Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Founding Fathers envisioned government involvement with commerce.
'The general view, discernible in contemporaneous literature, was that the responsibility of government should involve enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social usefulness of all economic activity. It is quite proper, said Bordley, for individuals to choose for themselves how they will apply their labor and their intelligence in production. But it does not follow from this that legislators and men of influence are freed from all responsibility for giving direction to the course of national economic development. They must, for instance, discountenance the production of unnecessary commodities of luxury when common sense indicates the need for food and other essentials. Lawmakers can fulfill their functions properly only when they become benefactors to the publick; in new countries they must safeguard agriculture and commerce, encourage immigration, and promote manufactures. Admittedly, liberty is one of the most important blessings which men possess, but the idea that liberty is synonymous with complete freedom from restraint is a most unwise, mistaken apprehension. True liberty demands a system of legislation that will lead all members of society to unite their exertions for the public welfare. It should therefore be the policy of government to aid and foster certain activities or kinds of business that strengthen a nation, even as it should be the duty of government to repress those fashions, habits, and practices, which tend to weaken, impoverish, and corrupt the people.
From; Johnson, E.A.J.-The Foundations of American Economic Freedom: Government and Enterprise in the Age of Washington
Actually the economic system at the founding was capitalist. The commerce clause was designed to encourage it by promoting free trade among the states which had broken down under the Articles. There was nothing in their writings or in the actions after their Constitution was adopted to suggested otherwise. Our founders were not socialists.
"Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. "
Government needs to get out of the way regardless.One thing missing from the title here...
Progressive Economics = Poverty =Total Control By Government
Let's see. Lowest taxes on corporations with enough loopholes to lower taxes down to near nothing. Lowest taxes on the wealthy in history. Capital Gains taxes the lowest in history. So much for progressive ecomonics.
Yet, flat wages for thirty years. A record low of the National Income for working Americans. Between 2000-2010 almost as many jobs shipped offshore as created domestically.
During those thirty years, 20 years of conservative administrations, 14 years of conservative rule of Congress. So much for progressive government control.
Regarding "poverty". There is plenty of blame to go around, both by conservatives and liberals and let's not forget how much wealth transferred up wards and who exactly lost their wealth.
Government needs to get out of the way regardless.Let's see. Lowest taxes on corporations with enough loopholes to lower taxes down to near nothing. Lowest taxes on the wealthy in history. Capital Gains taxes the lowest in history. So much for progressive ecomonics.
Yet, flat wages for thirty years. A record low of the National Income for working Americans. Between 2000-2010 almost as many jobs shipped offshore as created domestically.
During those thirty years, 20 years of conservative administrations, 14 years of conservative rule of Congress. So much for progressive government control.
Regarding "poverty". There is plenty of blame to go around, both by conservatives and liberals and let's not forget how much wealth transferred up wards and who exactly lost their wealth.
You would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?
This is a fair question because we either want a role for government or we want anarchy. The same goes for our choice of roll for the markets --do we want people to have any say over how they spend their money or sell their possisions or does the government have complete control over who buys which food, house, and medical insurance.You would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?Government needs to get out of the way regardless....let's not forget how much wealth transferred up wards and who exactly lost their wealth.
Socialist/Progressive Economics will always result in failure.
You can't figure out what rotten meat looks like? Do you have a local butcher? He thrives by making customers happy...happy....happy...that's Free Markets at workYou would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?Government needs to get out of the way regardless.
In case you haven't noticed, there is a 100% economic fail rate in Progressive, re-distributive economics. It has failed everywhere its been tried, it has failed every single time its been tried. It's such an abject failure that even real Communists in China and Vietnam have recognized it as such and have openly embraced Free Markets as a path to prosperity.
I came across the following chart that clearly shows how Progressive (Socialist, Marxist) economics fails even in America. Since the "War on Poverty" (the exit strategy seems to be: we won't stop fighting until every American is in poverty). You can clearly see how destructive Progressive economics is. The only respite was during the Reagan boom and then, we had the misfortune to elect a "Compassionate Conservative" who blew the best chance to turn us away from the destructive path Progressive have put us on.
Running 'Cause I Can't Fly: Porter Stansberry, "The Corruption of America"
Thoughts? Comments?
I skimmed it but it doesn't appear to be very substantive. I doubt many people would believe we are no better off than we were in 1980.
The methodology assumes it has a better calculation of purchasing power by using commodities as a barometer for "real" value of currencies. That, of course, is ridiculous, because if you study commodities you know that commodity markets go through long booms and busts. Commodities as a group barely earn any real return over many decades. However, they can have 10-20 year structural bull and bear markets. It also makes the assumption of no changes in fundamental supply and demand, which you'd have to isolate from the monetary affects. That's silly. China sucks up something like half of the world's iron ore, up about 10x from a decade ago. Chinese oil consumption has risen from 4 million barrels a day to 8 million in a decade. Of course, that has an enormous affect on the price of oil. So its hard to take seriously.
Also, they makes some very dubious statements. For example, the authors say
Consider, for example, annual sales of automobiles. Auto sales peaked in 1985 (11 million) and have been declining at a fairly steady rate since 1999. In 2009, Americans bought just 5.4 million passenger cars.
But that excludes leases and light truck sales. If you include both, there were 14.6 million sales and leases, which is the same as 1990 but down from 20 million a few years earlier, the decline occurring because of the deepest economic downturn in 80 years. This isn't permanent. It is cyclical.
RITA | BTS | Table 1-17: New and Used Passenger Car Sales and Leases
So the methodology is bad and its best to dismiss it.
You can't figure out what rotten meat looks like? Do you have a local butcher? He thrives by making customers happy...happy....happy...that's Free Markets at workYou would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?
So then Free Markets would permit customers to sue businesses for faulty, shoddy, negligent, and criminal behavior.
The author picked sales of new cars specifically because it is indicative of the wealth of the middle class. And, of course your reflexive defense of Statism is duly noted once again. Feel free to hide the decline of the wealth of the middle class all you want
The author picked sales of new cars specifically because it is indicative of the wealth of the middle class. And, of course your reflexive defense of Statism is duly noted once again. Feel free to hide the decline of the wealth of the middle class all you want
No, I don't believe you didn't understand his argument (that leases and sales of light trucks should be included in "car sales"). I don't believe that.
You're lying. Again.
I understood his argument quite well. The American middle class didn't lease in 1965 neither did they own small trucks...it's apple and oranges
Socialist/Progressive Economics will always result in failure.
OK, I'm going to quit asking you for definitions and just provide some. Your use of that / tells me you are conflating classical socialism with progressive economics, "Euro-socialism," or social democracy. Fine. In that case, you've stated a falsehood.
The U.S. economy was at its strongest BY FAR when it practiced progressive economics between 1940 and 1980. By more than two to one, these four decades of our economic history outperformed both the period before we adopted progressive economics and the time from 1980 to the present after we abandoned it.
Today, the world's strongest economies, almost without exception, are all social democracies. That includes the economies of the EU which right-wingers like to tell us are failing (they're not), Japan, Canada, Australia, and non-EU advanced European countries such as Switzerland.
The "socialist" economies that have failed in history have all been, not progressive economies, but bureaucratic top-down planned-economy socialist economies governed by non-democratic governments, such as the Soviet Union and its satellites, China under Mao, etc. The equating of this sort of economy with progressive economics is sheer nonsense.
Progressive economics is based in fact. Conservative economics, as this post and others on this thread show, is based purely in ideology and makes no reference to facts, which tend to be inconvenient.
Government needs to get out of the way regardless.
You would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?
You can't figure out what rotten meat looks like?
Do you have a local butcher? He thrives by making customers happy...happy....happy...that's Free Markets at work
If a $1 trillion deficit -driven primarily by the socialistic welfare/entitlement state- a $13 trillion federal debt, scores-cum-hundreds of trillions in unfunded promises to pay, a worthless fiat currency on the precipice of going hyper-inflationary, involvement in two world wars, numerous military interventionist "police actions" and military bases in over 130 nations, is the success of Oskar Lange-esqe "progressive" economic central control, I don't want to see what failure looks like.Socialist/Progressive Economics will always result in failure.
OK, I'm going to quit asking you for definitions and just provide some. Your use of that / tells me you are conflating classical socialism with progressive economics, "Euro-socialism," or social democracy. Fine. In that case, you've stated a falsehood.
The U.S. economy was at its strongest BY FAR when it practiced progressive economics between 1940 and 1980. By more than two to one, these four decades of our economic history outperformed both the period before we adopted progressive economics and the time from 1980 to the present after we abandoned it.
Today, the world's strongest economies, almost without exception, are all social democracies. That includes the economies of the EU which right-wingers like to tell us are failing (they're not), Japan, Canada, Australia, and non-EU advanced European countries such as Switzerland.
The "socialist" economies that have failed in history have all been, not progressive economies, but bureaucratic top-down planned-economy socialist economies governed by non-democratic governments, such as the Soviet Union and its satellites, China under Mao, etc. The equating of this sort of economy with progressive economics is sheer nonsense.
Progressive economics is based in fact. Conservative economics, as this post and others on this thread show, is based purely in ideology and makes no reference to facts, which tend to be inconvenient.
If a $1 trillion deficit -driven primarily by the socialistic welfare/entitlement state- a $13 trillion federal debt, scores-cum-hundreds of trillions in unfunded promises to pay, a worthless fiat currency on the precipice of going hyper-inflationary, involvement in two world wars, numerous military interventionist "police actions" and military bases in over 130 nations, is the success of Oskar Lange-esqe "progressive" economic central control, I don't want to see what failure looks like.
Equality for all means poverty for all, which predates a collapse
So perhaps you can point out to us examples of economies that have achieved "equality for all" followed by a collapse?
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
