Boehner agrees to smaller debt deal.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I can't really back it up with any research or anything so just to shoot the breeze.
America seems to me to be dividing into post Reformation Europe. It's a thing that as an outsider worries me about Ron Paul, people celebrate him as a Libetarian but I've checked his voting record and whatever his rhetoric he seems most anti basic human needs and very, very pro oil. The only way out of the recession is to give big corperations laizze faire and honest they'll look after you. Not if you're not a shareholder they won't!
Back to post Reformation Europe and what I feel are the dangers for the Republicans and my innate understanding of British history.
At the height of the British Empire there were people in the city I live in that lived at the bottom of a hill in the city centre that lived in cellars with running water, down the walls. Why raise the sentiment? Because other posts in this thread have stated problems with the costs of running an overseas Empire and how it strangles funds at home. The British Empire finally took over from the East India company because it became too expensive for them to maintain. So in effect the British Empire starved their base in order to maintain a commercial empire abroad. We the tax payers were paying for our military to defend commercial interests abroad. Anything to do with your internal problems America? The neocons as they were in Britain at the time wanted everything to do with spending your tax money in their interests but nothing to do with contributing to the tax burden. In the times I am relating tax on the rich was at the level of in your money 5 cents on the dollar after they'd protected most of it from any taxation.
So you Fedralised to be stronger to share common goals and got by the first challenge upon that which was more about what the Civil War was about. Lincoln would have seen you as slaves rather than split the Union in his own words. He was right in a sense for your unity as a nation is the only thing that is going to prevent you becoming Europe in a different dress. It's the thing that gained you freedom from Europe.
This recent upsurge in State rather than Federal rights is something that caused something awful, and something you may never recover from. The fact that prior to the Volstead act the evangelists picked off the states one by one till they gained the necassary 38 states is something that will haunt you for ever. It placed a corruption in your country that horrifies the whole world. We've a right to complain we're suffering from that corruption now.
So back to the Federal deficit and how you are all rent appart. This deficit is one of the tools they are using to tear you apart. As it is now if the States votes for less and less Federal involvement you'll end up with a huge Federal army to continue big business' interests abroad whilst you depend upon ever decreasing State revenues to look after the citizens welfare and advancement. All Federal funds will service Imperialism.
Just to look where you might make savings did you know that servicemen on active duty are ordered not to do their own washing because Haliburton supplies that sevice. Whilst charging the American tax payer $90 per load, how on Earth do you justify that whilst taking the food out of the mouths of your own citizens?

reply to post by goldentorch


Two UCLA economists noted this back in 2004, read the end of this quote carefully.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Source

Anyone with a minor knowledge of economics could easily tell you the policies of allowing businesses, regardless of size, to collude along with allowing employees to demand up to 25% higher wages than the job should pay, which of course were offset by higher prices for consumers, would not help an economy – at all.

The real problem lies not with such things as unemployment insurance and social security, that was only relatively minor interventions in comparison to his other policies, and which came during his second term. What Roosevelt really did to harm our economy was following the Swope Plan which literally put the government in bed with big business. The NIRA and AAA were basically programs thought up by General Electric President Gerard Swope. President Hoover refused to actually go that far and with his refusal the US Chamber of Commerce threatened to endorse Roosevelt, I am not sure if they did though.

Had the NIRA never existed many economists critical of the New Deal predicted the Depression would have ended between 1934 and 1937 rather than during World War II. Also it is important to note that the large corporations which had suffered trust busting during the first decade of the century then became even larger, it was a great monopolization of business in America. That was the beginning of modern large international finance and banking.

It was actually not WWII that brought us out of the Great Depression rather the Conservative Coalition which came into power around 1945 dramatically cut spending, regulations, and changed the labor relations.

Read more about that here: Source

I think the Stimulus and rescue of the banks was an enormous mistake which prolonged this Great Recession. We are not out of it and will not be until our governments repeal what they have done since the onset of the Recession and reform the regulatory system.

Here is more information on the Swope Plan, TIMES 1931 - Source

reply to post by Misoir


Ta looking now, food for thought.
2

reply to post by Misoir


You're starting to impinge on the reason ATS exists and that is what caused the collapse in the first place and the work you cite ignores that element. Fair enough that is not what I asked.

TextHow do we know that regime uncertainty was responsible for the lack of recovery? Higgs brings several types of evidence to bear on the issue. First, business leaders who were polled expressed uncertainty about the entrepreneurial climate. Second, and more convincingly, Higgs shows that the risk premiums on long-term corporate bonds were substantial, suggesting fear of expropriation. A firm that wanted to borrow long-term had to pay much higher interest rates than firms that wanted to borrow short-term.

If we agree that the primary function of the stock market is to raise short term funds then Warburg and the rest of the Wall Street and especially the Feds destruction of those short term loans through creating the depression had everything to do with a lack of confidence in the market and the ease upon smaller and short term investors was necessary to create a greater confidence in the market. Short term funds are what innovation and bussiness advancement depends on. This piece defends the bain of capitalism which is the locked in risk free funds that would seem to dictate the markets now.

Higgs argues that during a crisis a "ratchet effect" produces net increases in government discretion that are not completely reversed after the crisis. Two things happen when government intervenes. First, the bureaucracy naturally tends to expand beyond its stated goals — mission creep.Text

Possibly inarguable. Except that examining the goals of that mission creep may teach us something about ourselves, in that the current mission creep in the American establishment is not for the benefit of anybody. Perhaps we can judge mission creep only when it has any philosophical basis at all.
Also in stating that I understand the ratios between productive units ie:private sector and non productive units ie:civil servant.
Also what about the mission creep of unfettered capitalism, do you see no equivalent dangers in that?

reply to post by Misoir


I have missed in part replying to your answer but to address it now. Looking from the outside the New Deal did a little to alleviate some unemployment. However it's funny you should mention GEC as we are back on thread for they are a multi national making billions in profit and paying zero or little to the American economy. How much do you think these firms that depend upon the infrastructure of a nation should pay towards that infgrastructures upkeep. Possibly including human resources.

reply to post by goldentorch

You're starting to impinge on the reason ATS exists

Could you explain what you mean by that?

As for the 'mission creep' of capitalism I do not see anything wrong with the objectives and overall premise that a moral people, common sense regulations, and education cannot correct.

reply to post by goldentorch


A large corporation like GE should pay around 12-17% of its overall yearly earnings in taxes. Not including an import tariff (which I would definitely resurrect) to make it a more patriotic business, whether or not it wants to be. Then you add in the other taxes it would have to pay like property, etc...

reply to post by Misoir


I knew I should have made that more clear, sorry. If you connect it to the paragraph after I meant the Fed conspiracy that makes virtually all economic theory invalid. Plus you do say there's problems that can be overcome by moral people and good practices, neither of which I don't think the World's ever seen.

reply to post by Misoir


I would take your word on the figures they should pay however we know they are not paying anything. Yet their schills in government say it's because somebody earning $75 grand a year isn't taxed even further or worse still somebody who's job they've outsourced to China needs a bowl of soup are the only reasons the country's in deficit whilst wilfully ignoring any responsibility on their part. Tjhey remind me of the wilful fathers not willing to pay maintainance that that area of politics so decry.

reply to post by goldentorch


Okay so we agree on the Fed subject. It is the main problem with our economy and always has been since its creation. It has caused all the panics, recessions, and depressions through its lack of ability to understand economics (that is me giving them benefit of the doubt). Charles A. Lindbergh, Murray Rothbard, and Louis T. McFadden have all been serious critics of the Fed.

You should read some of my threads on the subject.

"The greatest crime in history" - Congressional Records June 10, 1932
Charles Lindbergh, Sr. 1917 proposed articles of impeachment against Fed Board for conspiracy