Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Stay away from the credit/debt system

Rate this topic


moralist

Recommended Posts

That is a counter factual definite asserted without proof....

ruveyn1

It was not meant to be literal, but was just a humorous comment about Kate's abiding faith in big government. Krugman, whom she quoted claims that the economy would improve if the government spent even more money. No Capitalist I know believes that nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not meant to be literal, but was just a humorous comment about Kate's abiding faith in big government. Krugman, whom she quoted claims that the economy would improve if the government spent even more money. No Capitalist I know believes that nonsense.

Within their metrics it would improve, they just don't things like capital misallocation and lost opportunity costs are really that much of a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within their metrics it would improve...

(edit) Oh, you mean within government.

Yes, the financial wellbeing of public union employees is dependent upon government spending, and that can only be at the expense of the private sector.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not meant to be literal, but was just a humorous comment about Kate's abiding faith in big government. Krugman, whom she quoted claims that the economy would improve if the government spent even more money. No Capitalist I know believes that nonsense.

Krugman believes that GDP will increase if government spending increases (or taxes for the working class decreases).

Conversely he believes that austerity as it's being promoted by the Republican mainstream will not magically increase GDP. This is straight-forward math, and it's reinforced by the last four years of evidence in the USA in particular.

The correct--and only--defense of capitalism is the moral and metaphysical defense of capitalism. This has never been more true: on immediate practical terms, as moving to pure capitalism would hurt right now. This is being born out by the crystal clear evidence. It was born out at the ballot box in the last election at the national level. It will be born out further as the "tea party" nimrods get voted out one by one.

Currently the entire base of Republican rhetoric is based on an idea that is simply not true, and it's an untruth whose consequences are unavoidable and obvious. When Joe the Plumber sees that there are no free goodies coming his way, and he's just been duped into voting for tax cuts for rich people, then he's not going to suddenly become an Objectivist scholar, understanding that it's his responsibility to let the John Galts of the world have their tax cut--he's going to re-read the Bible and learn about the world's most famous Socialist, and then vote accordingly.

Ayn Rand and Objectivism, being caught up in this, will be set back decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman believes that GDP will increase if government spending increases

This I've read.

(or taxes for the working class decreases).

I've never heard him say that. Can you find where he says that reducing government taxation increases economic productivity?

Krugman believes the common liberal fallacy that the government creates wealth. The government does not create wealth. Only Capitalists can create wealth. The government can only spend what it takes from those who create wealth.

There is a brilliant professor, Dr. Pam Green, who teaches economics at a local college in my area. She said:

"A government that gives you things cannot protect your rights... and a government that protects your rights cannot give you things."

It is impossible to have both... so which government do you want? Almost everyone else has already voted for a government that gives them things.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman believes that GDP will increase if government spending increases (or taxes for the working class decreases).

Krugman believes in fairy-dust and magic. However lowering taxes on the real producers is a step in the right direction. The wealth of the nation is produced by people doing useful things, producing useful products and useful services. It does not consist of rigging up phony baloney bank accounts or printing bogus money.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman believes in fairy-dust and magic. However lowering taxes on the real producers is a step in the right direction. The wealth of the nation is produced by people doing useful things, producing useful products and useful services. It does not consist of rigging up phony baloney bank accounts or printing bogus money.

ruveyn1

Krugman doesn't advocate lowering taxes on the "real producers", he seems to advocate it for the lowest-rungs only. The idea is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to immediately spend your money versus save it. A tax cut for the rich will mostly end up in a savings account. A tax cut for the poor (which, to be clear, must be paid for by deficit spending) has an immediate positive effect on GDP. He talks positively for a reduction in payroll taxes in particular, which generally only help the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman doesn't advocate lowering taxes on the "real producers", he seems to advocate it for the lowest-rungs only. The idea is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to immediately spend your money versus save it. A tax cut for the rich will mostly end up in a savings account. A tax cut for the poor (which, to be clear, must be paid for by deficit spending) has an immediate positive effect on GDP. He talks positively for a reduction in payroll taxes in particular, which generally only help the poor.

Lowest rungs? 47% of the "lowest rungs" already either pay no Federal taxes or are given money by the government. Could you please supply some of his actual words in contextual quotes? That would be a great help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowest rungs? 47% of the "lowest rungs" already either pay no Federal taxes or are given money by the government. Could you please supply some of his actual words in contextual quotes? That would be a great help.

Moralist, just ask God about Krugman next time you talk to him. Also, be sure to ask Him again about Objectivism because I think you heard it wrong the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moralist, just ask God about Krugman next time you talk to him. Also, be sure to ask Him again about Objectivism because I think you heard it wrong the first time.

OK, I just wanted to be certain that you are unwilling to supply actual quotations to confirm your paraphrasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I just wanted to be certain that you are unwilling to supply actual quotations to confirm your paraphrasing.

Sorry, but wasn't it God that told you about the evils or Krugman in the first place? It was obviously not due to any research on your part based on your comments here. You "just knew" that he was incorrect in his analysis, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman doesn't advocate lowering taxes on the "real producers", he seems to advocate it for the lowest-rungs only. The idea is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to immediately spend your money versus save it. A tax cut for the rich will mostly end up in a savings account. A tax cut for the poor (which, to be clear, must be paid for by deficit spending) has an immediate positive effect on GDP. He talks positively for a reduction in payroll taxes in particular, which generally only help the poor.

The most help the poor get or will get comes when the real producers are free to do their thing. It took industrialists and inventors to make the life of the "poor" more than just survivable. The poor live 30 to 40 percent longer than that did at the end of the 19th century.

Krugman does not appear to appreciate this point. I suspect that he denies this. I will bet he believes any prosperity we do have (enjoy it while you can!) comes from the government.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but wasn't it God that told you about the evils or Krugman in the first place? It was obviously not due to any research on your part based on your comments here. You "just knew" that he was incorrect in his analysis, right?

It's simple common sense that more public sector government spending only takes more money away from the private sector. You sound like you're on the side of the public sector. Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krugman believes the common liberal fallacy that the government creates wealth. The government does not create wealth. Only Capitalists can create wealth. The government can only spend what it takes from those who create wealth.

A lot of new wealth stems from government research (eg DARPAnet defence spending leading to the Internet) or government stem cell research leading to new medical techniques. There would be less of this kind of research under pure capitalism, since the returns are so uncertain. Also wealth does not have to be physical. For example who could argue that the human race is not better off due to the pictures taken by the Hubble telescope?

275px-Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_part_d.jpg

However, most government spending goes on things like welfare. I doubt that Krugman thinks that this kind of spending creates wealth. I certainly don't.

I will bet he believes any prosperity we do have (enjoy it while you can!) comes from the government.

Sorry no. Krugman does not believe this.

It's simple common sense that more public sector government spending only takes more money away from the private sector.

It's "common sense" on the same level that complex organs like an eye must have been designed is "common sense". It sounds reasonable but in fact is completely wrong-headed.

The reason you guys are making such mistakes about Krugman is that you are assuming he is a mirror image of yourself. You believe in 100% free markets so you think that he believes in 100% government. No. No. No. Government spending can only create wealth when the economy is in a liquidity trap. Why not try learning about what Keynesians actually think, and what the liquidity trap actually is before you attempt to argue against it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simple common sense that more public sector government spending only takes more money away from the private sector. You sound like you're on the side of the public sector. Are you?

I'm on the "side" of not being a moronic idiot who ignores the facts and believes everything they see on Fox News without question.

That said, I'm arguing with a Fundy. Maybe I'm the idiot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the "side" of not being a moronic idiot who ignores the facts and believes everything they see on Fox News without question.

Sorry, but beginning with a flawed assumption leads to a flawed conclusion. I don't watch television and haven't for over a decade. However, the nature of your response has clearly indicated on which side of the ledger you operate. So thank you for your candid answer to the question asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's "common sense" on the same level that complex organs like an eye must have been designed is "common sense". It sounds reasonable but in fact is completely wrong-headed.

What's complicated about government taking money from who Ayn Rand called producers to give to who she called moochers?

That's what it does by employing millions of bureaucratic transfer of wealth public union employees, also known as looters.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but beginning with a flawed assumption leads to a flawed conclusion. I don't watch television and haven't for over a decade. However, the nature of your response has clearly indicated on which side of the ledger you operate. So thank you for your candid answer to the question asked.

You haven't watched TV? Then where did you hear about Paul Krugman? Do you read his column in the Washington Post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't watched TV? Then where did you hear about Paul Krugman? Do you read his column in the Washington Post?

There is lots of stuff on Krugman on the Web. So one does not need either newspapers or t.v. to know something about him.

And he won a Nobel Prize to boot. That would give him some publicity.

I met Krugman at the studio where I record books for blind and dyslexic folk. We did not discuss economics at all.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just want to inspire someone.  I'm going to be going to a private college because I don't believe in public education.  I'm going to take out loans and pay them back after I graduate.  I'm going to do everything in my power to pay back the loans.  In fact, I think it will be easy given my choice of career.

 

Eh - I would like to give you some advice. Try your best to have the least amount of debt from school as possible - don't get trapped in the student loan bubble. Private schools are very expensive and I am not saying they aren't worth the money (because it depends on the school and whether or not you make the most of it), but taking out loans for tens of thousands of dollars isn't a good idea in the long run. Especially try to get as much money as you can through grants or scholarships so it will be less that you have to pay back. It is important to really look at the details of the loans you are taking out and how much money you are expected to pay back each month. Don't make a move that you will regret. You can get a decent education at a state college for half the price, even less if you commute and work simultaneously.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to inspire someone.  I'm going to be going to a private college because I don't believe in public education.  I'm going to take out loans and pay them back after I graduate.  I'm going to do everything in my power to pay back the loans.  In fact, I think it will be easy given my choice of career.

 

Your ability to inspire others will be directly proportional to your ability to become like what has inspired you. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...