tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[Oldstyle]

I'd like you to name a "Libertarian economy" that has failed, Rshermr. I ask that because I don't think you really understand what the term libertarian stands for.

 

[Barb]

I'd like you to name a "Libertarian economy" that has failed, Rshermr. I ask that because I don't think you really understand what the term libertarian stands for.

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail, because I'm not sure you have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

 

[peach174]

What part of both parties have become out of control does the left not get?

Conservatives are voting in people to get government under control with their programs and spending.
Democrats needs to do the same thing.
Unless you think that it's ok to keep expanding government and continuing to borrow to raise the debt.
Many Democrats think that raising taxes will fix it, but it won't. Government programs and Departments must be cut back.
If you think that way we will not have anything at all for any government programs.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'd like you to name a "Libertarian economy" that has failed, Rshermr. I ask that because I don't think you really understand what the term libertarian stands for.

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail, because I'm not sure you have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

 

[eflatminor]

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail

America didn't fail, but was progressively taken over by statists and other central planner types.

Rather than engage in childish name calling and obtuse attempts to skirt the issue at hand, why don't you tell us in your own words why you stand against libertarian ideals in economics and society? The OP was about Keynesian monetary policy and debt, which we libertarians stand against. How about you defend central price controls from the Fed and our 17 trillion of debt?

The floor is yours.

 

[Barb]

I'd like you to name a "Libertarian economy" that has failed, Rshermr. I ask that because I don't think you really understand what the term libertarian stands for.

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail, because I'm not sure you have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

 

[Oldstyle]

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail, because I'm not sure you have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

You honestly think that we've become a greater country because of Keynesian spending polices? Really? So you're all right with the 17 trillion in debt we now have? With the trillions more in unfunded entitlements that we've promised but in no way can deliver on?

I didn't ask for that spending. As a fiscal conservative it's the polar opposite of what I wanted to see done. The truth of the matter is that Keynes himself would have been horrified at what we've done.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'd like you to name a "Libertarian economy" that has failed, Rshermr. I ask that because I don't think you really understand what the term libertarian stands for.

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail, because I'm not sure you have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

America was much closer to libertarian ideals in the late 1700-1800 years. Profit making was easier. Slavery for one vastly increased Americas wealth. There were fewer or maybe no restrictions like today. No workplace safety laws or pollution standards. Sure things were easier then for those at the top. If a worker gets injured just send him home and hire a healthy one. My opinion of libertarian ideals.

 

[jasonnfree]

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

Wait a minute Edward. First you say communism can't succeed then you praise China for being an economic success. Which one is it?

China started booming when they got away from central planning and went with more free market solutions, Jason. Communism starved millions to death in China and now that the Chinese are moving away from communism their economy is taking off. They haven't gotten that message yet in North Korea and THEIR economy is still in the Stone Age.

But China is still a communist country and the companies are owned by the gov't. correct?
It's not like it's free enterprise. China's good fortune was having much of the USA's business and technology dropped in it's lap due to the low wages it offered in comparison to USA's high wages.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...you cite two sources that are fully as ignorant on the subject as you are. Your NY Times article is from 1888! It was written before the railroads paid off 100% pf those bonds they were so worried about and long before the savings that the US Government reaped from their arrangement with the railroads.

The truth of the matter is that because the US Government was able to ship it's goods over the rail system for free for almost 60 years they came out way ahead compared to the small amount it cost them to back the bonds.

As for the land that was sold off? Yes, the railroads were required to sell lands adjacent to the railway right of way in order to finance the construction. That land was sold at extremely low rates to homesteaders. It's a method that the Federal Government utilized to populate vast tracks of the so called "American Desert". And for the "cost" to the US Government to do this? Since much of that land was simply seized from American Indians it didn't cost US citizens much at all. Kind of hard to call the giving away of something that didn't belong to you as a "cost".

Why you choose to debate historic issues with someone who is a history major amuses me. Why don't you stick to pretending to be an economics major before you prove that you're as equally ignorant of history as you are of economics?

Who is debating, me poor ignorant con. I am not. You are simply posting basic facts. And sorry you have a problem with a 1887 article. Apparently you do not understand that they were perfectly capable of understanding what was going on. So, you are saying that government loans to private industry in a libertarian style economy are a good deal. Great.
funny, my boy, how you never provide a link. Every time you do not, I can feel certain you are lying. Now, I know, you choose to believe what you want. And I know it is not your fault. It is just that malady which has been studied over and over. You need to believe what you want, and are willing to provide any statements necessary to back them up. Problem is, me boy, no one believes delusional people. And, you are delusional.
Cmon, me boy. Tell us again why we financed those railroads. Bring forth that proof of how much the gov saved on shipping. You must have links.
So, perhaps you would like to explain to us all why giving away stolen lands was simply giving something that had no real value. Seems to me that if you look at the railroad companies, you would find that they made way more from the sale of those lands than they ever, ever had to pay back.
Cmon, great history major, why is it those lands that were sold for millions had no value???
By the way, the additional $64 million in loans and tax breaks that the gov gave to the railroads? You seem to have missed that.

Most importantly, me boy, it was step, not me, that suggested that we were a primarily libertarian economy in the early years. Now, do you yet understand why, if that was true, there would not have been millions and millions of dollars given to railroads for building their infrastructure? Did you also not see that all of the regulations of corporations, overall more restrictive than today, would not have happened in a mostly libertarian economy?? Of course not. Because you have the illness that all cons have, which is you want to believe what they want to believe. Dipshit.

See why it is difficult to deal with a delusional clown like you. You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make a point to prove your agenda. And it never, never works for you.

LOL...oh, now I'm "delusional" because I point out a glaring flaw in your contention that because the Government paid for the establishment of a transcontinental railroad system it can no longer be called Libertarian? You can be a nation that believes in the Libertarian premise of small government and still work with the Private Sector to facilitate projects like building a transcontinental railroad. What naive folks like you assume is that when the US Government gave that assistance to privately owned railroads they were giving more than they were receiving. The opposite is in fact the case. The primary reason for the US Government pushing the transcontinental railroad was first and foremost from a military standpoint it was needed to protect the vast land mass that we now controlled. The value of the transcontinental rail system from a military standpoint is incredible. Then you add in the addition of a coast to coast telegraph system that was built along with the railroads and you've added the ability to communicate between the far flung coasts and territories in between. Then you add in the additional economic growth from the middle of the nation that resulted from being able to transport goods to and from areas that it was economically impossible to do so before. This was in no way a "give away" to the railroads. Just the ability to ship goods on the rails for free for 60 plus years was an incredible asset to the Federal Government. You seem to think this would have been a trifling amount but with your usual ignorance you overlook how much would have been moved by train from coast to coast in that time period. It wasn't a trifling amount it was a massive amount...and it all went free of charge.

Right. So the gov gave away public lands, and loans and tax deductions. The railroad companies ended up with the biggest give away in history, since they were able to pay back to loans from sale of lands they were given, and end up with a hundred million bucks or so AND free free tracks and the land on which they were on for no cost, after all was said and done.
Now, me boy, if you believe that is a libertarian kind of transaction, good for you. Most would say public spending to support private industry is far from free enterprise. But, of course, you have your own definition. Only you and a couple of bat shit crazy con web sites would agree. But, what the hell. You never needed any actual impartial evidence to prove anything. Just your own opinion. And you know how much anyone with any knowledge of libertarian ideals would agree with you. Maybe, me boy, that is why you can find no link backing up your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

You honestly think that we've become a greater country because of Keynesian spending polices? Really? So you're all right with the 17 trillion in debt we now have? With the trillions more in unfunded entitlements that we've promised but in no way can deliver on?

I didn't ask for that spending. As a fiscal conservative it's the polar opposite of what I wanted to see done. The truth of the matter is that Keynes himself would have been horrified at what we've done.

Right. More opinion, me boy. You still understand nothing about deficit spending. Perhaps you have a case in mind when deficit spending hurt the us economy. Like, for instance, when Reagan borrowed and spent like a drunken sailor, and increased taxes to fund such spending. Really worked out badly, eh.
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
By the way, have you ever determined who we should pay back the national debt to??? Just wondering.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wait a minute Edward. First you say communism can't succeed then you praise China for being an economic success. Which one is it?

China started booming when they got away from central planning and went with more free market solutions, Jason. Communism starved millions to death in China and now that the Chinese are moving away from communism their economy is taking off. They haven't gotten that message yet in North Korea and THEIR economy is still in the Stone Age.

But China is still a communist country and the companies are owned by the gov't. correct?
It's not like it's free enterprise. China's good fortune was having much of the USA's business and technology dropped in it's lap due to the low wages it offered in comparison to USA's high wages.

Jason, do yourself a favor and read up on what has made the Chinese economy boom. Starting back in the early 80's China started to adopt aspects of capitalism in order to try and rescue the country from the ravages of the so called "Cultural Revolution". As a result their economy has been growing at a rate of about 10% per year. One of the ways they did this was to create special "zones" where foreign investors were allowed to come in and start businesses with a minimum of red tape and special financial incentives. THAT is what brought in businesses and technology from the US. At the same time that the US was making it harder to do business by increasing regulations and taxes... the Chinese were actively seeking out businesses and giving them incentives to invest in China by doing the opposite. It wasn't JUST low wages that made that happen...it was the creation of these "Special Economic Zones".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At one of our dinners, Milton (Friedman) recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

 

[Rshermr]

Name one still in existence today, one that DIDN'T fail, because I'm not sure you have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

Cons always forget that the 1950's were largely great because of the stimulus spending resulting from the national road-building projects championed by a REPUBLICAN president, by the name of Eisenhower. Seems cons forget that little fact. Hell, poor guy would have been kicked out of the party by current neo-cons.

To construct the network, $25 billion was authorized for FYs 1957 through 1969. During the first three years, the funds would be apportioned as provided for in the Gore bill (mileage, land area, and population). In succeeding years, apportionments would be made on the cost-to-complete basis provided for in the Fallon bill. The added 1,600 km were excluded from the estimate. The Federal share of project costs would be 90 percent.
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System

Funny how that works. Significant deficit spending and a strong economy. And back then, republicans supported the project as well.

 

[jasonnfree]

China started booming when they got away from central planning and went with more free market solutions, Jason. Communism starved millions to death in China and now that the Chinese are moving away from communism their economy is taking off. They haven't gotten that message yet in North Korea and THEIR economy is still in the Stone Age.

But China is still a communist country and the companies are owned by the gov't. correct?
It's not like it's free enterprise. China's good fortune was having much of the USA's business and technology dropped in it's lap due to the low wages it offered in comparison to USA's high wages.

Jason, do yourself a favor and read up on what has made the Chinese economy boom. Starting back in the early 80's China started to adopt aspects of capitalism in order to try and rescue the country from the ravages of the so called "Cultural Revolution". As a result their economy has been growing at a rate of about 10% per year. One of the ways they did this was to create special "zones" where foreign investors were allowed to come in and start businesses with a minimum of red tape and special financial incentives. THAT is what brought in businesses and technology from the US. At the same time that the US was making it harder to do business by increasing regulations and taxes... the Chinese were actively seeking out businesses and giving them incentives to invest in China by doing the opposite. It wasn't JUST low wages that made that happen...it was the creation of these "Special Economic Zones".

Oldstyle, this country had taxes and regulations before China opened up. The companies did ok here, but in China there's cheap labor and less regulations. It may benefit china but they got the pollution that comes with loose regulations. Cheap wages. Race to the bottom I think. What happens when China raises wages, taxes and starts to regulate? Then the Companies move to another country cheaper to operate in? Is this what you think is good and that profit is all that's important? What about the rust belts and ghost towns left behind. Not trying to be rude but don't people matter to libertarian type minds?

 

[Barb]

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

You honestly think that we've become a greater country because of Keynesian spending polices? Really? So you're all right with the 17 trillion in debt we now have? With the trillions more in unfunded entitlements that we've promised but in no way can deliver on?

I didn't ask for that spending. As a fiscal conservative it's the polar opposite of what I wanted to see done. The truth of the matter is that Keynes himself would have been horrified at what we've done.

^That^ didn't even make sense. If Keynes would have been horrified at what's been done, then it isn't what he'd have proposed, and couldn't rightfully be called "Keynesian."

It is widely agreed that the American "Golden Age" was the 1950s. Keynesian policies built that.

Reagans policies broke the backs of the people, and their good credit: his policies and the social darwinism wrapped in gawd & the flag that sold them.

Now, after the results of Reaganomics brought us to the brink of disaster, you want to blame what worked BEFORE for what happened over the past 40-50 years, years during which those theories were abandoned.

And you're shocked that I call what you're saying bullshit. Shocked.

 

[Oldstyle]

The point that was made earlier is that the United States of America was as close to a true libertarian ideal that the world has ever seen and our success is due in large part to that ideal. We have strayed from what made us successful over the past 60 years and it's turned us into a shadow of our former self.

And Barb? If I "don't have a fucking clue" about something...I don't open my mouth.

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

Cons always forget that the 1950's were largely great because of the stimulus spending resulting from the national road-building projects championed by a REPUBLICAN president, by the name of Eisenhower. Seems cons forget that little fact. Hell, poor guy would have been kicked out of the party by current neo-cons.

To construct the network, $25 billion was authorized for FYs 1957 through 1969. During the first three years, the funds would be apportioned as provided for in the Gore bill (mileage, land area, and population). In succeeding years, apportionments would be made on the cost-to-complete basis provided for in the Fallon bill. The added 1,600 km were excluded from the estimate. The Federal share of project costs would be 90 percent.
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System

Funny how that works. Significant deficit spending and a strong economy. And back then, republicans supported the project as well.

Actually the 50's were great because WWII had just ended and we were the only major power without major damage to our economy. Most of the rest of the industrialized world was in shambles. It's hard NOT to succeed when you're the only game in town.

But don't let reality intrude on your silly notion about deficit spending being the be all and end all, Rshermr!

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

You honestly think that we've become a greater country because of Keynesian spending polices? Really? So you're all right with the 17 trillion in debt we now have? With the trillions more in unfunded entitlements that we've promised but in no way can deliver on?

I didn't ask for that spending. As a fiscal conservative it's the polar opposite of what I wanted to see done. The truth of the matter is that Keynes himself would have been horrified at what we've done.

^That^ didn't even make sense. If Keynes would have been horrified at what's been done, then it isn't what he'd have proposed, and couldn't rightfully be called "Keynesian."

It is widely agreed that the American "Golden Age" was the 1950s. Keynesian policies built that.

Reagans policies broke the backs of the people, and their good credit: his policies and the social darwinism wrapped in gawd & the flag that sold them.

Now, after the results of Reaganomics brought us to the brink of disaster, you want to blame what worked BEFORE for what happened over the past 40-50 years, years during which those theories were abandoned.

And you're shocked that I call what you're saying bullshit. Shocked.

If you knew Keynesian economic fundamentals then you'd know that Keynes wouldn't have been on board with this continual and out of control deficit spending. Keynes saw deficit spending as short term solution to spur an economy during an economic downturn...spending that would then be made up when the economy recovered. What we've seen over the past forty years is ever expanding deficit spending at even the hint of a slowdown and no cuts or tax raises to make up for that spending when we do have a boom.

Reagan's policies created more wealth in this country than any President before or after him. I know that you Progressives don't like to admit that...just as I know that you don't want to take your share of the blame for what's going on now. Listening to you people rant about this topic you would SWEAR that not a single Democrat, liberal or progressive had been anywhere NEAR Washington in the past twenty years! Sorry, Barb...you guys have been steadily piling on entitlements and regulations for decades now. So when the bill comes due on all these Progressive "wish lists" like ObamaCare? Is THAT going to the fault of conservatives as well?

 

[Oldstyle]

But China is still a communist country and the companies are owned by the gov't. correct?
It's not like it's free enterprise. China's good fortune was having much of the USA's business and technology dropped in it's lap due to the low wages it offered in comparison to USA's high wages.

Jason, do yourself a favor and read up on what has made the Chinese economy boom. Starting back in the early 80's China started to adopt aspects of capitalism in order to try and rescue the country from the ravages of the so called "Cultural Revolution". As a result their economy has been growing at a rate of about 10% per year. One of the ways they did this was to create special "zones" where foreign investors were allowed to come in and start businesses with a minimum of red tape and special financial incentives. THAT is what brought in businesses and technology from the US. At the same time that the US was making it harder to do business by increasing regulations and taxes... the Chinese were actively seeking out businesses and giving them incentives to invest in China by doing the opposite. It wasn't JUST low wages that made that happen...it was the creation of these "Special Economic Zones".

Oldstyle, this country had taxes and regulations before China opened up. The companies did ok here, but in China there's cheap labor and less regulations. It may benefit china but they got the pollution that comes with loose regulations. Cheap wages. Race to the bottom I think. What happens when China raises wages, taxes and starts to regulate? Then the Companies move to another country cheaper to operate in? Is this what you think is good and that profit is all that's important? What about the rust belts and ghost towns left behind. Not trying to be rude but don't people matter to libertarian type minds?

I'm a free market guy. Always have been. In many ways Economics is a study of the best use of scarce resources. The reason China was floundering badly under a system of centralized planning is quite simple...it isn't as efficient as letting the free market determine supply and demand. The leaders of China finally recognized the centralized planning of communism was destroying their country and so they moved to create in essence "capitalism zones". This wasn't something done by accident, nor is it a fluke that it finally brought them strong economic growth. Now you can TRY to mess with the free market system by putting up walls of tariffs and other protectionist laws but as anyone who studied economic history will tell you...it never seems to work. Smoot Hawley anyone?

As for your question do I think that profit is important? In a free market system the answer to the question would be yes. Anticipation of profit is what induces investment. Investment is what creates jobs. Jobs are what create disposable income. Disposable income is what creates demand. Demand creates more investment in search of more profit. THAT is how an economy grows.

My question for you is this...how can profit NOT be essential and why do Progressives treat profit as if it is something wrong?

 

[Rshermr]

Well, Oldsyle, I do appreciate you contribution, it being the only one forthcoming, especially. But your recounting of our nations history is bullshit. What made us great, what gave us our Golden Age of prosperity, and what could have continued to do so if it took an eye towards sustainability, was the spending that took place after WWII, hell , DURING WWII, AND an ordered and orderly economy, a REGUFUCKINGLATED economy, for the love of family unity and the cash flow that honest work should produce and that keeps the kids fed and momma happy (cause ain't NOBODY happy if momma ain't happy) and people keep spending, paying, and producing.

WHAT has Reaganomics wrought? You know ALL this shit IS wrought from Reaganomics. You DO. Squirm as you will, the present day is what you and your ilk asked for. So take a good, hard look around and for ONCE in your benighted lives take responsibility for the fucking results.

Cons always forget that the 1950's were largely great because of the stimulus spending resulting from the national road-building projects championed by a REPUBLICAN president, by the name of Eisenhower. Seems cons forget that little fact. Hell, poor guy would have been kicked out of the party by current neo-cons.

To construct the network, $25 billion was authorized for FYs 1957 through 1969. During the first three years, the funds would be apportioned as provided for in the Gore bill (mileage, land area, and population). In succeeding years, apportionments would be made on the cost-to-complete basis provided for in the Fallon bill. The added 1,600 km were excluded from the estimate. The Federal share of project costs would be 90 percent.
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System

Funny how that works. Significant deficit spending and a strong economy. And back then, republicans supported the project as well.

Actually the 50's were great because WWII had just ended and we were the only major power without major damage to our economy. Most of the rest of the industrialized world was in shambles. It's hard NOT to succeed when you're the only game in town.

But don't let reality intrude on your silly notion about deficit spending being the be all and end all, Rshermr!

Right. Which also explains the fact that after wwI we did so well. Oh. Yeah. We went into an immediate depression. Because we had hundreds of thousands of gi's coming home, who could not find jobs. And no few nations with sufficient demand for our products because they were in shambles because of the war. Kind of like after wwii.

Really, oldstyle, nice try. But getting your talking points from the bat shit crazy conservative web sites just does not work.
Perhaps that is why you never show a link. Ya think???