Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Liberal view of Conservatives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    This is the sort of stupidity the Left believes in when it comes to economics.



    Aside from the "tax cut" that wasn't a tax cut, just a lowering of withholding rates meaning everyone would end up owing the same taxes at the end of the year, Pelosi states that paying unemployment would create jobs.

    This completely ignores the concept of Time Value of Money and how jobs are created.

    First, the money is removed from the economy as taxes and returned at a discount without interest being charged. That means the process starts off as a net loss of income.

    Next, those receiving this money are not expected to repay it. Worse, we don't know how those receiving it will actually spend it either. The worst possibility is they convert their government money, like Food Stamps, into cash on a black market at a heavy discount.
    But, even if those receiving it acted completely 100% altruistically and used it for basic goods to live on this does little or nothing to drive the economy forward. The amounts individually spent are too small and the spending too diluted within the whole economy to be an economic driver.

    So, investment capital is removed from higher end tax payers and put into treading water for the unemployed. Even if Pelosi were 100% right, that 600,000 jobs were created by unemployment spending the obvious counter is that if that same money were invested in the economy instead of doled out to individuals in tiny amounts, may as many a 1.2 million jobs would be created reducing the need for unemployment payments and further driving the economy forward.
    So long as government isn't operating on the profit motive it is unprofitable and remains stuck on the aforementioned pre Time Value of Money model that held down economies for centuries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Destroyer25
    replied
    Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
    So you admit you have retards on your side?
    If the question is are there "retarded" conservatives, then that depends on what a "conservative" is.

    As a card carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have fellow party members who I may share views with, but regardless are quite simply idiots.

    Better to be in a pack with a few idiots though, than in a horde of sheep following their statist overlords blindly to their deaths.

    Leave a comment:


  • Destroyer25
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    Reading the first paragraph, the first thing 'Liberals' accuse Conservatives of us being liberal.
    This, there is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about liberals beyond perhaps their spending habits. The political "left" are statists and collectivists, nothing more. They believe in government solutions to problems and think that poverty can be ended by giving wealthy politicians & bureaucrats more money and more power. They claim to support freedom yet they all act alike & think alike and attack anyone who disagrees with ad hominems.

    "Conservatives" aren't necessarily what the name suggests. Conservatives & Conservative parties look very different today than they did 150 years ago. Today what most would call a conservative is broad in favor what was known as Liberalism 200 years ago, that is, liberty. Personal freedom, religious freedom, economic freedom, etc. Not only are those things morally & ethically right, they are empirically superior.

    Ask a self proclaimed "progressive" & a self proclaimed "conservative" if they support slavery or freedom and you'll get the same answer, but ask them if the state should ever coerce a free individual do anything, and you'll get two different answers.

    The left fundamentally does not view freedom as important, they place perceived equality over everything.

    The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both. -Milton Freidman

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
    So you admit you have retards on your side?
    Of course there are idiots on both sides. I preach the fact that it isn't one side or the other to blame. It's both.
    Last edited by Delenda estRoma; 26 Sep 15, 18:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • Localyokel
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Only someone who couldn't see both sides would say that.
    So you admit you have retards on your side?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Actually, the modern form of interest isn't the same as ancient usury was. Yes, that still exists in industries like payday loans or car title loans but in the mainstream business and banking world it is now "Time value of money."

    The way that works is those with cash are encouraged to invest or deposit their cash in institutions like banks, corporations, or things like government bonds. In return for investing / depositing their money, those doing so expect a return (interest) on their money over time.
    The institutions holding the money then turn around and loan that same money at interest rates somewhat higher than that the investors get to those needing money. That way those without their own funds have capital to grow businesses, purchase goods, etc., while those with money get a return on their funds. The bank, corporation, etc., gets a profit too covering their cost of doing business and making their own institution grow along the way.

    That is a win situation for everyone involved. In the Socialist / Communist state there are no individual investors. The state holds the means of production. The whole concept of time value of money goes out the window. It reverts the economy to the Middle Ages at the earliest, Ancient times at worst. Due to the much smaller supply of capital, and the lack of return on investment, the economy stagnates and grows very slowly.
    Worse, individuals have very little capital to purchase goods and services rendering them fewer and poorer in nature. Also, individuals now have no incentive to grow the economy or even participate in it. Yes, both systems have an expectation that people will act altruistically, but that doesn't happen in reality. Instead, people come to realize that their best interests lie in forming an alternative economy to that of the government. Hence the formation of black markets, barter, and the home business. But, these have a high cost of doing business so they remain limited alternatives to the government system.

    Basically, Socialism and Communism fail because the whole concept behind them is seriously flawed.
    That same flaw invades the Welfare state. Recipients of welfare, particularly generous welfare, have little or no incentive to get off it. They do have an incentive to get involved in the alternate economy where they can take government "money" and convert it into something they can spend on stuff they want that the government won't provide. Hence, they convert food stamps to tobacco, liquor, or drugs for example.
    In many Socialist $h!+ holes, the alternate economy runs on cash from countries that is worth something rather than the worthless state money. The dollar and Euro both are common alternatives in such systems.

    Here's the Venezuela dollar black market.

    http://qz.com/192395/venezuelas-blac...-by-almost-40/



    At the same time, because of the lack of investment and use of Time Value of Money, the Venezuelan government is going broke.



    Socialism and Communism, like the heavy handed welfare state are failures economically and can't be anything else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Exactly right.
    In the old days (and much of the Victorian days in the UK) you asked the King for permission to do business, and he's give you something close to a monopoly status, and the two of you would split the profits and power in some dark room where nobody could see you dickering.

    We call that Crony-Capitalism today, and it is killing us.




    What drivel, talk about Marxist self-justification.... or a modern College sylabus.

    Workers compete for BETTER wages, with the most productive getting the best postings. 90% of the Homeless (Bums) are drug-addicts that have already given up on themselves, so yes some will die.
    People who can't compete always hate competition.

    And wow, what a revelation about buyers looking for bargains and sellers trying to get more for less. Who could have imagined such a thing?
    Not a Professor, apparently.
    Oh the horror!

    Your timing on the UK is very wrong. One of the reasons for the Glorious Revolution in the UK was to free up trade. Though even before then England was by much more friendly to trade and industry than any of the other major European powers.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    It fails here already - capitalism in its early days was progressive not conservative.
    Exactly right.
    In the old days (and much of the Victorian days in the UK) you asked the King for permission to do business, and he's give you something close to a monopoly status, and the two of you would split the profits and power in some dark room where nobody could see you dickering.

    We call that Crony-Capitalism today, and it is killing us.


    Some conservative business leaders dream of a world without welfare, where the workers are forced to compete for the lowest possible wages while the poor are left to starve and die. After all, there is no mercy in the cut throat world of business. Competition is fierce in the international marketplace. Staying in business requires stretching the rules as far as possible to minimize expenses and maximize profits. While buyers look for the best bargains, sellers try for the highest possible price while putting the least amount of effort into their products and services.
    What drivel, talk about Marxist self-justification.... or a modern College sylabus.

    Workers compete for BETTER wages, with the most productive getting the best postings. 90% of the Homeless (Bums) are drug-addicts that have already given up on themselves, so yes some will die.
    People who can't compete always hate competition.

    And wow, what a revelation about buyers looking for bargains and sellers trying to get more for less. Who could have imagined such a thing?
    Not a Professor, apparently.
    Oh the horror!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    A typical rant against the Right by the Left. Of course, there are ones that go the other way too. But, that aside, the problem with this particular rant is it ignores what would replace it.

    In this case the Leftist is indirectly arguing for an altruistic, Socialist based society. Those have all failed miserably because humanity is anything but altruistic.

    The result is that the only way to reach what the Left calls "Fair and Equal" is through government dictatorship. Government tries to enforce altruism on the people. The problem there is that the people aren't stupid and quickly find ways to go around government. That results in black markets, tax evasion, and a whole raft of other social ills brought on by criminal activity.
    In the end, the Progressive utopia ends up being a failed Third World $h!+ hole. Look how quickly Venezuela or Zimbabwe collapsed when this was tried there. Eastern Europe under Soviet domination faired no better. Cuba? North Korea?

    So while Capitalism and social and economic freedom has its ills, it is streets ahead of the alternative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
    But only a conservative recognizes that fact.
    Only someone who couldn't see both sides would say that.

    Leave a comment:


  • BF69
    replied
    I base my view of conservatives on the people I encounter on this site who self-identify as such. I keep wondering when the bottom will be reached.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    It fails here already - capitalism in its early days was progressive not conservative.

    Making money by trade and industry was considered the "lower" form of profit, land ownership was the traditional, conservative method.

    Taking interest (on a loan) for example, one of the of the basics of capitalism, was considered a sin in ancient times.
    It is a sin and forbidden under Islamic law to this day, and based on some of America's lending practices I can see why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Reading the first paragraph, the first thing 'Liberals' accuse Conservatives of us being liberal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Localyokel
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    There are retards on both sides.
    But only a conservative recognizes that fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Since the early days of capitalism, conservative thinkers have believed...
    It fails here already - capitalism in its early days was progressive not conservative.

    Making money by trade and industry was considered the "lower" form of profit, land ownership was the traditional, conservative method.

    Taking interest (on a loan) for example, one of the of the basics of capitalism, was considered a sin in ancient times.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X