The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Protracted austerity measures won't solve America's problems > Comments

Protracted austerity measures won't solve America's problems : Comments

By Toby O'Brien, published 30/12/2011

Economic measures should be efficient and productive, but they should also be good.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Therefore *at best* all you would have is the logical fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ – ‘after that therefore because of that - or a correlation. The index does not and cannot prove that the good thing is *because of* a given policy. How do you know it’s not *despite* it? That’s what you’ve got to prove because that's what's in issue. So your methodology is fallacious because it doesn’t distinguish cause from effect.

Therefore my argument disproves yours but yours doesn’t disprove mine.

At least Toby openly admitted that he believes he is incapable of knowing whether a proposition is true or not. We should admire his honesty, while we pity his confusion.

But obviously if you can’t understand the logic of a simple syllogism, you are not qualified to competently use the astronomically longer chains of reasoning involved in economic indexes, with their myriad compound complexities, variables, historical and cultural contingencies, uncertainties and unknowns.

You guys are only proving that forced redistributions cannot be justified - my argument, not yours.

If am wrong – prove it.

It is not some kind of strange coincidence that the anti-freedom camp is also the anti-rational camp. This is because “might is right” is not an ethical justification, and you guys have no other justification for your forced redistributions than that. You can’t claim that truth is relative at the same time as you insist you have a right to order everyone else around. So you’re either confused or dishonest. Which is it?

Foyle
It is a misrepresentation to claim that I have a “there is no such thing as society” view. All I have done is defend the view that voluntary relations are better – and more social - than coerced ones, and you have not addressed my arguments at all.

“comment on my view that the USA has created a vast pool bank balances”

True.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 1 January 2012 9:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“that will prove ultimately worthless when fossil carbon resources are exhausted.”

I think they’ll prove worthless long before that. So? What’s your point?

“the USA has consumed large volumes of those reserves by simply creating part of those bank balances.”

True.

Foyle, you do understand, don’t you, that the Federal Reserve is a creation of statute?
That it is the Fed that licences fractional reserve banking?
That lending credits unbacked by specie on deposit would be illegal in a free market, because it’s against the common law of fraud and contract?
That FRB is the economic cause of the relevant problems you discuss, including:
• The GFC
• The USA’s state of perpetual aggressive war
• The political favours to big corporations?

You seem to be confused, because you’re proving my point, not yours.


“Gambling utilising those bank balances was the underlying cause of the GFC.”
Correction: spending those bank balances is the cause of the GFC, and depressions generally. The cheap credit created by FRB cannot be spent without causing inflation and the bubble effect, and all the problems you discuss. These are caused by government, not unregulated markets.

Not even Keynes or Krugman ever claimed to be able to distinguish spending of FRB cheap credit that is not inflationary, from spending of it that is. Do you?

So – are you in favour of government manipulating the supply of money and credit so as to pay for social programs, or not? If not, you agree with me. If so, you contradict yourself.

Saltpetre
You’re contradicting yourself, evading my arguments, and running a whole pile of fallacies, ha ha. I suppose you’ve got to make do with what you’ve got, which is nothing. One day you could try intellectual honesty – you never know, you might like it.

Define “effective” government. How do you distinguish it from excessive government?
Define “reasonable opportunity”.
Is unprovoked aggression reasonable? If so, why? If not, why doesn’t that disprove your argument
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 1 January 2012 9:50:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume,

"All I have done is defend the view that voluntary relations are better – and more social - than coerced ones.."

No, you haven't defended it, you haven't justified it, you have in fact only asserted it - hence, your own statement is fallacious. Also, of course, you are wrong - but of course that's beside the point as far as you're concerned. Never let truth get in the way of a broad misrepresentation, eh? And, your resultant idea of 'society' is nothing, no society at all, just a lot of loose interraction. Hence, Foyle is correct in his proposition that you have no concept of society, no interest in society, no need of society. You are an island. (And, you purposely misinterpreted and misused his Thatcher quote - nice going, you impress no-one.)

You are in a minority of one, and it is we who are all out of step.

Facts produce proof. If government provision of social services meets with approval from the populace then it is deemed as evident that it is effective, justified, justifiable, and worthwhile. Hence, Foyle's statement is effectively evidentiary:

"The OECD countries were recently rated on well being. The top five were Iceland and Northern European countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, all strong welfare system countries where social cohesion is considered desirable. Australia was 21st and the bottom five included USA, Greece, Mexico, Chile and Turkey. Illustrious company!"

However, you say a tendancy does not constitute evidence. Forget it, you have your ideas and your interpretation, and never the twain shall meet. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 2 January 2012 11:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Put ten economists in the same room and you'll likely get thirty different opinions; meaning, economics is belief based theory driven postulations, rather than an exact science.
The Keynesian economic paradigm that finally rescued America from the economic malaise, we refer to as the Great depression, was followed by proof of the pudding a period of unprecedented prosperity; and indeed, when applied here, allowed Australia to remain a functioning and healthy economy!
Even as as other nations further erode their economic prospects with already tried and found very wanting austerity programs.
The simple and undeniable historical facts inform us; that you can save the economy and its underpinning civil structures or unearned undeserved privilege, but not both! Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 2 January 2012 12:07:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume =

# Unconstitutional aggressive war is not a legitimate function of government, and neither are taxes to fund it. As you note, largely the state re-distributes wealth *upwards*. The injustice of this is an argument against funding services by forced redistributions, not in favour #.

...But you fail to answer the question...Government funding of war! Allow me to update you PH, on this one. It would require a pretty emphatic argument, which could in any way, include America in today, as an inclusive incorporated Democracy: Irrespective of the claptrap and glamour of their electioneering, fact is, America is near the point of a pure Neo-Feudalist society. Democracy is dead in America. Why I harp on the issue of war reparations, is to prove the point that Democracy is dead. (By the way, I am getting around to your point of taxation)

...To sell the lie of Democracy, Democracy goes to war to sell its irrational logic of freedom to the enemy as a ruse: And who are the enemy? The enemy are those Nations in blatant opposition to the tenets of Democracy; it must be that way for the lie of Democracy to succeed. However, the “true value” (to use an economic term) of war is in the spoils available to the Feudal masters, the corporations, which mine the resources of the defeated Nations on the one hand, and as a secondary financial benefit, conduct the actual war with taxpayers funds, reaping huge profits for the corporate elites.

...The remaining American infrastructure, such as the public education system, along with other city and state institutions and administrations, are but the remaining façade of Democracy, and are in total decay. This is Feudal America. America is a country where the landed and wealthy are protected (and in most cases separated) from the dispossessed, by a privatised (Corporate) Police force, safely behind gated communities: Where the true rulers of the “fiefdom”, manipulate Governance behind the Democratic façade of Congress, writing their own cheques and formulating their own “wars for profit”.

Continued...
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 2 January 2012 9:44:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PH...Continued:

…The true story is of course much more complicated, but allow this to serve as the crude example, to save time.The real problem with America, Peter, is not taxation par-sae, but the lie that Democracy is. Into this void of truth, you may now enter! So your argument, in view of the “truth”, that America is in fact not a Democracy but actually a Neo-Feudal society, does hold some sway.

...If America could run as a “true and honest” Feudal society that it is, then taxation could be abandoned. So could a lot more of the “unnecessaries”, such as Politicians and Congress. That move alone would also show huge saving to Americans: But of course the lie of Democracy would quickly fall flat without them!

…But…what to do with the dispossessed and who will feed them? Well who should feed them, are the corporate leaders of fiefdom, and not the taxpayers of the “Paper Democracy”. So now Peter, when the truth is out, you are correct: So yes to your argument, no taxation, in the light of truth; since a whole new set of rules should apply to society, under the rule of Feudalism.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 2 January 2012 9:44:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy