Keynesian economics

[code1211]

How does one referee if there are no rules in the game?

In this little analogy, the government is the referee and makes the rules and chooses which rules to enforce and which ones to ignor.

It is exactly because the government has a win/lose interest in this game that the game is rigged. Everyone knows it. It's true in all government run places. To paraphrase "Animal Farm", It's more true in some places than in others, more true under some administrations than others.

It's too bad that the Big 0 is not a Republican so all of the Democrats who were screaming to high Heaven about the centralization of power under Bush could be loosing their minds now that it is actually happening under the Big 0.

Everything bad that Bush was doing, Obama is doing except multiplied by a factor fo 10.

 

[Supposn]

You're splitting hairs in an effort to wriggle free of an uncomfortable truth. The league makes the rules, the referees are league officials and involved in the process. What you are trying to say is that the executive, legislative and judicial branches are not even part of the same government because they serve different purposes of the same whole.

Big Fitz, You’re presuming to rewrite my messages? I did not write or imply that the purpose for separate branches of government is due to their contradictory purposes. They do not serve different purposes but they do perform essentially different tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

But as I said many times before, I don't often expect intellectual honesty from the left. With it, their ideals die like shadows exposed to sun.

Those unable to intelligently and explicitly discuss concepts are limited to shouting political labels.

 

[Big Fitz]

You're splitting hairs in an effort to wriggle free of an uncomfortable truth. The league makes the rules, the referees are league officials and involved in the process. What you are trying to say is that the executive, legislative and judicial branches are not even part of the same government because they serve different purposes of the same whole.

Big Fitz, You’re presuming to rewrite my messages? I did not write or imply that the purpose for separate branches of government is due to their contradictory purposes. They do not serve different purposes but they do perform essentially different tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

funny, I don't recall that post going towards you, but to truthdontmatter. or are you forgetting who you're posting as? None of that post was directed at you.

Please show where I rewrote your message.

 

[syrenn]

You're splitting hairs in an effort to wriggle free of an uncomfortable truth. The league makes the rules, the referees are league officials and involved in the process. What you are trying to say is that the executive, legislative and judicial branches are not even part of the same government because they serve different purposes of the same whole.

Big Fitz, You’re presuming to rewrite my messages? I did not write or imply that the purpose for separate branches of government is due to their contradictory purposes. They do not serve different purposes but they do perform essentially different tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

You never heard of checks and balances? They are split into three so that no one branch is ALL powerful.

 

[Yukon.]

Strenn,

The US system was desigbned to enusre the President had all of the authority of an English King or Queen. The only difference is that in the US the King/Queen is elected every 4 years and in the UK it is by birth.

Of course most if not all of you will say I'm wrong in my assertion however I can assure you that I am absolutely correct.

 

[Big Fitz]

The US system was desigbned to enusre the President had all of the authority of an English King or Queen.

No. that is patently false. The executive branch was designed to be the enforcement arm of the government, but constrained by the enumerated powers doctrine. Where did you learn such bullshit? Even public schools don't teach something so wrong. Go back and take 4th grade social studies or watch "Schoolhouse Rock". You're in desperate need of it.

 

[editec]

Generally, governments' economic stimuli are politically popular and their attempts to dampen their economies are unpopular.

Generally true.

Attempts to dampen the economy being the much much less politically popular of the two, of course.

Both Keynesian and other economic philosophies must deal with occurrences of “overheated” economies.

Or, with occurences of underheated economies.

Government’s TEMPORARY expenditures for stimulus programs during economic recession or depression stress are popular.

With some of us.... particularly those who directly benefit from these stumulus programs.

When stimulus dollars are spent for needs that are likely in the future to increase and their amounts (due to currency inflation) are additionally more likely to increase, they are both economically and politically sensible.

There's the debate, isn't it?

Some would suggest that it is not economically sensible.

They posit that such investments cost society more than they're worth.

They note that the opportunity costs of such government interventions, rather than investment on the private sector, is also high.

I think both those arguments have merit, actually.

They do not, however, lead me to the conclusion that the government ought to do nothing.

At such economically stressful times TEMPORARY increased federal spending. grants or loans for increased durations of unemployment insurance, and sustaining necessary federal, state or local public services, (i.e. the general physical and social welfare of our nation) within the nation’s financial capabilities, are (in my opinion) economically justifiable.

That's the theory.

I'm incline to agree, relunctantly, that it falls to the government to do something.

I naturally doubt it will do something entirely to my liking.

A problem arises when public funds or credit is risked for loans, (particularly loans directly or indirectly for non-government entities) are due to their extent of risk or other attributes of the loans to be intrinsically less justified.

Yup.

Dare dare call it corruption, of course.

The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”. USA’s laws and regulations are obviously inadequate.

Of late, that is true, the laws and the application of those laws has been less than stellar.

Its the age of the nod and a wink monopoly, actually.

Now, when did our anti-monoply laws so drastically change?

During that period of anti-government, perhaps?

The lack of governments’ explicitly drafted, equally and diligently enforced regulations are “not the solution, but rather the cause of our problems”.

We changed the laws concerning monopolies.

And regulations were also not diliegently enforced.

We can do better.

 

[Yukon.]

Bi Fitz,

You are wrong my friend. The President actually has more power than a King/Queen. Power has been expanded by President's over the years.

 

[Truthmatters]

declaring victory again huh?



"They should only be concerned about is if someone is being defrauded, harmed or cheated. Everything else is to be left to the free market. And if all you do is stick to regulation as our founding father's intended (James Madison among others vetoed MANY charity bills) expenses are small, the people have money to spend and improve their lives and busybodies have fewer avenues in which to fuck with people they have no business fucking with."

How in the fuck can 2000 year old laws police a market that was not in exsistance when they wrote the regulations they did write.

This is why they left us a system that could grow with the needs of the people.

They would laugh in your face.

You've said nothing to disprove the accuracy of my analogy. Your claims are baseless.

How in the fuck can 2000 year old laws police a market that was not in exsistance when they wrote the regulations they did write.

Oh I don't know.... why do the laws of physics still work? They're old and obsolete, I want new ones where I can fly. Quit being an obstinate fool.

This is why they left us a system that could grow with the needs of the people.

Non germane irrelevant statement. Has no bearing on the conversation unless you'd like to provide a LOT of context.

They would laugh in your face.

Since you made NO logical sense, who would laugh and about what? The only village idiot I see here right now is you trying to confuse a very easy subject because it doesn't mesh what you think the world SHOULD be, not what it really is. But newsflash... you and your bloated narcissism don't get to deign what reality is.

You are bat shit crazy.

You clearly said the government should only referee.

Trying to mask what you said with these stupid insults gains you nothing.

Why do you refuse to understand in the US we are the government?

 

[Big Fitz]

Bi Fitz,

You are wrong my friend. The President actually has more power than a King/Queen. Power has been expanded by President's over the years.

Uh no. Take a remedial civics course. Here. I'll spot you one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLQg7G3hkGY]YouTube - School House Rock - Three Ring Government (America Rock)[/ame]

Obviously this is more American civics than you ever learned. We'll start you off small.

 

[Truthmatters]

Big Fritz =big fail

 

[Big Fitz]

You are bat shit crazy.

I'll start a thread and let people vote on that between us. Far as I can tell, I've yet to meet someone who doesn't believe that of you.

You clearly said the government should only referee.

I did. Make sure the rules are followed, and everyone is treated equally, and let the winners win and the losers lose. Nobody likes a crooked referee who decides to shape the game for the gambling he's doing on the side.

Trying to mask what you said with these stupid insults gains you nothing.

You've said nothing of import or intelligence the entire thread. I don't have much to work with. Figured maybe insults will fire a neuron in that gourd you have on top of your neck. Is a scarecrow somewhere missing it's head?

Why do you refuse to understand in the US we are the government?

You don't know what a representative republic is, do you. I'd love to try and hold an intelligent conversation with you, but you just aren't able to keep up your end.

 

[Truthmatters]

jesus you are an idiot fritz

 

[Truthmatters]

The purpose of anti-trust or monopoly or oligopoly laws and regulations is to provide more level playing fields for all entities and no non-government entity should ever be permitted to grow “to big to be permitted to fail”.

This bit in your mostly incoherent post caught my eye.

Why do you limit "Too Big To Fail" to only non-government entities. Why should Government (eg, ObamaCare) or Government Sponsored Entities (yes, I am thinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) be allowed to grow "to big to be permitted to fail" (sic)?

Government should be prevented from competing with both charitable giving as well as any activity of the private sector.

Government is the personification of force, and therefore should be prevented from playing in the game but instead restricted to being only the referee. The instant the referee takes sides, a fair game i impossible and no player can win... save the referee who gains all.

You said it fool



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/referee


referee [ˌrɛfəˈriː]
n
1. a person to whom reference is made, esp for an opinion, information, or a decision
2. (General Sporting Terms) the umpire or judge in any of various sports, esp football and boxing, responsible for ensuring fair play according to the rules
3. a person who is willing to testify to the character or capabilities of someone

 

[Big Fitz]

DO you have an undiagnosed tumor or something?

What is your fucking point?

 

[Truthmatters]

What was your point fool?

You said government should ONLY be a referee.

Why do you hate the government our founding fathers left us?

 

[Truthmatters]

If they are ONLY refereeing who is making the laws you nitwitt?

 

[24/7]

Apparently Sen. Barney Frank wields the most power. He is responsible for single-handedly destroying the American economy with his 'affordable housing' programs that he and his 'boy toy' Herb Moses (who worked at Fannie Mae) instituted.

 

[Truthmatters]

Apparently Sen. Barney Frank wields the most power. He is responsible for single-handedly destroying the American economy with his 'affordable housing' programs that he and his 'boy toy' Herb Moses (who worked at Fannie Mae) instituted.

You are a partisan hack