correct. Public goods are by definition not able to be able provided by the private sector due to their non-excludable and non-rivalrous nature.

[Anonymous No.1626284]

>>1620349
I agree with your positions on QE, but they didn't get fucked because of austerity, they got fucked because they tightened interest rates.

Monetary policy > fiscal policy

Plus, aren't tax cuts a form of fiscal stimulus?

[Anonymous No.1626295]

>>1626252
My DVD machine has SAMSUNG written at the top. Does that mean you think it's still the property of Samsung?

The private sector is sometimes able to provide public goods. But it's rare for provision of public goods to be profitable, due partly to the cost structure and partly to the high proportion of non user benefits.

And government action does not necessarily (indeed not usually) involve violent coercion.

[Anonymous No.1626301]

>>1621660
tyical democratsimply full of h8 m8

[Anonymous No.1626304]

>>1626284

It's too simplistic to say monetary policy > fiscal policy.

It's the combination of monetary policy and fiscal policy that counts. But fiscal policy has two great advantages:
firstly the lower that interest rates get, the less benefit there is to cutting them, as the government can't control the markup that banks need to make in order to be profitable.

Secondly, monetary policy affects the whole nation (or whole currency area, which is usually the same) at once. Whereas fiscal policy can be targetted to where a stimulus is needed.

And yes, tax cuts are a form of fiscal stimulus (if they're not balanced by spending cuts). But they're a form that can't be targetted.

[Anonymous No.1626306]

>>1626295
>My DVD machine has SAMSUNG written at the top. Does that mean you think it's still the property of Samsung?
Samsung relinquished the right to the DvD player on sale. The Fed did not sell you the money and the power of taxation is retained.
>But it's rare for provision of public goods to be profitable, due partly to the cost structure
Yes I would have written about this in my post but I ran out of characters. As Adam Smith even says in The Wealth of Nations, some goods will never be provided by the private sector due to massive upfront cost as well as ongoing costs with no opportunity for benefit. The state must step in and provide to remedy this market failure.
>And government action does not necessarily (indeed not usually) involve violent coercion.
No, the one thing that anon is right about is coercion. The state is a coercive entity but it's a necessary evil.

[Anonymous No.1626309]

/biz/ - philosophy, ethics and morality

[Anonymous No.1626336]

>>1626306
If I buy American dollars, it will be from the bank not the Fed. And the power of taxation on the money will not be retained because I live outside the USA and am not an American citizen.

And although the state does have coercive powers, that doesn't mean that everything the state does is coercive.

[Anonymous No.1626352]

>>1626309

4chan is not a satire site

[Anonymous No.1626354]

>>1626336
>If I buy American dollars, it will be from the bank not the Fed. And the power of taxation on the money will not be retained because I live outside the USA and am not an American citizen.
The US can and does tax individuals and entities out the USA. Dollars are used as tax credits to extinguish tax obligations. That's what drives the demand for dollars in the first place. So if you choose to hold dollars you are choosing to old something that does come with an obligation to pay tax. Paying tax is pre-built into the issuance of the Dollar.

[Anonymous No.1626386]

>>1626354
You've got it backwards. The dollar gets its value from the obligation to use it to pay taxes in America. But that obligation is based on American tax laws; merely having dollars does not give you any obligation to use them in any particular way,

If you don't reside in America, don't do business in America and aren't an American citizen then you are outside the jurisdiction of American tax laws, no matter how many US dollsrs you have.

[Anonymous No.1626397]

>>1626386
>don't do business in America
>outside the jurisdiction of American tax laws
If you have acquired dollars you have done business in America. America's private sector is global not just in America itself. Also, no economic agent would hold dollars unless they intend on doing something further with those dollars. So holding dollars is a choice and comes with an attached obligation.

[Anonymous No.1626408]

>>1626397
american dollars can be bought, sold, and even used as currency almost anywhere in the world. People hold them for speculation and for trade. Of course holding dollars is a choice, but there's no obligation attached.

[Anonymous No.1626480]

It was NEVER actually implemented.

https://mises.org/library/myths-reaganomics

[Anonymous No.1626777]

>>1621601
the republican position has always been, reduce spending and cut taxes. we already have a glut of spending that is doing nothing. SS, medicare and medicaid is too generous and ACA is unnecessarily raising premiums and contracting the number of insurers, whilist being an added burden to the budget. there's also a big need for reform in the education sector wherein the democratic way of flushing money into the system has seen to do nothing for the past 2 decades. A reduction in government regulation that is providing barriers for other companies to enter the american market would help the economy a great deal. Also, we can stop providing europe with defense and use that money to protect our borders.

What I'm afraid of is janet yelen, she said she has plans to raise interest rates in trump's term. If the raise is too drastic, it could mean disaster for the U.S economy.

[Anonymous No.1626785]

>>1620968
>government in my country slashed corporate tax rates because it will make us more competitive and create jobs
Well in the U.S it did, It reduced uneployment, rose GDP and PPP, and reduced inflation. also lowered poverty rates. Only downside is that the theil index went up.

>still hasn't recovered to pre-2008 levels,
only asia, south east asian, and canada has.

>companies are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars that they haven't invested back into the economy

impossible for the case of the U.S seeing that the interest rates is so low, people are actually forced to either buy or let inflation devalue their savings.

[Anonymous No.1626797]

>>1620085
>>1620088
It works great. My parents make like $1 million/year and they give me like $30k a year (maximum to gift a year before it is taxable) + medical and uni tuition

Thanks for voting Trump btw

[Anonymous No.1626799]

>>1620085
>>1620088
It really sucks for 99% of the population tho.

If taxes get too high it can be beneficial, but we are nowhere near too high in the US

[Anonymous No.1626883]

>>1626799
you mean a federal tax rate of 35%, with state tax averages of 6% added with sales taxes, gst taxes, etc? in some states that raises up to 50% plus taxes.

the art of keeping a small business alive in the U.S is how much info you can keep secret from the government to ensure you still retain a profit.

[Anonymous No.1626897]

>>1621517

This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.1627004]

>>1625932
>seems so noncontroversial that I'm baffled as to why you think it needs justifying
It is very much controversial. That helping others is a moral action is far less controversial than having some sort of moral obligation to someone else, but you are arguing for the latter and not the former. As such, we must examine the arguments for validity and soundness, instead of just accepting them at face value.

>fairness
Is a meaningless word. Everyone's view of fairness is different. To a murderer, it isn't fair that he goes to prison for his actions. To the victim, it isn't fair that the murderer is killing him.

>disadvantaged by our restrictions on their liberty
The right to property disadvantages a stranger no more than the right to life does, because the right to property by definition is a right exclusive to a specific agent or agents. If you claim you have the right to life, does that mean you are restricting my right to kill you? Of course not, because no such right exists. Similarly, there cannot be a right to property if EVERYONE has a right to it. And if everyone has a right to that property and is entitled to do with it as they please, then it follows that everyone has a right to your life and are similarly entitled to do with it as they please.

>biblical
We will ignore this argument because it invokes the supernatural, and doesn't work on anyone other than Christians.

>utilitarian
Utilitarianism is an incoherent system of ethics. The concept of a utility monster highlights this.

>efficiency
Productivity is not a moral argument. If you are a poor paraplegic, and I am a world-famous scientist in need of a heart transplant, it is most efficient for me to kill you and use your heart so that I can achieve greater production. Is this a correct course of action? Do you have an obligation to provide me with your heart because I am disadvantaged, and maximal productivity is the greatest pursuit?

cont.

[Anonymous No.1627012]

I don't care about Reaganomics but I would seriously murder every single person that uses the words "trickle down economics" unironically.

[Anonymous No.1627013]

>>1625932
>>1627004
>land tax
No tax is beneficial to the person paying it, as compared to a voluntary payment. I understand that land tax has a cult following, but it is fundamentally no different from any other tax.

Let's assume I am the only citizen of a country, aside from the king. If I want to pay for a road, I can either pay a contractor directly, or I can pay the king in order to have him arrange one to be built. In the former case, 100% of my money goes toward the road-building efforts. In the latter, some money must necessarily go to the government, in order for them to do exactly the same thing as I'd do in the first case. Adding a government into a business transaction creates a middleman and creates additional cost. Now, suppose I didn't want to figure out exactly where the road was supposed to go, and what kind of surface would be ideal for the climate and conditions, and what the best cost:time ratio would be for this project, which contractor to pick, how to arrange payments, etc. I could pay someone to figure all this out. But I would still be better off than giving my money to the king, because he knows as much about roads as I do, so he will do exactly the same thing while also taking his cut.

> government intervention amounts to violent coercion
What happens if you do not consent to the government intervening in your affairs?

[Anonymous No.1627037]

>>1626252
>At the top "Federal Reserve Note"
All that says is the issuer of the note. Your car says "Ford" or "Toyota" on the back. Does that mean Ford or Toyota is the actual owner, and you choosing to use it doesn't mean you get to keep it forever?

> I can transact with other economic agents in any currency I wish.
You are obliged by law to pay any debts, and accept any payments, in legal tender. You can both certainly agree to pay and receive payment in goats, but if you perform a service for a client and he pays you in USD, you cannot take him to court for not meeting the terms of the agreement. This gives the national currency a level of privilege that no other currencies can compete with.

>instead of another farmer?
The fact that the first farmer found that land first.

>With a state enforcing property rights, it's clear who owns what.
How does the state enforce property rights? How do individuals without a state enforce property rights? Is there a fundamental difference between the two methods?

>I'm talking about the land itself.
The garden is virtually inextricable from the "land". Most take it as a given that property built on the land cannot practically be separated from that land.

>we have the counterexample to slavery
So if you were a time-traveller having this conversation with a plantation-owner 200 years ago, do you think he would be convinced of your argument if he has seen no such counterexamples? You are suggesting that unless something has happened in the past, it is impossible. This was precisely the view of slave-owners, who cried that all major economic development that has happened over centuries has happened due to state-protected slavery. Evidently the future turned out to prove them wrong.

>we use public goods everyday
If there is plenty of demand, there would be plenty of supply. However, the government either prohibits competition outright, or inhibits it through taxation (a revenue model which no private company could ever match)

[Anonymous No.1627043]

>>1626252
>>1627037
cont.

>Public goods are by definition not able to be able provided by the private sector due to their non-excludable and non-rivalrous nature.
No. The definition of public goods is is goods that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Whether the government can provide them more effectively than the private sector (in most common examples, they can't) is a separate issue entirely. You're jumping to a premature conclusion.

[Anonymous No.1627222]

>>1627013

The private contractor takes a cut; it's called the profit motive. Also no one pays for their own roads.

[Anonymous No.1627502]

>>1627222
Obviously. If the government was in charge, the private contractor would take a cut, AND the government would take a cut.

And while most roads were built and maintained through government monopoly, you are aware that private roads exist, yes? Evidently it is possible to construct and maintain roads without having a bureaucrat involved.

[Anonymous No.1627755]

>>1626897

Maybe if we spent that defense money on infrastructure, fixing entitlements, and giving tax breaks to corporations if they kept jobs here then we wouldn't have so much of a problem. It's not like most corporations actually pay the full corporate tax rate just like most rich people. I wonder what the actual tax evasion hit is in terms of federal tax revenue.

[Anonymous No.1627763]

>>1627502

Ok, some people pay for private roads, but the vast majority of people don't. You can't honestly believe that the government takes a cut, do you? They collect taxes and then spend them; they are a non-profit entity (clearly).

[Anonymous No.1627793]

>>1627763
Governments have operating costs. Governments do not build roads. They take your money, and they give it to planners and contractors who actually do the work. But those tax collectors and bureaucrats need to eat too, so they collect a paycheck. That paycheck will make the total cost more than if you had simply dealt with the construction company yourself.

I never said they work for profit. Did you even read what I posted?

[Anonymous No.1627813]

>>1622198
i want one of these for every president

[Anonymous No.1627843]

>>1627793

What percentage of their paycheck is spent working on that particular contract though? The operating costs of the government cover way more than just roads. If all the government has to do is issue a contract to a private company then the bureaucrat will spend very little time/money on the project; that's usually what happens.

By being in the position they're in the bureaucrat has access to tons of government data and most likely has more experience than you in terms of managing a project. They are more suited to do that work and have access to enough funds to get it done. Only a portion of the taxes collected go toward that particular contract; it's not like the Sheriff of Nottingham goes door to door to collect money for the new interstate highway.

You're presenting an option where there isn't one. People do not manage their own infrastructure projects unless they are very small. City, state and country governments manage infrastructure projects. Do you have any idea how complex road maintenance is?

[Anonymous No.1627845]

>have 90% tax on rich
>nobody likes it
>economy goes to shit
>both liberals and conservatives get pissed off
>49 states vote for Regan
>he lowers taxes

Carter was bad and you should feel bad

[Anonymous No.1627857]

>>1627845
>nobody likes it
this is what reps in the washington bubble really think

[Anonymous No.1627971]

>>1627004
Fairness is far from meaningless, and even a murderer knows it is fair he goes to prison, however much he claims otherwise.

Of course there are different concepts of fairness, as different people put different emphasis on process and outcome. But not everything is a conflict between process and outcome; sometimes they're on the same side. And it's generally agreed that restricting people's rights to access land and giving them nothing in return is unfair.

Have you ever heard of the Tragedy of the Enclosures? If not, google it - you will learn a lot, and it may make you think differently about fairness.

Ignore the biblical argument if you want, but it's not confined to Christians; it applies to Jews as well. And AIUI other religions have similar stipulations.

I'd not heard of the utility monster before. I'm suspect it may be a problem of measurement rather than genuine incoherence - but either way, there's no need to continue with that argument if you don't want to.

Productivity is not itself a moral argument, but it is frequently used to justify immoral courses of action (though obviously not as extreme as your example) so it is significant that making the poor more productive is more efficient than making the rich more productive, despite Reagan and many others assuming the opposite.

Now (or preferably, after you've read about the tragedy of the enclosures) it's your turn to do some justification. Why do you think property rights should override states' rights to levy taxes? And do you accept that none of the arguments you gave for property rights earlier (when you seemed to assume I was arguing against then) depend on it not being taxed?

[Anonymous No.1628002]

>>1622897
QE was done to promote aggregate demand, not to cover bad bets you spastic.

[Anonymous No.1628007]

>>1623305
Are you fucking retarded? Trying to assassinate a former president is an act of war and we had every reason to topple Saddam. Even if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, which he did, the guy still harbored terrorists and was threatening to cause a regional arms race with his saber rattling.

If we had elected Gore, green energy would've become viable not because of advances in technology but because Saudi-Iran-Iraq going to war with each other and a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East would raise the price to $200, easily.

[Anonymous No.1628204]

>>1628002

Everything crashed due to bad bets and guess what? QE was done as a stimulus because everyone was depressed and scared.

>>1628007

Did he really try to assassinate a former President? He was minor compared to Afghanistan and bin laden and it might have been good to let israel nuke those countries.

[Anonymous No.1628210]

>>1628204
The crash was bad because the Fed didn't cut interest rates in September 2008 after Lehman failed, not because of capitalism you cuck

[Anonymous No.1628382]

>>1624186
That's like saying rent is theft.

[Anonymous No.1628385]

>>1628382
pic related

[Anonymous No.1628420]

>>1620085
It is not the best, but it is better then many other proposed political economic models.

However it should be noted that the plan was only half implemented, which created an absolute mess. In the original version government spending was to reach record lows, which is the opposite of what happened.

I mean the idea was to cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulation and tighten monetary controls. Which is one of the few sound approaches I know of. Not my favorite as I think more policy directive taxes are good, i.e. carbon tax and such, given the need for long term national directions and some sensible infrastructure spending. But still I would take it over the madness we have now, if people stuck to the plan.

[Anonymous No.1628609]

>>1628385
The "social contract" is nothing but a fictional thing and a dishonest argument.
I never signed anything, neither did anyone else.
It doesn't meet the basic requirement of any definition of contract.

[Anonymous No.1628757]

>>1628609

>has never taken a law, philosophy or civic class
>presumes to speak about what he thinks contracts should be
>mfw

[Anonymous No.1628776]

>>1628757
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.1628784]

>>1628776
he's right.

if you think all contracts have to be written and signed you're grossly uninformed.

[Anonymous No.1628808]

>>1628609
This post reminds me of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB8katyjc9Q

[Anonymous No.1628812]

>>1628784
>>1628784
>if you think all contracts have to be written and signed you're grossly uninformed.
A contract has to be agreed to.
That's the point. Trying to give any legitimacy to the "social contract" when it's a completely one-sided non-consensual agreement is completely disingenuous

[Anonymous No.1628814]

>>1628808
Well that's the perfect example of how the "social contract" is nonsense.
You don't agree to be under a government.
You are simply tacitly forced to comply.
However that woman was an idiot for not understanding this and believing you can "opt out" of being a citizen.

[Anonymous No.1628827]

>>1628814
You do agree to be under a government by living in that country

You're free to leave

[Anonymous No.1628859]

>>1620085

the bottom line is you can manipulate supply. demand is much harder to create.

[Anonymous No.1628905]

>>1628827
>You do agree to be under a government by living in that country
>You're free to leave
This is the usual nonsensical argument given by those who support the "social contract"
No, I didn't agree to any "social contract" by living in the country I live in, nor am I "free to leave" as that just means moving to another country.
This is in no way a "tacit agreement" since it's not invalidated by voicing my disagreement.
It's forceful and one-sided, and you do not have the option of refusing it.
It's imposed on you from the moment you are born.
If I could declare my own private property to stop being part of the country (and yes, lose all my rights as a citizen), then I would agree with you.
And that's not possible because the social contract is not two-sided, but a mere imposition of force from one more powerful side (the government) against every individual living in the country.

Stop pretending there is anything voluntary in this. It clearly isn't.

[Anonymous No.1628924]

>>1628812
>completely one-sided non-consensual agreement
>says the guy voluntarily using an internet and computers designed and built by the society he rejects.
>speaking the language of the society he hates
>no doubt using electricity, food and water produced by the society he decries.

look, I'm no expert on hypocrisy, but shouldn't you be off in the woods somewhere shivering and rocking side to side?

[Anonymous No.1628939]

>>1628924
It's like you haven't read my other posts.

No, living in this society doesn't mean agreeing to the "social contract" unless you admit that is is nothing more than coercion.

If I come to your house with a rifle, and tell you to either give me the money I want from you, or I will shoot you unless you run and leave the country, would you call that voluntary?
No, because it's not. It's nothing but coercion.
If the government uses violence against anyone refusing to agree to the social contract, it is not voluntary.
Pretending otherwise is simply denial. I guess it's a result of cognitive dissonance.

>look, I'm no expert on hypocrisy, but shouldn't you be off in the woods somewhere shivering and rocking side to side?
No, and that's also because society doesn't have to be coercitive.
That's the Non-Aggression Principle.

I am not even an anarcho-capitalist. I can accept a minimal government, but it's absolutely dishonest to deny the coercive nature of the State.

[Anonymous No.1629018]

>>1628385
>sign
If only that were the case.

>>1628924
>produced by the society he decries
Government != society. The computer he uses was built by individuals and sold to him for money. Language was created by individuals, who adopted and modified it for mutual benefit. Electricity, food, and water was produced by individuals and sold to him for money.

Society doesn't create anything, because society is not some conscious agent. The only agents capable of production are individuals, who can act alone or in concert with others. Neither does the government create anything. They simply take money from some people, and give it to other people in exchange for goods or services. If anon is paying taxes (impossible not to, directly or indirectly, unless he lives in a box under the bridge and never buys anything) and abiding by the laws imposed upon him by the government, he is entitled to whatever that government's actions result in.

Either way, going in the woods does not somehow relieve the coersion imposed on him by the state, any more than hiding from a murderer in your house somehow eliminates the threat of death.

[Anonymous No.1629220]

>>1626777

It's obvious that rates are going to trash the economy. With wages stagnant, student debt, and little jobs; shit is over.

[Anonymous No.1629233]

>>1628210

> not because of capitalism you cuck

You can't even call this shithole capitalism if the FED has to step in and print money. That's not how capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.1629238]

>>1628924

I bet you're one of those libtards that thinks the government should be in control of our lives.

What the fuck happened to owning your rights in this country?

[Anonymous No.1629249]

>>1628609
>*autistic screeching*
lol you realise that's literally what your post is.
Autistic screeching.

[Anonymous No.1629252]

>>1622198

Let's not forget that it was the Iran-Contra incident that created the modern Al Quada, and the terrorists that the right wing wants to kill so fervently.

Yes it's hysterical. That the right is so backward on everything it supports because it doesn't bother to read the fine print.

[Anonymous No.1629284]

>>1629249
Not
an
argument

[Anonymous No.1629295]

>>1629252
>Let's not forget that it was the Iran-Contra incident that created the modern Al Quada

Let's not forget that it was Hillary and Obama who armed the groups that later became ISIS, and which they now won't even admit are islamic.
It's quite hysterical indeed. That the left is so backward on everything it supports because it doesn't bother to look at what's right in front of them.

[Anonymous No.1629323]

>>1629284
neither is "I never signed nuthin". you sound like one of those sovereigntist morons who think they can revoke their own citizenship to become immune to the law.

only a retard would seriously pose the argument that they don't have to bow to society because that retard didn't "agree" to "the contract". the social contract isn't a literal contract you fuckbucket.

so you don't like western society. fucking move to somalia, get the fuck out of our hair, and stop shitting up the place if it's such a goddamn hassle for you. no laws or contracts to get in your way over there.

[Anonymous No.1629504]

>>1629323
>. the social contract isn't a literal contract you fuckbucket.
So what is it and from where does it draw legitimacy?

[Anonymous No.1629601]

>>1628210
>not because of capitalism
>unregulated trading and speculation by moneyed interests led to creation and destruction of $6 trillion in global value

Yeah it was definitely communism or socialism that did it. Stupid commies and their financial casinos. Derp.

[Anonymous No.1629604]

>>1629504

Forgo the social contract and steal whatever you want. Kill whoever you want. Drive on the sidewalk. Grab women by the pussy. Then watch as everyone else starts doing it and someone grabs you. Why did you think you could exist in society without a social contract stipulating the requirements of living in said society? Because you're just that awesome?

[Anonymous No.1629856]

>>1629601
How about you actually learn what caused the crisis instead of spouting complete non-arguments and making a fool of yourself.

Yes, it was the state's fault that 2008 happened, and if the government didn't meddle in the economy these events wouldn't be a problem.

>>1629604
>Forgo the social contract and steal whatever you want. Kill whoever you want. Drive on the sidewalk. Grab women by the pussy. Then watch as everyone else starts doing it and someone grabs you. Why did you think you could exist in society without a social contract stipulating the requirements of living in said society? Because you're just that awesome?

Stop embarrassing yourself you mongoloid.
You're just completely strawmanning my argument and showing you have no understanding of what I said.

I'm not even gonna ask if you hit your head as a child, but just how many times did they throw you?

[Anonymous No.1629861]

>>1629601
As for the remote possibility that you actually want to educate yourself about the crisis, here is a simple video that will explain it even to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMKKHUIwmNw

[Anonymous No.1629887]

CONSIDER

FREE

MARKET

mises.org

[Anonymous No.1629888]

>>1629601
>lets force banks to loan to dumb niggers with no credit
>woops they all defaulted on their loans who would've thought

[Anonymous No.1629897]

>>1629887
>Mises
Lol fuck off, you're as economically illiterate as a socialist

[Anonymous No.1630098]

>>1629604
>Forgo the social contract
Social contract is the NAP now?

[Anonymous No.1630132]

this >>1629897
Milton Friedman is the go to nonmeme free marketier.

[Anonymous No.1630725]

>>1630132
>Monetarist
>free market
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.1630865]

>>1629856
>>1629861
>>1629888

The ratings agencies gave those CDOs AAA rating when they were junk bonds at best. Everyone was selling the same bad paper and the big financial firms collapsed because of it. Real estate brokers were hyping property values and people were flipping houses like crazy so the prices being paid far exceeded actual value. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't the only companies making the mortgages and the loans were predatory because of commissions.

Let's use your video example: why would someone get a loan for a $200k home that they couldn't afford instead of saving the extra $5k and getting the $100k home? Because someone issuing the loan told them they could afford it. Variable interest rates played a part in not only making the loan unaffordable, but also in allowing the CDOs to hype face value by pretending the extra potential interest was real. The AAA rating reinforced that delusion.

>>1629888

Seriously? HUD set goals for home ownership for lower income people, but that didn't mean giving away bad loans on overpriced properties. If someone couldn't afford a $200k loan at 8% then why issue the loan? Tell them to get a $100k loan at 8% and move into a smaller home. First time home owners didn't understand what they were getting into and the loaners clearly didn't explain it to them. Yes, blame the person who got conned into signing a contract where the math didn't make sense because the person was bad at math and the contract issuer wasn't. Makes sense.

As far as the social contract stuff goes, you people are crazy and ignoring basic civics.

[Anonymous No.1630902]

>>1630865
>The ratings agencies gave those CDOs AAA rating when they were junk bonds at best. Everyone was selling the same bad paper and the big financial firms collapsed because of it. Real estate brokers were hyping property values and people were flipping houses like crazy so the prices being paid far exceeded actual value.

And none, none of that would've happened if not for the government screwing things up in the first place. You're conveniently forgetting that.
Yes, people at Wall Street are greedy assholes, but that isn't and hasn't ever been the problem.

>Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't the only companies making the mortgages
The rest of the market had to lower their standards because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It's called competition.
Again, it all started from government making the terrible decision of manipulating in the economy.
This is indefensible.

>If someone couldn't afford a $200k loan at 8% then why issue the loan? Tell them to get a $100k loan at 8% and move into a smaller home. First time home owners didn't understand what they were getting into and the loaners clearly didn't explain it to them. Yes, blame the person who got conned into signing a contract where the math didn't make sense because the person was bad at math and the contract issuer wasn't. Makes sense.

Wow, companies are doing their own interest and trying to sell a loan as big as possible? Insane!
You see, some people believe in what is called "personal responsibility".
Nothing comes for free. That's just common sense and they should've known better.
Those people chose to take out bigger loans, and the banks had to give a certain % of loans to people who were poor and that ultimately forced them to lower their standards.
Nobody forced them to take loans they couldn't repay, and shifting the blame on the banks for simply trying to sell their own product is completely insane.
It's not "conning", it's business.

>you people are crazy
great argument.

[Anonymous No.1630921]

>>1620085
Horse and Sparrow economics are a neoliberal ruse that is concentrating wealth to the elites in the most efficient manner since feudalism. It is amazing at generating short-term growth and standard of living in already-stable economies. Left unchecked, you end up with a precarious economic situation not unlike the one we see today.

[Anonymous No.1630970]

>>1630902
>none of that would've happened

Right, HUD goal changes created credit default swaps which were unregulated by the SEC (which had its funding cut by Bush tax cuts). CDOs being rated AAA when they were garbage wasn't S&P or Moody's, it was Congress. Real estate brokers and loan salesmen being greedy had nothing to do with false value being created out of thin air, it was Bush Jr. Your competition was really greed and it ruined everything. Lacking regulations and private ratings agencies being shitty at their jobs allowed a problem to grow exponentially.

Competition wasn't the problem, bad loans were. If I have the money and am in the business of making loans then it's my responsibility to make loans which can be paid back. Lowering standards for people with bad credit scores doesn't mean giving those people $200k loans when they could only afford $100k and it doesn't mean issuing a loan at 7% which will jump to 17%. Accounting 101 math would be enough to understand how much debt those people could handle and if someone in the business of doing those calculations fucked up then the fault lies with them. Being shitty at your job is why you get fired.

>crazy

Basic civics. In Athens you had to participate in government or they would throw you out of the city-state. Citizens have responsibilities which are clearly laid out in the laws of the state they are in. Some countries like Australia require you to vote whereas others like America allow you to be lazy. Personal responsibility in society is civics and that means doing your part to make America great. Shirking those responsibilities is what decreases tax revenue and allows people to become President with less than 30% of the vote.

[Anonymous No.1631070]

>>1630970
>Citizens have responsibilities which are clearly laid out in the laws of the state they are in
That's not an argument for or against anything. It's just a statement of the status quo. Care to present an argument for why government-imposed obligations on individuals are legitimate?

[Anonymous No.1631085]

>>1630970
>Right, HUD goal changes created credit default swaps which
>blah blah
Again, none of that would've happened if not for government.
And even then, it doesn't matter.
If banks gamble and they fail, they fail.
Let them go bankrupt.
A crisis is not a tragedy and easily resolved by the market in a few years. Bad companies are weeded out. New ones are created.
However the government started bailing out bad companies instead to "save jobs" and "the economy" and only made it worse.
Mistake after mistake made by the government, and you will still blame it on "greed" which is basic human nature, and "regulations" which caused the problem in the first place.
This is the usual argument of the statist: fuck things up with government intervention, then blame someone else, and demand more government to fix things the government did.

>If I have the money and am in the business of making loans then it's my responsibility to make loans which can be paid back.
And that's what they did before the government forced them to give loans to people with bad ratings.
If the government takes the role of doing that, I cannot push the responsibility on the lender anymore.

>Lowering standards for people with bad credit scores doesn't mean giving those people $200k loans when they could only afford $100k
Again, competition. Bigger loans means more money ultimately, and they wouldn't have been led to do this if not for the government.
Of course, once you use state intervention to distort the market, the results of competition are not gonna be the same.
And then you can't blame the free market for that, because it's NOT a free market.
And again, taking a loan that is too big is your own responsibility. Interest rates change and that's also something you have the responsibility of knowing before taking a loan.
This is the same thing that makes colleges so expensive now. Easy loans for students means they're gonna be more willing to pay a lot more money.
It costed a lot less 40 years ago

[Anonymous No.1631091]

>>1630970
>Basic civics. In Athens you had to participate in government or they would throw you out of the city-state. Citizens have responsibilities which are clearly laid out in the laws of the state they are in. Some countries like Australia require you to vote whereas others like America allow you to be lazy. Personal responsibility in society is civics and that means doing your part to make America great. Shirking those responsibilities is what decreases tax revenue and allows people to become President with less than 30% of the vote.

This >>1631070
All you have to offer is platitudes and describing how governments work.
That's the extent of your argument?
You either haven't read the rest of the discussion or you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Anonymous No.1631099]

>>1620085
Oh boy its another /leftypol/ shills their shit ideology in biz while acting as though they are from here because /pol/ always calls them out. But they will still be here bumping the thread for the next 10 days because they think winning an argument is whoever can get the last word in.
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.1631289]

>>1631070

It's not your right to request things from the government unless you follow the rules of said government, e.g. you can't even set foot on American soil without being subject to America's rules. Why should the government give you anything unless you are willing to adhere to their rules?

>>1631085

Sure except when all the major banks screw up and those banks have everyone's savings in them. If they fail then the people lose their money and the federal government sees a run on the banks/stock market that collapses the economy because people start saving their money in jars. Then the dollar collapses and international banks stop using it as a reserve currency and the country falls down a hole so deep it never gets out.

You believe that greed, basic human nature, is as excusable as stupidity or incompetence, also basic human nature? The two were intertwined. Loan amounts went up because commissions were bigger; CDOs were traded for the same reason. Greed and stupid short-term thinking caused all the bad paper. Ratings agencies, real estate valuing groups and loan issuers screwed up in order to achieve their goals in the short term. Lack of regulation let them do this.

Taking a loan that is too big is partially your responsibility, but giving a loan that can't be paid back is the issuer's responsibility. You can't shift the blame entirely onto the people and shouldn't because the decision to grant the loan was entirely up to the business. There was no law that forced the loans to be given, just goals set out in abstract paperwork. Those goals did not specify the size of the loans or that the loans had to be more than the person could afford.

[Anonymous No.1631313]

>>1629252
>>1629295
So, what you're saying is that both are, at best, utterly inept or, at worst, totally corrupt, and that supporting either of the two major parties is tantamount to either being hopelessly ignorant or morally bankrupt, or both.

[Anonymous No.1631320]

>>1631289
>Sure except when all the major banks screw up and those banks have everyone's savings in them. If they fail then the people lose their money and the federal government sees a run on the banks/stock market that collapses the economy because people start saving their money in jars

If that ever happened, then people will stop putting their money in banks that gamble with it.
Free market.

>Then the dollar collapses and international banks stop using it as a reserve currency
Good, the government shouldn't print money in the first place.
Did you forget that government printing money itself is government control over the economy?
Shouldn't have happened.

>and the country falls down a hole so deep it never gets out.
No such thing. America's resources aren't gonna disappear overnight because of financial trouble.
If the dollar collapsed it would be a hard hit, but people could finally use something else.
The reason this recession has still not finished is precisely the government trying to "save" the economy from collapsing, it doesn't work.

>Lack of regulation let them do this.
And that's fine, they should be allowed to do this.

>Taking a loan that is too big is partially your responsibility, but giving a loan that can't be paid back is the issuer's responsibility.
Sure, and then the banks that did this should've failed, not been bailed out.
The point is, you take government out of this and have people deal with their own responsibilities.
The person taking the loan may go to jail for debt, and the person making the loan will lose money.
The whole issue still started from government and ended with government, the state made things worse, not better, because that's how government intervention works.

>There was no law that forced the loans to be given
>Those goals did not specify the size of the loans or that the loans had to be more than the person could afford.
The laws in practice forced companies to give them to people who could not have afforded them.

[Anonymous No.1631332]

>>1631289
>It's not your right to request things from the government unless you follow the rules of said government, e.g. you can't even set foot on American soil without being subject to America's rules. Why should the government give you anything unless you are willing to adhere to their rules?
I am not going to repeat the whole conversation, which you clearly haven't read, and joined midway through, to you.
But this is exactly the issue with government.

[Anonymous No.1631336]

>>1620085
An experiment that failed so bad we still see the effects today.

[Anonymous No.1631353]

>>1631289
>It's not your right to request things from the government unless you follow the rules of said government,
This assumes that the government is the owner of all land, and that everyone living on it are tenants. Is that your position?

[Anonymous No.1631361]

>>1631353
>This assumes that the government is the owner of all land, and that everyone living on it are tenants.
>literally the stance of every government.

[Anonymous No.1631368]

>>1631320
>the government shouldn't print money in the first place
This is the problem. Overly-confident people like you jump on and make wild claims without understanding even basic economics. You've let your ideology define your economic theory. You're mentally lazy.
Seriously. Research the state of the world economy before fiat currency came into existence. Then, research the ACTUAL tools the US Federal Reserve actually has in the economy. ThEN. Research what they use those tools to do.

I can tell that you've never had any sort of formal schooling in economics. I'm not going to argue specific points with you because you're wrong on so many basic levels.

[Anonymous No.1631370]

>>1631361
I'm not talking to the government, I'm talking to that anon.

It is the stance of muggers that everyone's wallet rightly belongs to them, but strangely we do not share their views.

[Anonymous No.1631372]

>>1631353
No it doesn't. That's a false equivalency. It implies that the government maintains law and order. If you cannot abide by that law and order, you will be subject to the discipline of that government.

[Anonymous No.1631375]

>>1631320
>Free market

So everyone loses their money because the less regulated banks failed? Because traders on the stock market made tons of unregulated, over-leveraged bad bets using recently unregulated, over-leveraged private funds exacerbated by crappy unregulated private ratings agencies? How is that fair to the people and how could people make a correct decision? People put their money in the banks because there were federal guarantees just like their trust in the money in the first place. The money has value because the government backs it; we aren't on the gold standard anymore and haven't been for decades.

There are regulations because the government wants to protect itself; in this case from giant corporations more than individuals. The government has an interest in it's money retaining value and it's economy growing/working. You're talking like corporations don't exist and the only parties are citizens and government. It's more complicated than that because it's not the 1770s anymore.

A well regulated militia won't stop Russia; it won't even stop North Korea. It might stop Barbados. The US military costs $500 billion a year (more if you count wars) and projects force to ensure economic interests. Someone has to pay for that and if you don't want to then fine, don't, but get the fuck out of the country and stop taking advantage of the protections that military provides. You don't like the laws then work to change them under the system those laws provide OR GTFO. The country doesn't owe you anything, but it gave you the economy you exist in.

>laws in practice

Name one law that forced a company to give a loan to an uncreditworthy person. Show me US legal code forcing a company to issue loans.

[Anonymous No.1631380]

>>1631320
I assume you want the gold standard back, just like every other uneducated libertarian. I'm gunna copy/paste something for you to think about:
The gold standard forces a nation to maintain sufficient reserves of gold to back its
currency's value. This is a good idea helps place a limit on inflation, as a country cannot print
additional money without sufficient gold to back it up. The gold standard eases international
transactions as there is little uncertainly about exchange rates for trade with foreign countries.
This is a bad idea because countries lose the flexibility to expand or contract the monetary supply
in response to economic conditions. An expanding economy requires more currency to make
transactions, and a failure to supply this currency will retard economic growth or and/or lead to
deflation. A shrinking economy, in the absence of a banking crisis, will require less money, and
a failure to remove money from the economy can lead to inflation. The worst situation is when a
banking crisis appears simultaneously with a depressed economy. People respond to the
uncertainty by holding onto money. This leads to both depressed prices of commodities (i.e.,
which translates to less demand for mining new gold) and a need for more currency to be added
to the economy. The resulting deflation can cause people to hoard even more currency,
exacerbating the economic crisis.

[Anonymous No.1631397]

>>1631370

Because the government says you have rights to that wallet and pays for law enforcers to ensure said rights. Your rights do not exist in a vacuum; they exist because someone with enough power/authority to enforce them says they do. The government is that someone and will exercise their power against your mugger. As citizens we allow the government to have that power and we pay for that power because we agree that your wallet is your wallet. We give the government power in exchange for security.

[Anonymous No.1631415]

>>1631372
>If you cannot abide by that law and order, you will be subject to the discipline of that government.
If you cannot abide by the order of the mugger, you will be subject to the bullets of that mugger. This says nothing of the legitimacy of that mugger's actions.

>>1631380
>An expanding economy requires more currency to make transactions
But it doesn't.

>>1631397
>As citizens we allow the government
Just now you said the government is powerful enough to get their way. If so, we do not allow the government to act anymore than we allow the mugger; they simply do as they please, to our benefit or detriment, because they have local fire superiority. Is that the standard by which we measure what is and isn't a government?

[Anonymous No.1631432]

>>1631415

But the mugger and the government are at two different power scales. The power given to the government is given by the citizens and is thus as big as the citizens choose to make it. That power is far more than the mugger with a gun has and is far more than any one citizen has. The other citizens choose to give that much power in case another citizen, in this case the mugger, chooses to go against that power. The mugger has chosen to go against the power of the government, power given by the citizenry, by violating the government backed right to property which the wallet holder has. The government then exercises its given power to deal with the situation as it is entitled to by law.

Yes, they have fire superiority as well as legal authority to act. If we want to change that then we can work within the system to change the laws. Lobbyists and politicians do it and sometimes they even listen to citizens.

[Anonymous No.1631443]

>>1631320

Also, there is nothing wrong with increasing home ownership. If the loans issued were reasonable and the CDOs worth the AAA rating then there would have been no collapse; there only would have been a massive gain in worldwide value (estimated at $6 trillion). Imagine how much better the world economy would be if $6 trillion in real value were created in a decade. This is just an example of financiers creating and popping bubbles.

[Anonymous No.1631465]

>>1631443
>there is nothing wrong with increasing home ownership.
There is, and you just saw that happen 8 years ago.
Unless it's by the forces of the free market, it's artificial growth that will eventually pop.
The banks should've kept the same criteria for credit ratings and not have been forced to change them.

>If the loans issued were reasonable and the CDOs worth the AAA rating
So if this fictional money did exist?
Yes, of course if you can create stuff out of nothing that's great.

>>1631375
>How is that fair to the people
"Fairness" is an argument for children and stupid people. It has no place in a discussion among adults.

>how could people make a correct decision?
By not blindly trusting their bank, or what they do with their money.
In any case most of the banks involved were investment and not commercial banks.

>because there were federal guarantees just like their trust in the money in the first place.
There should be no state enforced guarantees on this. Putting money in a bank is an investment, as banks invest their money.
If you want it to be 100% sure then they shouldn't invest it I guess, and that leads us to the whole problem of inflation which is also caused by government.

>There are regulations because the government wants to protect itself; in this case from giant corporations more than individuals
This has nothing to do with the government protecting itself from corporations. If anything, regulating the economy exposes it to corruption by said corporations who want it to manipulate the economy in their favor.

>Show me US legal code forcing a company to issue loans.
You're strawmanning me again you dolt.
I said that this forced them to do it in practice to compete with fannie and freddie.

>The US military costs $500 billion a year
The US military doesn't require economical regulations.

[Anonymous No.1631467]

>>1631432
>The power given to the government is given by the citizens
It's given by a majority, not "the citizens"
If you want to consider the citizens as a collective, then that's fine, but you're being a collectivist.
There are no "groups" in reality, only individuals.
If 51% of the country wants something, then it's really just 51% and not "the citizens".
If 10% of americans wanted to secede, that wouldn't work and it wouldn't be allowed.
Democracy is a collectivist ideology, much like communism, serving the imaginary god of the collective, which really translates into whoever is representing that collective at the moment.
Politicians, etc.

[Anonymous No.1631925]

>>1620085
> Oh boy, the government lowered taxes for my business.
> Let's see, I could hire an employee that I don't need, or I could pocket the difference.

Demand creates jobs.

[Anonymous No.1631977]

>>1631467

Collectivism is the natural state of human societies because it's the most competitive and allows for the greatest survival of the group. There has never been a successful society where it was a "collection of individuals" because said societies always get destroyed by neighbors who organized their social structure placing the group above the individual.

This whole "special snowflake" libertarian ideology you ascribe to is nonsense because if there was remotely any claim to reality of it's objective value and how it keeps one set group competitive with their neighbors then we'd be seeing more widespread applications of said values or it would be the de facto public policy set by governments but that's clearly not the case.

[Anonymous No.1632023]

>>1631925

This should have been /thread

[Anonymous No.1632063]

>>1631977
>Collectivism is the natural state of human societies
showing that you don't understand what I said at all.
There is no such thing as a collective.
It doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.1632074]

>>1631925
>> Oh boy, the government lowered taxes for my business.
>> Let's see, I could hire an employee that I don't need, or I could pocket the difference.
That's not how it's supposed to work even in theory.
Yes, companies won't simply hire more people because they have more money, but that's not the point.
When there is more capital in the economy, there is more to invest, and it is easier for companies to grow, while higher taxes put a burden on businesses and slow the economy.

>Demand creates jobs.
Artificial demand creates nothing.
If you tax a business to give money to the poor to spend, all you're doing is subsidizing the businesses the poor will use more, and essentially giving free stuff to them.
It doesn't solve the underlying problem of why the economy is stagnating, and unless this subsidy keeps increasing things will return the same as they were before.

>>1631925
>then we'd be seeing more widespread applications of said values
The most individualist societies are the most successful.
Case in point, the entire west.
It is only through individualism that western culture has been as successful as it has, it's the contamination of collectivism that made the west lose so much of its power in the last few decades.

[Anonymous No.1632639]

>>1632063

Wrong, your ideology blinds you to facts. You might as well be a creationist denying evolution.

>>1632074

>It is only through individualism that western culture has been as successful as it has, it's the contamination of collectivism that made the west lose so much of its power in the last few decades.

Individualism has nothing to do with the rise of the West, the West has only been relevant until very recently in human history and it's temporary dominance was achieved by pure luck. The region that was always the economic, scientific and cultural powerhouse of the world was Asia, composing primarily of collectivist societies. Even during the age of colonialism Europe adopted and borrowed heavily ideas and values from the East, including many pillars of the current market system which were adopted from the Indian and Chinese markets.

[Anonymous No.1632684]

>>1632639
>Wrong
Ok, so direct me to The Collective. I have some questions to ask it.

What's that, you can't? You can only point to individuals who claim to "represent the interest" of the people? Who say they "speak for the collective"? Isn't that convenient...

[Anonymous No.1633163]

>>1632639

It's clear that some people are either trolling or don't care about facts. Reaganomics was a marketing scam to cover up the gutting of America by the rich non-statists who will just exchange their dollars for euros or renminbi.

[Anonymous No.1633231]

>>1632639
>it's temporary dominance was achieved by pure luck

>pure luck
>the west has been the most powerful region in the world, due to "pure luck"
sure thing bud
what a convenient explanation

>The region that was always the economic, scientific and cultural powerhouse of the world was Asia,
This is simply objectively wrong.
Yes, asia has its merits, but the vast majority of the ideas of western philosophy and the achievements of western science, have originated from the west itself.
Asia actually came up with philosophy before the west did, but their dogmatism about it (presumably from to being so collectivist) is what essentially stopped its evolution over time, while the west's kept evolving into what it is now.

>Even during the age of colonialism Europe adopted and borrowed heavily ideas and values from the East, including many pillars of the current market system which were adopted from the Indian and Chinese markets.
Far more things have been taken by the east from the west than the other way around.
Yes, after the middle ages, the west had remained backwards, and was almost fading into irrelevancy, while the east had developed more culturally, and can you guess why?
Because the middle ages were the period in which western culture was effectively at its lowest point, after the roman empire fell and all.
But in the centuries after the middle ages, as western culture, with its trademark individualism, started to flourish again, the west became more and more powerful, single-handedly invented science, was responsible for 99% of scientific advancements pretty much until the half of the last century, and colonized the entire world.
On the other hand the east ended up completely losing the position of power they had, because they had stayed behind.

I think your collectivist ideology may have contaminated your judgement.
You should consult your village elders.

[Anonymous No.1633233]

>>1633163
>It's clear that some people are either trolling or don't care about facts. Reaganomics was a marketing scam
It was a scam, especially considering that reagan did less than half of what he promised.
He ditched most of his promises and simply cut taxes, which doesn't work by itself.

[Anonymous No.1633375]

>>1633233

Exactly. Just like Trump's promises and Obama's promises and Bush's promises and

[Anonymous No.1633536]

>>1632684

Every single society is lead by representatives that that acts in accordance with the will of the people and the laws that govern the society in which they exist, even the most authoritarian governments struggle to act in defiance against the will of the masses. These representatives whether they be democratically elected leaders or by divine right only possess power because the people have given them power. That being said your questions are stupid and ridiculous that they don't needs answers.

>>1633231

You're completely talking out of your ass. You clearly don't know anything about history or how civilizations developed the way they did. You're applying your eurocentric libertarian dogma to the historical narrative in order to satisfy your cognitive bias. This entire post is nothing more than pointless exercise in mental gymnastics, which I couldn't be bothered to read all the way from the sheer stupidity of it.

Libertarianism, like Marxism, doesn't work and will never work. A pipe dream created by ivory-tower intellectuals with their heads so far up their asses they've forgotten how humans interact and how the world works, and adhered to by idiots who think they're smarter than they actually are. You can keep thinking that God created fossils to test the faithful but that won't make it true.

[Anonymous No.1633547]

>>1620085
muh written on napkin economics

[Anonymous No.1633580]

>>1626777
>SS is too generous
Is this a joke? The way they keep raising the age most people are gonna die before they see a single cent of it back

[Anonymous No.1633603]

reaganomics only works if big business use the money they save and pay their workers better or hire more workers.

But there's no reason for businesses to do that. In fact, CEOs and higher ups use the savings to fatten up their own paycheck. So no, it doesn't work.

I bet the government would say more money giving the tax cuts to middle to lower class than to give it to big cooperations. More money in the hands of the middle to lower class, more money they can spare to spend on consumer goods, which in turn fuels the economy, which in turn lets businesses make more money and hire more workers to meet the demands of the consumers.

But nobody likes the poor anyway so fuck them, lets give it to the rich instead who already have money and don't need more. Hence reaganomics.

[Anonymous No.1633614]

>>1620085
Reaganomics was pretty good for its time, he cut taxes, valued supply-side economics, advocated for small government, helped prevent "welfare queens". Although, it probably wouldn't work that well today because of crony capitalism and strong globalism. Our election system expects politicians to keep their word on everything, but economics today expect us to adapt accordingly to whats happening in the US and quite frankly you can't just hang on to Reaganomics for 4 years, there isn't really a one size fits all to economic theory. We could find ourselves go through Keynesian, Monetarism, and Neo-Classical theories deciding what is right and what is wrong. Pretty hard to say, but we probably need to cut some taxes again to get our country invested in again.

[Anonymous No.1633810]

>>1633536
>I couldn't be bothered to read all the way
It's nice to see that you're finally admitting you lost.
Sure has taken some time for you to realize that.
It's quite sad that you're ending this conversation in a such an autistic tantrum while screaming "you're wrong" like a retarded child though.

[Anonymous No.1633815]

>>1633536
>eurocentric libertarian dogma
Wait, let me guess
You're an indian who doesn't poo in loo aren't you?
Should've seen it earlier.
I guess you have a reason to be mad at western superiority then.

[Anonymous No.1634225]

>>1633810

I haven't lost I'm washing my hands clean on this exchange. Should have done what the other guy did and ignored you because you've been talking out of your ass the entire time. You're either genuinely retarded, a master troll, or both.

>>1633815

>implying I'm Indian
>/pol/ faggotry comes out
>mfw the realization dawns on me

Well that explains the room temperature IQ you've been exhibiting.

>I guess you have a reason to be mad at western superiority then.

Only delusional retards like yourself genuinely believe that the West is still on top. I bet you believe in the gold standard and think that manufacturing is coming back to the US.

[Anonymous No.1634292]

>>1634225
>Only delusional retards like yourself genuinely believe that the West is still on top.

>90% of scientific discoveries
>invented science
>invented critical thought in philosophy
>invented modern values of freedom, human rights and free market capitalism
>dominated the world uninterruptedly for the past few hundreds of years
>more total gdp than next 10 countries combined
>bigger military than all the non-western superpowers combines
>greatest living standard for the middle class in the entire world
>greatest healthcare in the world (only US though)

>Only delusional retards like yourself genuinely believe that the West is still on top.

Yeah sure thing buddy. Doesn't sound like denial at all. But I guess the truth really makes your butt feel sore doesn't it?
Keep denying the obvious superiority of the west. You're on par with flat-earthers who wouldn't accept the earth is round if someone showed it to them.
But when your mind is this clouded in ideological bias, evidence doesn't matter evidently.
I'll be laughing at you in 2030 when your country still isn't a superpower and you still can't poo in loo.

>manufacturing is coming back to the US.
Manufacturing jobs are gonna disappear altogether, but manufacturing itself is gonna come back to the US. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.1634311]

>>1634292

What evidence are you talking about? Bullshit you pulled out of your ass is not evidence. I bet you've never even opened a book since grade school.

>Manufacturing jobs are gonna disappear altogether, but manufacturing itself is gonna come back to the US. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks for confirming the fact that you're clearly retarded. The fact that mouth-breathers like you exist makes me lament that eugenics fell out of fashion.

[Anonymous No.1634319]

Nobody does a better job of keeping Niggers down than Liberals.


1) Be Liberal Democrat
2) Keep telling Niggers over and over again that they are impotent, helpless, useless, and can only be victims in society.
3) Focus all of the niggers energy on hatred, blame, and focus on race instead of education and personal responsibility.
4) Blame all of niggers' failures on the big bad white man.
.........


....

..

.

5) Sit back and collect all the nigger votes

Pretty easy formula on how to exploit the niggers.

The Democrats have perfected this formula over 50 years.

[Anonymous No.1634321]

>>1634319

Be Democrat Head Nigger In Charge Obama

> Sit in office for 8 years
> Blacks now have lower education relative to whites
> Blacks now have lower real adjusted incomes relative to every other race
> Blacks now have lower employment rates relative to every other race
> More Blacks are now more dependent on government programs and support than 8 years ago
> Blacks are being left behind in the post 2008 labor market
> Black on Black crime rates has increased exponentially as police stop patrolling black neighborhoods.


And yet all the niggers will vote Democrat no matter what.

Liberals have Jedi level mind control over the Nigger population.

[Anonymous No.1634334]

>>1634311
>Bullshit you pulled out of your ass is not evidence
Autistic tantrums are not arguments

[Anonymous No.1634383]

>>1633536
>will of the people
Which people? Is there an entity called "The People" who I can speak to to determine its will? No. All you can definitively say is that a so-called representative speaks to the will of SOME SPECIFIC people, the number of which can be roughly measured by the nature of the political system in question.

While your equivocation and childish rage is amusing, do feel free to provide actual arguments at any time.

[Anonymous No.1634664]

>Cut taxes
>Not cutting subsequent amount in spending

Recipe for disaster