Yes, but only by making yet another wrong (but convenient) assumption. First of all, you suppose that a general recession is necessary to “clean out” the malinvestments, and you then assume that the government spending would go only, or even mainly, to reinforcing the malinvestments, when neither of these are necessarily true. Government spending certainly can make things worse, but it can also stabilize the economy.
Well, you would be right to question my “remembrance” of the Dreat Depression.
I wasn’t referring to the New Deal. After the economy seemed to regain a pulse, there were of course many people who worried about the deficit, and (in 1937, I think) there were efforts made to keep the deficit under control once things seemed to have bottomed out. The belt-tightening did not produce any desirable results.
I think Irving Fisher’s (? I think) methphor is much closer to the truth. The economy is like a great ship–in normal times, it tends to return to an equilibrium, but if it is destabilized sufficiently, its natural tendency will be to depart from it even further and to capsize.
No, I’m well aware. The difference is, I don’t assume that the resulting increases in surpluses ought to accrue exclusively to the owners of the business.
Again, I’m rooting for you.
chortle Oh, OK.
This paragraph rests on so many groundless and false assumptions that it’s difficult to know where to begin. In an ideal world it would be sufficient to point out that the economy has never, ever worked this way. It is completely unable to explain the historical instances of private security groups or even death squads intimidating, assaulting, or even killing workers that insist on a higher wages. It is unable to account for combinations, implicit and explicit, of employers.
In short, it’s not your logic that is the problem, it’s your premises. They just don’t work.
You’re entirely right in this case. I don’t think I would agree that they are infringing upon others’ property rights, but in general I agree with you. But, what of it? If you support individual rights (which you presumably* do, it’s pretty much an all or nothing proposition. That certain people choose to voluntarily associate together is in no way a violation of any ethical considerations. The business owner is free to reject their demands, and non-unionized workers are free to flout the will of the unions. This assumes, of course, that there is no threat of physical violence. The goal, of course, is to make it impracticable for the businessman to refuse, but I see no problem with this. The workers already bargain from a disadvantageous position, so it’s hardly unfair for them to associate.
Yet another completely unjustified and unrealistic assumption, which unravels your argument, if real life wasn’t enough to do so on its own.
Yes, you’d have a lot of other things to worry about. Just sayin’.
That’s how you do it Chris, people can talk shit all they want, but once they lay hands on you, it’s ON.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Once again, you people make me laugh, then cry. We have no jobs, and this is bad, so we should spend less money? Haha.[/quote]
The government has no feed back of where to spend the money, so they cannot possibly be efficent at it. There for I suggest anarchy now, we wouldn’t have men with degrees in multiple fields with a second language such as Japanese working at Walmart. Just saying.[/quote]
This is a great example of a bogus, made-up assumption. What does that even mean, “not efficient” at spending money? It doesn’t matter where they spend the money. Since government can spend money on the same things that individuals can, to disagree means that there must be some “distribution” of spending (by which I just mean some specific set of goods) which could be spent by consumers which would be inefficient, since it makes no difference to a producer whether a given purchase is made by the government or an individual. But people are supposed to be able to spend their money however they wish, and the market will adapt accordingly. So to maintain your present opinion, you cut away a foundational principle of free-market economics, since you must implicitly maintain that it is possible for consumers to spend their money the “wrong” way.[/quote]
The theory of allocation of resources determines that government will never be efficient, it does not have a feed back mechanism, a.k.a. revenue to cover costs.
If the government cannot cover marginal cost with marginal revenue, they are not efficient. And since they do not even earn a revenue there is no possible way.
Well looking at the Law of Supply and Demand, and dimishing marginal utility. They spend their money on something that 1) enriches them and 2) is at the correct equilbrium price. However, that is not how the government works. They are not a person so they cannot make those decisions, it is impossible. I am not sure how a 600 dollar toilet seat enriched the government to me, I think it is a missallocation of resources.
Yes, thank you for pointing out that wonderful aspect of the free market, an individual is supposed to be able to spend his money as he chooses, that is private property rights. The markets will adjust with the allocation of resources to the most efficient businesses that meet demand.
The government not being a person would mean that they have no property rights, they have to coerce people out of their property rights by inflation or taxation all at the end of a gun as well. When the government spends private citizens property it creates malinvestment, which basically means that the society does not see that business as the best way to allocate resources to make a profit. So once the government spending stops that business will either go bankrupt because the owner believed the demand for his product was higher than it actually was or he’ll have to drop his price in order to meet demand.
Your last sentence is ridiculous.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re entirely right in this case. I don’t think I would agree that they are infringing upon others’ property rights, but in general I agree with you. But, what of it? If you support individual rights (which you presumably* do, it’s pretty much an all or nothing proposition. That certain people choose to voluntarily associate together is in no way a violation of any ethical considerations. The business owner is free to reject their demands, and non-unionized workers are free to flout the will of the unions. This assumes, of course, that there is no threat of physical violence. The goal, of course, is to make it impracticable for the businessman to refuse, but I see no problem with this. The workers already bargain from a disadvantageous position, so it’s hardly unfair for them to associate.[/quote]
Private property rights were violated because they coerced the business (which I don’t think he should have let in but that’s him not me) with force, with threat of strike if they hired non-union workers (one violation of Private Property Rights) or paid under a certain wage (two counts of violation of Private Property Rights). Union members have been arrested for physically assulting and threating non-union members and union members to work below the demands of the union workers (two violations of Private Property Rights).
Yes they are free to do all that, however with a few acts by legislation a business owner cannot fire Union organizers even though they could be just walking around on the clock not working. The business now cannot bring an injunction against a union for violence, giving unfair advantage to the union to stop people from exercising their private property rights.