Liberals Don't Understand Economics

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

They are factual questions. You seem to be pointing out that conservative economic theory is based on sound verified facts, and that is somehow unfair.
[/quote]

I don’t know how you can say that. Many conservatives promote supply-side economics, and similar theories that are just as “bunk” as Keynesian economics.

We haven’t mastered physics, and our understanding of economics is a lot less complete than our understanding of physics (which still has competing theories for all kinds of things). It’s a leap to assume that economics will ever be as understandable or predictable as (again) physics. I would say that in general we all know very little about the “laws” (if there are any true laws) of economics, and most of what people say is strongly biased by their political leanings.[/quote]

All the answers to those questions are factually answered by current knowledge. They aren’t a matter of opinion or ideology.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

They are factual questions. You seem to be pointing out that conservative economic theory is based on sound verified facts, and that is somehow unfair.
[/quote]

I don’t know how you can say that. Many conservatives promote supply-side economics, and similar theories that are just as “bunk” as Keynesian economics.

We haven’t mastered physics, and our understanding of economics is a lot less complete than our understanding of physics (which still has competing theories for all kinds of things). It’s a leap to assume that economics will ever be as understandable or predictable as (again) physics. I would say that in general we all know very little about the “laws” (if there are any true laws) of economics, and most of what people say is strongly biased by their political leanings.[/quote]

All the answers to those questions are factually answered by current knowledge. They aren’t a matter of opinion or ideology.
[/quote]

If that were true, we could predict the future. Economics is based on human behavior: there might be trends that allow us to make good guesses about the future, but human behavior is not predictable in the same way the trajectory of a bullet is.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

They are factual questions. You seem to be pointing out that conservative economic theory is based on sound verified facts, and that is somehow unfair.
[/quote]

I don’t know how you can say that. Many conservatives promote supply-side economics, and similar theories that are just as “bunk” as Keynesian economics.

We haven’t mastered physics, and our understanding of economics is a lot less complete than our understanding of physics (which still has competing theories for all kinds of things). It’s a leap to assume that economics will ever be as understandable or predictable as (again) physics. I would say that in general we all know very little about the “laws” (if there are any true laws) of economics, and most of what people say is strongly biased by their political leanings.[/quote]

All the answers to those questions are factually answered by current knowledge. They aren’t a matter of opinion or ideology.
[/quote]

If that were true, we could predict the future. Economics is based on human behavior: there might be trends that allow us to make good guesses about the future, but human behavior is not predictable in the same way the trajectory of a bullet is.
[/quote]

silly line of reasoning

humans behavior is not predictable, but the results of human behavior is predictable.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

What involvment in your personal life? That the life of the human in the womb can’t be terminated at will? [/quote]

The question is who should decide when life begins? For conservatives, it’s the government, or at least a majority of the people. For the libertarian, this is a personal decision that should be free from government intervention. And I don’t care what the majority of the people think because the majority of the people are idiots.

FWIW, I also don’t like the idea of aborting a healthy fetus “for convenience.” But the idea of the government intruding into the reproductive process is equally as offensive.

Okay, I agree that it is better to raise kids in a marriage with a mom and dad. No problem there. The question is how are you going to enforce this? Do you want to make divorce more difficult? Fine, let’s lengthen the legal proceedings so that the couple incurs more costs. Let’s force judges to act as marriage counselors. The result will be that couples will decide not to marry and just live together. What then? Are we going to criminalize couples who live together without being legally married? Are we going to take children away from single moms and then throw mom in jail for having a child out of wedlock? How about we also make it illegal for a couple with kids to have both parents working. Oh, and if dad wants to stay at home - sorry, that’ll just make him turn gay. Mom has to stay at home and dad has to work - no exceptions or substitutions allowed. Mo’ gubmint, mo’ gubmint, mo’ gubmint. Oh please, gubmint, save our families with your awkward hand.

Here again I very much believe in family values (whatever that means these days). I’ve been married for over 19 years and I have a job that allows me to work from home so that I can be there for my kid. So it’s not that I disagree with the notion of family values, I just don’t think that the government needs to become involved in it. If that means that some people will not make good decisions, so be it. That’s the price of living in a free society - people are going to be stupid, and we should let them.

The big joke is that civil marriage is placed on such a high pedestal. Civil marriage just provides a couple with a bundle of rights. That’s it. And most of these rights don’t even kick in until divorce or death. Think that a spouse has the right to make medical decisions for the other spouse without a medical power of attorney or guardianship order? Think again. I used to do this kind of think and I represented lots of spouses in court who needed to obtain an order so that the Alzheimers care facility would allow them to sign documents to admit their spouse.

The funny thing is that I also agree with you that the gay community has overblown the idea of gay marriage. If gay couples executed powers of attorney, wills naming each other as beneficiaries, and placed everything in joint title, they would have at least 90% of the benefits of a married couple. The free market would fix the rest. For instance, private companies are already extending benefits to domestic partners. Would the conservatives want to pass laws to eliminate that?

BTW - The state does recognize non-sexual, roommate marriage. Ever hear of married couples who have stopped having sex, don’t really talk to one another much, and just sort of live in the same house? I have. The law doesn’t automatically terminate their marriage. The law also doesn’t terminate a marriage if the couple decides not to have children even though the mantra from conservatives is that marriage was designed for procreation. So why not automatically terminate a marriage if a couple doesn’t have children after, say, 5 years? Could it be that we should allow couples some freedom to decide the terms of their own marriage?

As for actual roommates, their relationship is governed by contract law - there is no need for a “marriage.”

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

They are factual questions. You seem to be pointing out that conservative economic theory is based on sound verified facts, and that is somehow unfair.
[/quote]

I don’t know how you can say that. Many conservatives promote supply-side economics, and similar theories that are just as “bunk” as Keynesian economics.

We haven’t mastered physics, and our understanding of economics is a lot less complete than our understanding of physics (which still has competing theories for all kinds of things). It’s a leap to assume that economics will ever be as understandable or predictable as (again) physics. I would say that in general we all know very little about the “laws” (if there are any true laws) of economics, and most of what people say is strongly biased by their political leanings.[/quote]

All the answers to those questions are factually answered by current knowledge. They aren’t a matter of opinion or ideology.
[/quote]

If that were true, we could predict the future. Economics is based on human behavior: there might be trends that allow us to make good guesses about the future, but human behavior is not predictable in the same way the trajectory of a bullet is.
[/quote]

silly line of reasoning

humans behavior is not predictable, but the results of human behavior is predictable.[/quote]

Again, if that were true, everything would run much smoother. What do you think the difference is between saying human behavior is predictable, and the result is? Sounds the same to me.

You mean like: if lots of people buy gold, the price of gold will increase? i.e. most people with gold in their possession will charge more for the limited commodity? That’s just saying that we can make a good guess about human behavior given a large enough population, and general enough circumstances.

Sloth, one more thing. Every state has a child support enforcement system in place to provide funds for kids, so it’s not true that every single mom has to go on welfare. The funny thing is that I’ve known a few deadbeats who sat on their asses all day while their wives went to work to provide for the entire family. Legally, you can’t force such a deadbeat to go to work. Kick him out on his ass and cut off the gravy train he’ll be required to find a job to support himself.

According to the book “Freakonomics,” aborting unwanted fetuses leads to less neglectedand possibly abused children who could grow up to become criminals. Less crime, less tax money spent on housing criminals in prison. Now, let me make it clear that I DO NOT feel that justifies the taking of a healthy fetus. However, from a pure economic standpoint, it is something to consider.

From a pure economic standpoint, extending marriage benefits to gays has good economic results, especially if the gay couple is wealthy. You see, there’s this bugaboo called an estate tax. I know that conservatives want this tax eliminated, but that will never happen - it just won’t. A wealthy married couple has more estate tax planning options available to them than two wealthy single people. So, a wealthy gay married couple could save a bunch in estate taxes, which means more money back into the economy instead of the gubmint. Conservatives like that, right? Or should tax savings be available only to the “right” type of wealthy people?

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

They are factual questions. You seem to be pointing out that conservative economic theory is based on sound verified facts, and that is somehow unfair.
[/quote]

I don’t know how you can say that. Many conservatives promote supply-side economics, and similar theories that are just as “bunk” as Keynesian economics.

We haven’t mastered physics, and our understanding of economics is a lot less complete than our understanding of physics (which still has competing theories for all kinds of things). It’s a leap to assume that economics will ever be as understandable or predictable as (again) physics. I would say that in general we all know very little about the “laws” (if there are any true laws) of economics, and most of what people say is strongly biased by their political leanings.[/quote]

All the answers to those questions are factually answered by current knowledge. They aren’t a matter of opinion or ideology.
[/quote]

If that were true, we could predict the future. Economics is based on human behavior: there might be trends that allow us to make good guesses about the future, but human behavior is not predictable in the same way the trajectory of a bullet is.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, and evolution is a theory, so if someone says the human race never evolved from anything, you would get on here and defend them as not really being wrong?

Decreasing availability increases price. If you say otherwise, you’re wrong, even though economics is a “theory”.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Again, if that were true, everything would run much smoother. What do you think the difference is between saying human behavior is predictable, and the result is? Sounds the same to me.
[/quote]

It’s not. The buying up of a limited supply of a commodity causes prices to rise; this in turn causes people to stop buying which lowers the price as demand decreases; which in turn causes more buyers enter the market – this goes on ad infinitum. We cannot predict who will receive the information about prices and act in accordance with that knowledge (or if they will) but we can reasonably guess what happens when they do buy or abstain from buying.

That is at the heart of what economics is.

Embryonic stem cell research would ultimately have tremendous economic benefits. Think of the savings in health care costs if we could eliminate certain diseases through the use of stem cell technology. Think of the increased productivity and income earning potential if we improved people’s quality of life and extended their lives. But it seems that conservatives have this thing against embryonic stem cell research.

Conservatives and liberals are the same - they both want government involvement in our lives, they just disagree on the areas in which government should be involved.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research would ultimately have tremendous economic benefits. Think of the savings in health care costs if we could eliminate certain diseases through the use of stem cell technology. Think of the increased productivity and income earning potential if we improved people’s quality of life and extended their lives. But it seems that conservatives have this thing against embryonic stem cell research.

Conservatives and liberals are the same - they both want government involvement in our lives, they just disagree on the areas in which government should be involved. [/quote]

Not spending public money on things is government involvement? lol

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research would ultimately have tremendous economic benefits. Think of the savings in health care costs if we could eliminate certain diseases through the use of stem cell technology. Think of the increased productivity and income earning potential if we improved people’s quality of life and extended their lives. But it seems that conservatives have this thing against embryonic stem cell research.

Conservatives and liberals are the same - they both want government involvement in our lives, they just disagree on the areas in which government should be involved. [/quote]

Not spending public money on things is government involvement? lol[/quote]

If you are a consequentialist it is practically the same.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
silly line of reasoning

humans behavior is not predictable, but the results of human behavior is predictable.[/quote]

Again, if that were true, everything would run much smoother. What do you think the difference is between saying human behavior is predictable, and the result is? Sounds the same to me.

You mean like: if lots of people buy gold, the price of gold will increase? i.e. most people with gold in their possession will charge more for the limited commodity? That’s just saying that we can make a good guess about human behavior given a large enough population, and general enough circumstances.[/quote]

No, we cannot predict what people will do, but we can predict the outcome of what they do.

For example, I cannot predict that someone will shoot at deer in the heart at location yada yada with a 30-06 rifle. But I can predict that if someone shoots a deer at locaion yada yada with a 30-06 rifle, the deer will die from that gunshot.

We could not predict that Germany, England and France would laon money to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc .

But if Germany, England and France have loaned money to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc and those nations cannot repay those loans - we can predict the effect that will have on the Euro Economic Zone. If those nation choose to loan additional money to the PIIGS so they can pay back the original loans, then we can predict the outcome of those loan to pay a loan to pay a loan to pay a loan cycle . . .

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It’s not. The buying up of a limited supply of a commodity causes prices to rise; this in turn causes people to stop buying which lowers the price as demand decreases; which in turn causes more buyers enter the market – this goes on ad infinitum. We cannot predict who will receive the information about prices and act in accordance with that knowledge (or if they will) but we can reasonably guess what happens when they do buy or abstain from buying.

That is at the heart of what economics is.[/quote]

Prices aren’t attached to commodities, we attach them based on a value we give them. If no one wanted gold, no matter how limited the supply, it would be worthless. It’s value comes from it being perceived as being useful to us.

Same is true of any commodity. You fall into the same trap the liberals do when you convince yourself that a commodity has inherent value attached to it, rather than value given by humans. And anytime we give something value, there’s an arbitrariness to it.

Just like a dollar has no inherent value, it’s assigned and agreed upon. But we can all imagine circumstance where it becomes valueless. That’s true of anything, regardless of supply.

If “The Law” of supply and demand were a real law, and not a theory that works well most of the time, price manipulation would be impossible. Everything would be valued perfectly based on how much of it there was and how much was wanted. This is obviously not the case in an economy where a significant percentage of the precious metals bought, sold and traded don’t actually exist. Just like a socialistic/communistic approach to economics requires large institutions to artificially sustain the order desired, so does the market system.

How many people really want gold? What the hell can you do with gold? Yeah, it has a limited manufacturing value. But that’s not what 99% of the gold that’s been mined is doing. Most of it’s sitting there, and we’re told it stands for wealth. That x amount of gold = some amount of work. There’s nothing natural about that. It’s institutionalized. Laws are natural and absolute.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research would ultimately have tremendous economic benefits. Think of the savings in health care costs if we could eliminate certain diseases through the use of stem cell technology. Think of the increased productivity and income earning potential if we improved people’s quality of life and extended their lives. But it seems that conservatives have this thing against embryonic stem cell research.

Conservatives and liberals are the same - they both want government involvement in our lives, they just disagree on the areas in which government should be involved. [/quote]

Not spending public money on things is government involvement? lol[/quote]

If you are a consequentialist it is practically the same.

[/quote]

If it truly is such a viable technology, it will get funded without it. But the bias against it in the market is cause by spending public money on other research, not by not spending money on this one item.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The question is who should decide when life begins? For conservatives, it’s the government, or at least a majority of the people. [/quote]

There’s no question. The embryo is an individual human life. You are the same individual organism as when you were a mere embryo in the womb. We’re not talking about toads becoming humans at some point of the pregnancy. You in the womb was/is the same individual organism today. Why do pro-choicers, oddly enough, make this is into a religious conversation when even the religious are trying to keep it secular? Think about it. You’re holding out on what? We don’t know when–I don’t know–the human soul descends into the flesh waiting in the womb? Anyways, libertarians use the government to protect the ‘right’ to take that life. So much for the non-aggression principle.

[quote]
Okay, I agree that it is better to raise kids in a marriage with a mom and dad. No problem there. The question is how are you going to enforce this? Do you want to make divorce more difficult?[/quote] Yes.

Well, ok. Except they won’t have access to the priviledges of marriage. Nor, what remaining security/committment is still to be found in marriage over co-habitation. However, I think you’re wrong. History seems to suggest your fears are increasingly coming true, now.

See above. And, we’ll work to introduce concepts such as shame. Even shunning. And yes, that means vocalized social conservatism

The specifics you’ve posted are simply nonsense not worth responding to. But, I do love the mo’gubmint comment. You’re so afraid of government, that where it’s might legitimately serve to prevent the rapid expansion of even an larger and more centralized government (such as a nanny state), you’re stuck in paralysis. Such as your example of tougher divorce laws.

No. People are going to be more stupid when it barely earns a cross look these day. So ‘stupid’ people–or people who imagine they might do something ‘stupid’ in the future, or that some calamity largely out of their control might strike–vote for the nanny state.

Which is why Democrats are at least more respectable then libertarians. At least they understand what social liberalism does to family/civic institutions. Being smarter then the libertarian, they realize that since said institutions have been decimated, the people want–no, demand–a central power fill the void.

What is a Libertarian? He’s the guy that stands before America with no further plan than:

“I’m going to work to tear down entitlements and welfare for good!”

“Ok…what about the poor and the working lower/middle class?”

“They’ll just have to not do stupid stuff, or starve”

“Like, what kind of stupid stuff?”

“Like, having all these children out of wedlock.”

“So, you’re a social conservative?”

“No, no! It’s none of our business what people do in their private lives. Really, I don’t like talking about what they should do. My plan instead is to starve them into doing what they should do!”

Sorry. It aint going to sell. We are going to have to sell traditional/social-conservative values and await the repair of more traditional private/civic institutions before the people have the confidence to give the ok to drastic decentralization of D.C. power. Right now, the nanny state is largely off limits. Now, I know most libertarians fantasize that when the nanny state crashes, laissez-faire will swoop down from the heavens. I think this is most unlikely scenario. I’m betting on authoritarian capitalism or a “People’s Revolution (marxism).”

[quote]
BTW - The state does recognize non-sexual, roommate marriage. [/quote]

What I’m talking about is the openly announced, and embraced, ‘marriage’ of roommates. Not folks who later on stop having sex with each other. The implicit reasoning behind the recognition, even rewarding of, marriage is to incentivize the ordering of one male and female into a committed relation. Not simply to pair people up. Why would anyone incentivize that? No, the goal is to prop up the smallest biological unit capable of propagating and raising it’s own offspring, our citizenry.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Okay, I agree that it is better to raise kids in a marriage with a mom and dad. No problem there. The question is how are you going to enforce this? >>>[/quote]
It is not possible to enforce this in any way or on any meaningful level. I will say for the 100th time. Private morality, and what is today called fanatical, religious right wing extreme morality, was the very bedrock that the limited government of our founding was absolutely dependent upon. I can post 1000 quotes from just about every founding father, even the very least formally religious, stating in plain unmistakable language exactly that. Sound economics are a happy by product.

The divorce rate and flagrant hedonistic disregard for interpersonal responsibility is one million times more perilous for the future of this nation than one hundred Osama Bin Ladens could ever be.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

There’s no question. The embryo is an individual human life. [/quote]

Suppose there was a fire in a medical facility. Inside the facility was a one-year old child and 10 test tubes filled with one-week old embryos. You can only go inside once and either grab the child or the test tubes. Which do you save?

Yeah, it’s an unrealistic thought experiment. But that is its purpose - to make you think. I think if you had a room filled with educated people trained in science, philosophy, and theology, you would have legitimate disagreements as to when life began. I don’t know the answer to that question myself. And neither does anyone in Congress or the state legislatures.

Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian. But I refuse to pass laws that somehow attempt to enforce these values because they will have the opposite affect. And I refuse to “shun” a person because they are divorced or had a child our of wedlock. People make mistakes. Some keep making them, some learn from their mistakes. I refuse to throw stones.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
According to the book “Freakonomics,” aborting unwanted fetuses leads to less neglectedand possibly abused children who could grow up to become criminals. Less crime, less tax money spent on housing criminals in prison. Now, let me make it clear that I DO NOT feel that justifies the taking of a healthy fetus. However, from a pure economic standpoint, it is something to consider.

?[/quote]

Which is exactly why society shouldn’t be fit to an economic system. The economics must be nested into, and respectful, of a healthy human society. Otherwise, we get the above ‘economic sense.’ “Let’s make an irreversible decision concerning their very lives, for them. We judge…death!” What a cold, cold, people we’ve become. Monsters, really.

Didn’t read the thread but am going to throw in my 2 cents:

Most people who say they know economics probably only know a little bit (conservatives and my self included). Economics is way more complicated and difficult than most people who talk about it give it credit for. Not targeting anyone in particular but the people who bitch about others not knowing economics probably don’t know as much economics as they think they do.

Food for thought: