The Noam Chomsky Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not necessarily. You can get the money out in the form of aid to states, extra unemployment benefits, etc.[/quote]

That money has to come from somewhere, The government has to take that money out of the private sector to do that. And as what has been proven time and time again the private sector is better at creating things then the great destroyer of wealth ever will be.

When the government starts taking and merging with the private sector Fascism is what is created.[/quote]

Exactly. The government cannot give to anyone, what is has not first taken from someone else.
[/quote]

same thing with a capitalist. maybe a system without a state or a private person exploiting you is the way to go.

ps. funny thing: taxation is an old form of exploitation. In the feudal system you had to pay a form of tax to your master. today we go to work and some of the values we make goes to the employer, its called profit. then afterwards we are taxed by the state. So today we are exploited twice. thats kind of fucked up.

82

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

And I wouldn’t criticize other systems for “complete economic collapse.” Look around you. That’s capitalism, baby, which would have been much much worse if not for aggressive fiscal and monetary policy.

Besides, why do you think we have all these government agencies? Your ideas failed last century.[/quote]

Ryan, the more government has become involved, the more problems we as a nation have faced (including the great depression). Right now, government is only fixing the problems it’s created. Now, I’m not saying that capitalism is perfect, but no economic system is. It’s just that capitalism is much, much better.[/quote]

depressions is part of the capitalist system, they have occured many times in the history capitalisme. Marx talked about this 70 years before the great depressions in 1930`s. Its not the state who creates the depressions, but the capitalist system is dependent on a state to bring the marked out of depression.

83

[quote]florelius wrote:

depressions is part of the capitalist system, they have occured many times in the history capitalisme. Marx talked about this 70 years before the great depressions in 1930`s. Its not the state who creates the depressions, but the capitalist system is dependent on a state to bring the marked out of depression.
[/quote]

Have you even heard of the depression of 1920? The government reduced in size and at the end of 21 we had 1.8% unemployment. Seems to me everytime government retracts capitalism works.

84

[quote]florelius wrote:

you just proved you dont know shit about socialisme and communisme. the sovjet never reached the communist phase because they where a statist society and communisme has no state.

the sovjetunion was the country in the history of man who went from a agrarculture to a industry based economy in the shortest amount of time. The problem with the ussr was its lack of democracy and civil rights.

Fascisme is a form of capitalisme, its still privat ownership of the means of production. A better word for fascisme is totalitarian capitalisme. its a reason the left was most antifascist in the 1930`s before nazi-germany went to war. the fascistmovement was a reaction to a stronger labor movement in the western world. [/quote]

Well you can make the movement the fastest that is fine, but with bread lines and the likes shows me they did to agricultural what the fascists here in America did to the manufacturing base here.

The soviets actions where directly controlled by the state, that is what communism is.

85

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not necessarily. You can get the money out in the form of aid to states, extra unemployment benefits, etc.[/quote]

That money has to come from somewhere, The government has to take that money out of the private sector to do that. And as what has been proven time and time again the private sector is better at creating things then the great destroyer of wealth ever will be.

When the government starts taking and merging with the private sector Fascism is what is created.[/quote]

Exactly. The government cannot give to anyone, what is has not first taken from someone else.
[/quote]

You ignore my correction of John. In this case (deficit spending), it CAN give to people without taking (even disregarding the fact that that argument is really, really questionable). So even if you’re right most of the time, you’re not when you’re talking about a recession, which is what I was talking about and it was what Keynes was talking about.

86

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

And I wouldn’t criticize other systems for “complete economic collapse.” Look around you. That’s capitalism, baby, which would have been much much worse if not for aggressive fiscal and monetary policy.

Besides, why do you think we have all these government agencies? Your ideas failed last century.[/quote]

Ryan, the more government has become involved, the more problems we as a nation have faced (including the great depression). Right now, government is only fixing the problems it’s created. Now, I’m not saying that capitalism is perfect, but no economic system is. It’s just that capitalism is much, much better.[/quote]

How did the government cause the Great Depression? How did the government create the problems we see now? Without being a jerk, you can’t just assert these things, when they fly in the face of historical consensus and standard accounts of the events.

87

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

depressions is part of the capitalist system, they have occured many times in the history capitalisme. Marx talked about this 70 years before the great depressions in 1930`s. Its not the state who creates the depressions, but the capitalist system is dependent on a state to bring the marked out of depression.
[/quote]

Have you even heard of the depression of 1920? The government reduced in size and at the end of 21 we had 1.8% unemployment. Seems to me everytime government retracts capitalism works.[/quote]

Well then explain Russia’s transition to capitalism (uh-oh! Go Google it real quick!).

88

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

you just proved you dont know shit about socialisme and communisme. the sovjet never reached the communist phase because they where a statist society and communisme has no state.

the sovjetunion was the country in the history of man who went from a agrarculture to a industry based economy in the shortest amount of time. The problem with the ussr was its lack of democracy and civil rights.

Fascisme is a form of capitalisme, its still privat ownership of the means of production. A better word for fascisme is totalitarian capitalisme. its a reason the left was most antifascist in the 1930`s before nazi-germany went to war. the fascistmovement was a reaction to a stronger labor movement in the western world. [/quote]

Well you can make the movement the fastest that is fine, but with bread lines and the likes shows me they did to agricultural what the fascists here in America did to the manufacturing base here.

The soviets actions where directly controlled by the state, that is what communism is.
[/quote]

89

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not necessarily. You can get the money out in the form of aid to states, extra unemployment benefits, etc.[/quote]

That money has to come from somewhere, The government has to take that money out of the private sector to do that. And as what has been proven time and time again the private sector is better at creating things then the great destroyer of wealth ever will be.

When the government starts taking and merging with the private sector Fascism is what is created.[/quote]

Exactly. The government cannot give to anyone, what is has not first taken from someone else.
[/quote]

You ignore my correction of John. In this case (deficit spending), it CAN give to people without taking (even disregarding the fact that that argument is really, really questionable). So even if you’re right most of the time, you’re not when you’re talking about a recession, which is what I was talking about and it was what Keynes was talking about.[/quote]

Seriously Ryan, where do you think that the money the government has comes from? Do really believe that federal money didn’t first originate from some individual, before it was taken in the form of taxes? Deficit spending is still…wait for it…SPENDING! Which of course means that they are spending money collected in taxation from individuals, and business’s owned by individuals. Period. Hence my statement remains a statement of fact; a fact I’m sure does not sit well at the core of someone with your ideology.

Tell me Ryan, do you believe in individual freedom and liberty?

90

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

And I wouldn’t criticize other systems for “complete economic collapse.” Look around you. That’s capitalism, baby, which would have been much much worse if not for aggressive fiscal and monetary policy.

Besides, why do you think we have all these government agencies? Your ideas failed last century.[/quote]

Ryan, the more government has become involved, the more problems we as a nation have faced (including the great depression). Right now, government is only fixing the problems it’s created. Now, I’m not saying that capitalism is perfect, but no economic system is. It’s just that capitalism is much, much better.[/quote]

How did the government cause the Great Depression? How did the government create the problems we see now? Without being a jerk, you can’t just assert these things, when they fly in the face of historical consensus and standard accounts of the events.[/quote]

The Federal reserve created the depression, Government spending worsened the problem. Nothing got fixed till the second industrial revolution took place. Just like before we will once again have to build up our manufacturing base to get out of this.

There is an old saying, a nation is only as strong as their manufacturing.

91

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Well then explain Russia’s transition to capitalism (uh-oh! Go Google it real quick!).[/quote]

Sure, I will look at it right after you look at the depression of 1920 and the following year we had the highest employment in our history.

Federal reserve caused the crash, Free market fixed it.

92

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

And I wouldn’t criticize other systems for “complete economic collapse.” Look around you. That’s capitalism, baby, which would have been much much worse if not for aggressive fiscal and monetary policy.

Besides, why do you think we have all these government agencies? Your ideas failed last century.[/quote]

Ryan, the more government has become involved, the more problems we as a nation have faced (including the great depression). Right now, government is only fixing the problems it’s created. Now, I’m not saying that capitalism is perfect, but no economic system is. It’s just that capitalism is much, much better.[/quote]

How did the government cause the Great Depression? How did the government create the problems we see now? Without being a jerk, you can’t just assert these things, when they fly in the face of historical consensus and standard accounts of the events.[/quote]

Well, here’s a few illustrations for you on government involvement prior to the great depression:

-Bad Federal Reserve Policy and Central planers playing mischief with the money supply. It was estimated by Murray Rothbard that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929, giving birth to the roaring twenties. It then decided to contract the nations money supply by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.

-Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was in addition to the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. These were some of the most protectionist pieces of legislation in US history. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff sent agriculture into a dizzying spin when the markets for American farmers were severely cut. A bushel of wheat that sold for a dollar in 1929, sold for thirty two cents on 1932. Not good. It’s also important to note that as agriculture crashed, so did a shit ton of rural banks.

-Revenue Act of 1932, the largest tax increase in peacetime history, it doubled the income tax. The top income tax bracket actually more than doubled, going from 24 to 63 percent. If that isn’t a giant WTF!, then what the hell is!? It also needs to be mentioned that Hoover was hardly a small government, free market guy by his actions. His administrations spending was highly criticized by the Roosevelt campaign as being reckless, with the federal governmentâ??s share of GNP soaring from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent. Hardly the actions of a small government, free market conservative. Rooseveltâ??s running mate, John Garner, was running around claiming that Hoover was “leading the country towards socialism”. lol Crazy, huh?

My point is, that I agree with many of the economists who rightly argue that it was heavy handed government mismanagement, not a laize fair free market that preceded the great depression. This is all without getting into the socialist government policies that prolonged the depression.

93

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Well, here’s a few illustrations for you on government involvement prior to the great depression:

-Bad Federal Reserve Policy and Central planers playing mischief with the money supply. It was estimated by Murray Rothbard that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929, giving birth to the roaring twenties. It then decided to contract the nations money supply by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.

-Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was in addition to the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. These were some of the most protectionist pieces of legislation in US history. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff sent agriculture into a dizzying spin when the markets for American farmers were severely cut. A bushel of wheat that sold for a dollar in 1929, sold for thirty two cents on 1932. Not good. It’s also important to note that as agriculture crashed, so did a shit ton of rural banks.

-Revenue Act of 1932, the largest tax increase in peacetime history, it doubled the income tax. The top income tax bracket actually more than doubled, going from 24 to 63 percent. If that isn’t a giant WTF!, then what the hell is!? It also needs to be mentioned that Hoover was hardly a small government, free market guy by his actions. His administrations spending was highly criticized by the Roosevelt campaign as being reckless, with the federal governmentâ??s share of GNP soaring from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent. Hardly the actions of a small government, free market conservative. Rooseveltâ??s running mate, John Garner, was running around claiming that Hoover was “leading the country towards socialism”. lol Crazy, huh?

My point is, that I agree with many of the economists who rightly argue that it was heavy handed government mismanagement, not a laize fair free market that preceded the great depression. This is all without getting into the socialist government policies that prolonged the depression.

[/quote]

This x2

94

This is all well and good, but in order for it to be correct as it stands, you have to ignore the temporal aspect of the situation.

In other words, ultimately yes, the money will come from the private sector, but at the time it is spent (deficit, remember) it has not come from the private sector. It is credit. So your insistence that “it is still spending” is really totally irrelevant.

It sits just fine with me, because it does not at all contradict what I have said.

More than you.

95

Chart:

960×720 16.5 KB

Notice how GDP trends sharply upward around 1941. What happened that year.

Aw! Sorry! Your dogma sounded so good, too.

96

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Chart:

960×720 16.5 KB

Notice how GDP trends sharply upward around 1941. What happened that year.

Aw! Sorry! Your dogma sounded so good, too.
[/quote]

New markets with our allies, combined with a sharp increase in demand for wartime goods created an economic boom which was sustained due to our relative lack of geographical involvement in the war. We were able to benefit from the war without sustaining the damage that our allies did, thereby setting the stage for post war economic dominance by the US.

Methinks it is not John who is spewing dogma…

97

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Chart:

960×720 16.5 KB

Notice how GDP trends sharply upward around 1941. What happened that year.

Aw! Sorry! Your dogma sounded so good, too.
[/quote]

New markets with our allies, combined with a sharp increase in demand for wartime goods created an economic boom which was sustained due to our relative lack of geographical involvement in the war. We were able to benefit from the war without sustaining the damage that our allies did, thereby setting the stage for post war economic dominance by the US.

Methinks it is not John who is spewing dogma…[/quote]

Okay, but the government (taxes) paid for all those goods, with cash, or through debt. How was it any different than a giant government stimulus? Could have been war, could have been public works. Seems like we have more of an appetite for going all in when it’s an imperative war (makes sense), but in terms of the economics, what difference did it make if it was building tanks for the government, building cars for the government, or planting trees? (Serious question).

What’s a war (from an economic standpoint)if not a giant public works project?

98

[quote]bigflamer wrote:Well, here’s a few illustrations for you on government involvement prior to the great depression:

-Bad Federal Reserve Policy and Central planers playing mischief with the money supply. It was estimated by Murray Rothbard that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929, giving birth to the roaring twenties. It then decided to contract the nations money supply by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.[/quote]

But it was only stock prices that were significantly inflated during this period. Prices were not generally high, as you would expect from inflation fue to a growth in the money supply.

In fact, one of the main causes of credit expansion was the huge income disparity at the time. This aspect of the situation was essentially a crisis of overproduction, as Marx talked about. Supply did not equal demand, and so the only way to keep the economy stable was to sell things on credit, which of course cannot last forever.

In this period, you saw lots of generous loans made by banks to individuals to purchase stocks. Hence the speculative bubble. Of course mismanagement by the Federal Reserve played a role, but asset bubbles were hardly new, even in 1929.

I don’t see your point here. I didn’t argue that raising taxes during a recession (or in any situation) was a good idea.

Of course mismanagement played a role and made it worse, but you ignore the things the government got right. Furthermore, you are still totally unable to explain the many depression that happened before the Federal Reserve or fiscal policy came into use.

99

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Chart:

960×720 16.5 KB

Notice how GDP trends sharply upward around 1941. What happened that year.

Aw! Sorry! Your dogma sounded so good, too.
[/quote]

New markets with our allies, combined with a sharp increase in demand for wartime goods created an economic boom which was sustained due to our relative lack of geographical involvement in the war. We were able to benefit from the war without sustaining the damage that our allies did, thereby setting the stage for post war economic dominance by the US.

Methinks it is not John who is spewing dogma…[/quote]

Pure obfuscation. Who bought the weapons?

100

[quote]Spartiates wrote:Okay, but the government (taxes) paid for all those goods, with cash, or through debt. How was it any different than a giant government stimulus? Could have been war, could have been public works. Seems like we have more of an appetite for going all in when it’s an imperative war (makes sense), but in terms of the economics, what difference did it make if it was building tanks for the government, building cars for the government, or planting trees? (Serious question).

What’s a war (from an economic standpoint)if not a giant public works project?
[/quote]

Oh come on, it’s TOTALLY different.