3 ms·

You would be hard pressed to say that the prosperity is the result of government. We were also aided by a war that killed 80M people left most of the industrial

You would be hard pressed to say that the prosperity is the result of government. We were also aided by a war that killed 80M people left most of the industrialized world in ruins. And civil right, seriously? The government was the greatest force operating against civil rights last century. The notion that everything was civil in the past is also a fanciful notion. The country has often been deeply divided and I don't see any reason why it should remain so. Also the concentration of wealth this time around unlike a century ago has been caused by two things, technology and improvements to productivity and periods of artificially low interest rates. I don't see what we can do about the former and with the nomination of Yellen I don't think there will be significant changes to monetary policy.

halostatue 13y ago
Actually, I wouldn't be hard pressed to say that. If I had said that it was exclusively the result of government, then I'd be saying something even more nonsensical than what's been said by the folks who actually think that government dysfunction is a path to success. 1. The increased government spending on infrastructure and social structure reduces private spending on infrastructure and social structure, freeing up that capital to be spent on other projects, or even enabling projects that could not be considered previously. While we are facing a number of problems related to deep dependency on petroleum now, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system revolutionized cargo transit. In general, greater spending on the highway system from the federal level required that states and municipalities spend more keeping their connecting roads up to date—to the point of paving more roads that had previously not been paved, increasing commercial access to everyone in general. I've made the point some time ago, but increased social spending allows businesses to exist that would not otherwise exist precisely because of that social spending. In economically depressed areas, there will be people employed because recipients of social spending have funds that they would not otherwise have available. While it is true that at times government gets in the way of progress, it is not generally because of an activist government looking out for the welfare of all of its citizens, but rather because of a conservative (meaning trying to preserve the status quo, not a political stance per se) government protecting the interests of an elite class. Both sorts of government can exist at the same time in a single administration. 2. The federal government has been the greatest force operating in favour of civil rights for about 150 years, although with a spotty record. The most recent failures exist primarily because of recidivist views about the nature of civil rights, primarily embodied in the views of the Roberts court and current (2010–2013) Tea Party Republicans. State governments, on the other hand, have by and large been powerful forces acting against civil rights that have been forced to act differently because of federal government intervention. Any argument otherwise had best be backed fairly heavily by reputable evidence, because that's the history. 3. I would appreciate that you not argue against a straw-man. I never said that the past was always civil. I said that the divisions that have existed in the past have never lasted this long and been this deep; they have (once) been deeper to the point of war, but most of those divisions have (i) been fairly short, limited to one or two sessions of congress, and (ii) not impeded the rest of the operation of government in any meaningful way. Even McCarthyism didn't break government the way that recent events have. Bills were still passed, and the business of government moved forward at a better pace than you would imagine. 4. Check your history again. IIRC, the monetary crises of the 1890s and the 1920s–1930s were caused in no small part by improvements to productivity (rapid industrialization, etc.) and technology (trains, cars, etc.) and low interest rates, as well as extremely loose regulatory environments. Both can be fixed by taking taxation seriously and not pretending that it is an evil thing, as far too many modern politicians and internet libertarians do.
- sseveran 13y ago
  1. There is no doubt that government spending stimulates things until it no longer does. I find the outrage over Walmart to be particularly funny since over time it has evolved to maximize its benefit from government spending. Walmart is one of the largest supports of food stamps and other welfare programs because in some states it captures half of all money the government hands out. I find it to be a gross distortion of the market that will only grow larger over time. Highways similarly distorted the markets and we will be living with those effects for some time. One primary distortion was the destruction of passenger railroads. It may have been the right thing to do but for every tamper we get right more are gotten wrong. 2. I can't do anything but shake my head. 3. Pre Civil War politics frequently involved guns over the issue of slavery on both sides. Post civil war for decades also involved lots of guns. 4. All financial crises (monetary or otherwise) stem from overextending credit to people that should not have it. Its the same whether its tulips, railroads, stocks, internet companies or mortgages. Rises and crashes are the natural ebb and flow of the business cycle and should be embraced. Downturns are a way of correcting mistakes. I don't see how they can be fixed with taxation. The real issue is interest rates.

halostatue 13y ago

Actually, I wouldn't be hard pressed to say that. If I had said that it was exclusively the result of government, then I'd be saying something even more nonsensical than what's been said by the folks who actually think that government dysfunction is a path to success. 1. The increased government spending on infrastructure and social structure reduces private spending on infrastructure and social structure, freeing up that capital to be spent on other projects, or even enabling projects that could not be considered previously. While we are facing a number of problems related to deep dependency on petroleum now, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system revolutionized cargo transit. In general, greater spending on the highway system from the federal level required that states and municipalities spend more keeping their connecting roads up to date—to the point of paving more roads that had previously not been paved, increasing commercial access to everyone in general. I've made the point some time ago, but increased social spending allows businesses to exist that would not otherwise exist precisely because of that social spending. In economically depressed areas, there will be people employed because recipients of social spending have funds that they would not otherwise have available. While it is true that at times government gets in the way of progress, it is not generally because of an activist government looking out for the welfare of all of its citizens, but rather because of a conservative (meaning trying to preserve the status quo, not a political stance per se) government protecting the interests of an elite class. Both sorts of government can exist at the same time in a single administration. 2. The federal government has been the greatest force operating in favour of civil rights for about 150 years, although with a spotty record. The most recent failures exist primarily because of recidivist views about the nature of civil rights, primarily embodied in the views of the Roberts court and current (2010–2013) Tea Party Republicans. State governments, on the other hand, have by and large been powerful forces acting against civil rights that have been forced to act differently because of federal government intervention. Any argument otherwise had best be backed fairly heavily by reputable evidence, because that's the history. 3. I would appreciate that you not argue against a straw-man. I never said that the past was always civil. I said that the divisions that have existed in the past have never lasted this long and been this deep; they have (once) been deeper to the point of war, but most of those divisions have (i) been fairly short, limited to one or two sessions of congress, and (ii) not impeded the rest of the operation of government in any meaningful way. Even McCarthyism didn't break government the way that recent events have. Bills were still passed, and the business of government moved forward at a better pace than you would imagine. 4. Check your history again. IIRC, the monetary crises of the 1890s and the 1920s–1930s were caused in no small part by improvements to productivity (rapid industrialization, etc.) and technology (trains, cars, etc.) and low interest rates, as well as extremely loose regulatory environments. Both can be fixed by taking taxation seriously and not pretending that it is an evil thing, as far too many modern politicians and internet libertarians do.

sseveran 13y ago
1. There is no doubt that government spending stimulates things until it no longer does. I find the outrage over Walmart to be particularly funny since over time it has evolved to maximize its benefit from government spending. Walmart is one of the largest supports of food stamps and other welfare programs because in some states it captures half of all money the government hands out. I find it to be a gross distortion of the market that will only grow larger over time. Highways similarly distorted the markets and we will be living with those effects for some time. One primary distortion was the destruction of passenger railroads. It may have been the right thing to do but for every tamper we get right more are gotten wrong. 2. I can't do anything but shake my head. 3. Pre Civil War politics frequently involved guns over the issue of slavery on both sides. Post civil war for decades also involved lots of guns. 4. All financial crises (monetary or otherwise) stem from overextending credit to people that should not have it. Its the same whether its tulips, railroads, stocks, internet companies or mortgages. Rises and crashes are the natural ebb and flow of the business cycle and should be embraced. Downturns are a way of correcting mistakes. I don't see how they can be fixed with taxation. The real issue is interest rates.