Occupy all the places!
It just shows their faith in flawed Keynesian economics because it misinterprets the role of consumer spending. While consumer spending is in itself a good thing; consumer spending isn't the CAUSE of prosperity, it's a symptom/effect of prosperity.
Boosting consumer spending only alters the allocation of the GDP. Where investments and/or govtment spending reduce as a share and consumption increases, but there's no overall increase.
When you increase GDI, Gross Domestic Income, through things like lower tax rates, less gov't spending, deregulation, good monetary policy, etc., you automatically increase GDP.
By artifically boosting consumption at the expense of investments, the economy 1. does not get stimulated (proven time and time agian) and 2. slows future economic output (as proven again by Bush/Obama - public sector is increasing much faster than private).
If you want growth, produce more income, but not by diverting exsisting income to consumption.
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production." -Adam Smith 1776
Last edited by Braineack; Nov 29, 2011 at 09:50 AM.
Reply
0
0
But you forgot a few of the most important tenants of modern Liberalism.
Feeling like what you are doing the right thing is far more important than actually doing the right thing.
Logic must in every case be tempered by the influence of emotion.
When the presentation of logic interferes with a conclusion drawn by emotion, the presenter is at fault and therefore the logic is invalid.
Feeling like what you are doing the right thing is far more important than actually doing the right thing.
Logic must in every case be tempered by the influence of emotion.
When the presentation of logic interferes with a conclusion drawn by emotion, the presenter is at fault and therefore the logic is invalid.
Reply
0
0
That's more about Kant's engrained liberal "ethics." Where he says that "duty" is virture and therefore self-interest is ammoral.
It was acutally a class I took in college, "Ethics in journalism," where Kant was taught as God's divine word. That's about the time I realized I was a conservative (due to this class and most others--backfire?). Sad, but I only assume the rest of the class were probably sucessfully indoctrinated.
But yeah, the combo of Keynes' economics and Kant's ethics, you are face-to-face with today's modern regressive liberal.
It was acutally a class I took in college, "Ethics in journalism," where Kant was taught as God's divine word. That's about the time I realized I was a conservative (due to this class and most others--backfire?). Sad, but I only assume the rest of the class were probably sucessfully indoctrinated.
But yeah, the combo of Keynes' economics and Kant's ethics, you are face-to-face with today's modern regressive liberal.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
http://occupywallst.org/article/occu...eet-goes-home/ here they go again
Reply
0
0
It scares me to see this stuff going on. Reminds me of the story's my parents tell me of why they left their country to come to the US. They tell me stories of how guerrillas were fighting because they wanted what "was rightfully" theirs, and how they would "redistribute" what they wanted by force.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Out of curiosity, what was "their country"?
My own family history is somewhat interesting. My grandfather and his family fled from Spain to Cuba just before the civil war. My father moved back to Spain just prior to Castro's movement, after which his brothers came to the US and eventually settled in Puerto Rico. He eventually immigrated to the mainland and wound up in Ohio of all places,
My own family history is somewhat interesting. My grandfather and his family fled from Spain to Cuba just before the civil war. My father moved back to Spain just prior to Castro's movement, after which his brothers came to the US and eventually settled in Puerto Rico. He eventually immigrated to the mainland and wound up in Ohio of all places,
Reply
0
0
