Is modern conservatism a threat to us?
I should have added that since modern conservatism - at least as the Republican Party defines it - has abandoned fiscal policy as a tool to manage the economy. Thus, only monetary policy is applied - thus the lengthy recovery - and I would argue that is a danger to us all indeed.
drummerboy said:
meh. A bunch of Libertarian wannabees jealous of Krugman's accomplishments. I love that he makes you guys crazy.
Am listening to one of the podcasts now, about global warming. When will they get to the point? Stay tuned....
geez, boring.
Ooh, here we go.
Gonna turn it off soon. Bunch of babbling so far.
I give up. Bob Murphy is quite, quite unimpressive. His only claim to fame (among his fan bois) seems to be that he likes to attack Krugman.
Thank you for wasting my time terp.
But thanks for letting us know who you think is worth listening to. Tells me a lot.
In other words: "No, because boring." Uncommon resistance carries the day again!
(Pa rum pum pum pum.)
bramzzoinks said:
Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity.
Small government and light regulation led to the crash of 2008 including government bailouts of banking, insurance, and auto industry.
Small government and light regulation led to the explosion of the fertilizer plant next to the school in West, Texas, and another government bailout.
Shall I continue?
Red_Barchetta said:
bramzzoinks said:
Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity.
Small government and light regulation led to the crash of 2008 including government bailouts of banking, insurance, and auto industry.
Small government and light regulation led to the explosion of the fertilizer plant next to the school in West, Texas, and another government bailout.
Shall I continue?
Some might say that governments engaging in bailouts aren't all that small.
Red_Barchetta said:
bramzzoinks said:
Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity.
Small government and light regulation led to the crash of 2008 including government bailouts of banking, insurance, and auto industry.
Small government and light regulation led to the explosion of the fertilizer plant next to the school in West, Texas, and another government bailout.
Shall I continue?
I'm sure the people's who owned the plant made a lot of money, and were covered by insurance. So it's all good, right? Privatize the profit and all that.
No one except the pure Libertarians actually believes in small government.
Theoldtimer said:
I should have added that since modern conservatism - at least as the Republican Party defines it - has abandoned fiscal policy as a tool to manage the economy. Thus, only monetary policy is applied - thus the lengthy recovery - and I would argue that is a danger to us all indeed.
Well, the conservatives that are driving the R party into the ground have no regard for monetary policy either, as a good chunk of them think the Fed is evil.
But you're right. The conservatives running the Fed have abandoned any pretense of following their dual mandate. They focus slowly on controlling inflation - many economists, such as that dunderhead Krugman maintain that we should be shooting for higher inflation numbers, which would apparently help wages. Though I admit I don't understand the mechanism.
Red_Barchetta said:
bramzzoinks said:
Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity.
Small government and light regulation led to the crash of 2008 including government bailouts of banking, insurance, and auto industry.
Small government and light regulation led to the explosion of the fertilizer plant next to the school in West, Texas, and another government bailout.
Shall I continue?
no don't continue, at least not for zoinks's sake. talking history to zoinks is futile.
The federal government has been on an aggressive deregulation kick for decades now. The result is the growing accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few.
i.e. EXACTLY what the conservative movement wants.
"Pro business"...
Sure, sounds great, but the implication of being pro something is that it stands in contrast to that which you are against. If you're pro business, who exactly are you against?
I'll assume that "We the people" are who you are against...
drummerboy said:
Theoldtimer said:
I should have added that since modern conservatism - at least as the Republican Party defines it - has abandoned fiscal policy as a tool to manage the economy. Thus, only monetary policy is applied - thus the lengthy recovery - and I would argue that is a danger to us all indeed.
Well, the conservatives that are driving the R party into the ground have no regard for monetary policy either, as a good chunk of them think the Fed is evil.
But you're right. The conservatives running the Fed have abandoned any pretense of following their dual mandate. They focus slowly on controlling inflation - many economists, such as that dunderhead Krugman maintain that we should be shooting for higher inflation numbers, which would apparently help wages. Though I admit I don't understand the mechanism.
The Fed's target is an inflation rate of 2%. The theory, in part, is that inflationary pressures increase the propensity to consume rather than to save. The value of fixed assets declines and the increased demand stimulates investment, and the economy grows.
n00b said:
"Pro business"...
Sure, sounds great, but the implication of being pro something is that it stands in contrast to that which you are against. If you're pro business, who exactly are you against?
I'll assume that "We the people" are who you are against...
So, why do you have to be against something other than anti-business?
Theoldtimer said:
drummerboy said:
Theoldtimer said:
I should have added that since modern conservatism - at least as the Republican Party defines it - has abandoned fiscal policy as a tool to manage the economy. Thus, only monetary policy is applied - thus the lengthy recovery - and I would argue that is a danger to us all indeed.
Well, the conservatives that are driving the R party into the ground have no regard for monetary policy either, as a good chunk of them think the Fed is evil.
But you're right. The conservatives running the Fed have abandoned any pretense of following their dual mandate. They focus slowly on controlling inflation - many economists, such as that dunderhead Krugman maintain that we should be shooting for higher inflation numbers, which would apparently help wages. Though I admit I don't understand the mechanism.
The Fed's target is an inflation rate of 2%. The theory, in part, is that inflationary pressures increase the propensity to consume rather than to save. The value of fixed assets declines and the increased demand stimulates investment, and the economy grows.
Well, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that this policy tends to keep wages low. And I would submit that middle-class wage stagnation over the last 30 years is our biggest economic problem.
Red_Barchetta said:
bramzzoinks said:
Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity.
Small government and light regulation led to the crash of 2008 including government bailouts of banking, insurance, and auto industry.
Small government and light regulation led to the explosion of the fertilizer plant next to the school in West, Texas, and another government bailout.
Shall I continue?
This just isn't true. There is not a field more regulated than our financial markets. Much of the regulations incentivized risk. Super-Low interest rates and repeated bailouts that even had a euphemism for them(the Greenspan Put) will make people take greater risks. The idea the small government and light regulation led to the crash in 2008 is quite frankly laughable.
The fertilizer plant was also subject to regulation by various agencies including OSHA and the Department of Transportation.
The whole idea that government is getting smaller is the exact opposite of the truth. New regulations are being added all the time.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
meh. A bunch of Libertarian wannabees jealous of Krugman's accomplishments. I love that he makes you guys crazy.
Am listening to one of the podcasts now, about global warming. When will they get to the point? Stay tuned....
geez, boring.
Ooh, here we go.
Gonna turn it off soon. Bunch of babbling so far.
I give up. Bob Murphy is quite, quite unimpressive. His only claim to fame (among his fan bois) seems to be that he likes to attack Krugman.
Thank you for wasting my time terp.
But thanks for letting us know who you think is worth listening to. Tells me a lot.
In other words: "No, because boring." Uncommon resistance carries the day again!
(Pa rum pum pum pum.)
Well if someone was willing to listen, they would find out that using the IPCC stats that Krugman is being quite hyperbolic about the consensus regarding climate change risks. Also, he is clearly overstating the positive effects of the toothless Paris Accord. Unlike Krugman, who makes oblique assertions they show their work. While some might find that boring, I appreciate it.
terp said:
Red_Barchetta said:
bramzzoinks said:
Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity.
Small government and light regulation led to the crash of 2008 including government bailouts of banking, insurance, and auto industry.
Small government and light regulation led to the explosion of the fertilizer plant next to the school in West, Texas, and another government bailout.
Shall I continue?
This just isn't true. There is not a field more regulated than our financial markets. Much of the regulations incentivized risk. Super-Low interest rates and repeated bailouts that even had a euphemism for them(the Greenspan Put) will make people take greater risks. The idea the small government and light regulation led to the crash in 2008 is quite frankly laughable.
The fertilizer plant was also subject to regulation by various agencies including OSHA and the Department of Transportation.
The whole idea that government is getting smaller is the exact opposite of the truth. New regulations are being added all the time.
Nice try. Your ignorance is astounding. Do some research.
terp said:
The fertilizer plant was also subject to regulation by various agencies including OSHA and the Department of Transportation.
There's an important distinction between having regulations and enforcing regulations.
Apologies. I was under the impression that i was conversing with adults. This is not how adults converse.
Red_Barchetta said
Nice try. Your ignorance is astounding. Do some research.
no, I'm saying two things one, the mere existence of the regulation is meaningless. Two, there is one party out there who has repeatedly made efforts to impede the enforcement of regulations that are i the books.
I'll confess to occasionally enjoying Krugman, but I'm not sure I'd go to bat for him. I find the format of regular columns generally does writers more harm than good (for that matter, I also enjoy Douthat, with whom I rarely agree, but I enjoyed him more when he blogged at the Atlantic than now when he has a regular column in the NYT).
And I can't say that I've listened to the podcast, but if this is the same Murphy that you've brought up before on climate change, I'm not sure I'd trust him all that much. Last time you quoted him, for instance,I noted this:
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/121234-If-you-don-t-read-Phil-Plait-you-should?page=1#comment-3144430
(short version: Murphy seems incredibly blase about the idea of global temperatures rising precipitously and unabated for the next several centuries).
terp said:
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
meh. A bunch of Libertarian wannabees jealous of Krugman's accomplishments. I love that he makes you guys crazy.
Am listening to one of the podcasts now, about global warming. When will they get to the point? Stay tuned....
geez, boring.
Ooh, here we go.
Gonna turn it off soon. Bunch of babbling so far.
I give up. Bob Murphy is quite, quite unimpressive. His only claim to fame (among his fan bois) seems to be that he likes to attack Krugman.
Thank you for wasting my time terp.
But thanks for letting us know who you think is worth listening to. Tells me a lot.
In other words: "No, because boring." Uncommon resistance carries the day again!
(Pa rum pum pum pum.)
Well if someone was willing to listen, they would find out that using the IPCC stats that Krugman is being quite hyperbolic about the consensus regarding climate change risks. Also, he is clearly overstating the positive effects of the toothless Paris Accord. Unlike Krugman, who makes oblique assertions they show their work. While some might find that boring, I appreciate it.
Steve said:
no, I'm saying two things one, the mere existence of the regulation is meaningless. Two, there is one party out there who has repeatedly made efforts to impede the enforcement of regulations that are i the books.
Considering that enforcement is in the sphere of the executive, and the West Texas fertilizer explosion happened during a Democratic administration, how is it the fault of the Republican party?
When enforcement is underfunded by the legislature, the executive can't enforce. Also, state enforcement was lacking and, probably knowing this, the plant operators didn't properly report.
@PVW I don't think he's blase exactly. He is skeptical. This is a good thing, no? And note, that he was referring to the worst case outliers in that post. Thus far, I'm not sure we've seen the worst case model predictions come to fruition.
As it pertains to this Krugman op ed, his point is that Krugman's all rhetoric and no substance. Krugman talks in terms of saving mankind . There are issues with this. According to the IPCC report, if we do nothing until 2030 the cost of mitigation rises 44%. Not that this is insignificant, but its not the end of civilization as Krugman seems to claim.
Krugman also claims that renewables are pretty much competitive with fossil fuels, its just that Republicans could "skuttle the whole deal". But, if they are competitive, then why is any such deal necessary? If they are competitive, then let them compete in the marketplace.
Steve said:
When enforcement is underfunded by the legislature, the executive can't enforce. Also, state enforcement was lacking and, probably knowing this, the plant operators didn't properly report.
Ah, so despite the 4 trillion dollar federal budget and the state and local budgets and the trillions in debt whenever something happens its because we didn't have moar?
Jesus *****ing christ. We are a nation of children.
terp said:
Apologies. I was under the impression that i was conversing with adults. This is not how adults converse.
Red_Barchetta said
Nice try. Your ignorance is astounding. Do some research.
Agreed.
terp said:
Steve said:
no, I'm saying two things one, the mere existence of the regulation is meaningless. Two, there is one party out there who has repeatedly made efforts to impede the enforcement of regulations that are i the books.
Considering that enforcement is in the sphere of the executive, and the West Texas fertilizer explosion happened during a Democratic administration, how is it the fault of the Republican party?
So Texas is run by Democrats? And are you suggesting that the executive Branch is accountable for the proximity of that plant to a town?
Not that it matters. Not that I am going to talk you away from your low tax, small government utopia, where we have an even greater divide between the wealthiest and those struggling, and where the open market protects all.
That wasn't my point. But, Price Daniel was Governor of Texas when the plan was built. He was a Democrat.
terp said:
@PVW I don't think he's blase exactly. He is skeptical. This is a good thing, no? And note, that he was referring to the worst case outliers in that post. Thus far, I'm not sure we've seen the worst case model predictions come to fruition.
As it pertains to this Krugman op ed, his point is that Krugman's all rhetoric and no substance. Krugman talks in terms of saving mankind . There are issues with this. According to the IPCC report, if we do nothing until 2030 the cost of mitigation rises 44%. Not that this is insignificant, but its not the end of civilization as Krugman seems to claim.
Krugman also claims that renewables are pretty much competitive with fossil fuels, its just that Republicans could "skuttle the whole deal". But, if they are competitive, then why is any such deal necessary? If they are competitive, then let them compete in the marketplace.
For most Conservatives, moving from a denier to blasé, is an accomplishment.
Regarding open markets, when I studied Economics, we used to qualify all theory by talking about efficient markets. This basically meant that there were no transaction costs and no one had an advantage. Sadly, this isn't true. We are so tied to fossil fuels in our country, that moving to renewables is a steep uphill battle.
more on Bob Murphy, Austrian economist (heh) extraordinaire and slayer of Krgthulu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Murphy
In two LewRockwell.com
articles entitled "Well, I'll be a Monkey's Nephew" and "More Monkey
Business", Murphy expressed skepticism about evolution, asserting that
he "can literally prove evolution is false" by pointing out that human
beings act altruistically, which (in Murphy's view) cannot be explained
by evolutionary motives.[36][37]
In another piece which discussed evolution, Murphy discussed the
influence of his Christian faith on his views and defended "those who
subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible".[38] Murphy expressed, for instance, his belief in the Biblical story of Jonah and the Whale,
asserting that "I think it's possible that a human being could be
swallowed by a whale and live for three days somewhere inside of it,
with enough oxygen and without being digested".[38]
Good job! - but "social conservative" makes no sense to me. When I thought I was a conservative, I would have said that the Government has no place in those types of issues. Also, I am not sure being pro-business and supporting commerce and free enterprise are always the same thing.