Where exactly can you see over-regulation? Because from the early 80s I can only see massive de-regulation.
Regulations have increased since the Clinton administration, but even more swiftly, by about 7.5% since the beginning of the Obama Administration.
The Federal Register is at it's record longest of 80,000 pages. It has never been this long in history.
Keep in mind, I think self-regulating is good, but that often comes from the demands of the consumer, not the force of the government.
And what does “excessive spending on foreign involvement” mean? Things like the war in Iraq? If so, I agree. Although only partially, because I think you’re destroying your own both previous and later argument that Fed prints out money from thin air.
Indeed, between the wars, the droning, the foreign aid, the occupancies, this is what I meant by "foreign involvement." We cannot afford any of this. Though I don't see how this destroys my arguments regarding the Fed. The Fed is a private/public central bank that permits govt. to use fiat in replacement of sound money (gold, silver, etc.). Let's say the govt. needs money for war and they don't have enough, they can simply have it printed up which will inflate and stretch the dollar, but their needs will be met.
If you're curious of how the the Fed works and how it empowers war and such, the best books I can recommend are
End The Fed by Ron Paul,
Meltdown by Thomas Woods,
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, and
The Case Against The Fed by Murray Rothbard.
However, I am tempted to have the Arab oil in the hands of Americans, rather than Arabs. And I’m not even an American. But that’s a convenient thing for me - not very Christian.
I think more seeking for resources is good, but only under peaceful trade. It can be achieved.
And I find it curious that within that collection of arguments you couldn’t find place for the actual reason, in my view, for the crisis. Which is the same reason as always: greed.
Of course greed, but on who's part? The private sector or the public sector?
I’m not sure on what grounds exactly you can’t see the end of capitalism, because I, and quite many others, can see it. Moreover, it’s not that this will happen sometime soon - it already happened.
It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean we are now living in a CRONY-capitalist society, then yes--I agree with that. If you mean no one wants voluntary trade to exist anymore, then I disagree with that. I certainly want voluntary trade.
Not surprising, as since the 1930s America’s money are no longer America’s money. They are all, instead, in private hands: Fed.
That's the part that's worse. The American govt. is still paying off WWI -- that's how in debt the country is. But even though the country is that much in debt, the govt. still gives bailouts. This is precisely my point. The govt. only gets its money by the private sector. And the private sector is reduced to the Fed's monopoly on currency. With all of these actions taking place, this robs from the people and future generations.
And he was right about this…
Indeed, we don't live forever, but I think you're missing the context of his statement. When he said this, this was in response to saving up, paying off debts, being frugal, etc. Keynes believed that saving was evil. He even believe that not only the govt. should spend every dime, but even individuals should spend every dime. This is Keynesian Economics in a nutshell--spend it all and stick future generations with the bill.
Most people, even economically illiterate people, have a sense that it's a bad idea to spend everything in case of an emergency or what have you. Keynesianism is counter-intuitive.
I entirely agree. But that doesn’t matter, because it will never happen anyway.
Maybe, but maybe not. The good news is people are actually very verbal about it now. It was never even discussed in past years. More and more people are waking up to the Fed's mischief.
But that’s a long term solution. What I meant by solution to the 2008 moment is how would you have personally responded back in 2008 (or even 2007)? How would you have solved the banking problem: would you have let all those banks go broke? How many of them? Do you disagree with the claims that that would have broken the entire U.S. economy - and therefore, the world economy? Not even China would stand in such a wake.
I see. The way I would have responded is I would have let the banks fail. 1) The public is not responsible for the poor actions of someone else. 2) Cronyism is unconstitutional, immoral, and destructive. 3) A bank or corporation should have the incentive to succeed and make good decisions on their part. If they can potentially be bailed out due to what they've done, then their incentives dissolve.
But let's say Bank X fails and they do not get bailed out, very shortly after, Bank Y will become the heavy hitter and will be the go-to place for the consumer.
Look, I'm not suggesting this is a great situation, but the alternative (bailing out) is much more damaging to the people and it undermines the invisible hand of capitalism (as coined by Adam Smith).
Well, I am personally not aware of a single country that borrowed from IMF or received WB funds that haven’t also borrowed funds from private banks. So…
The real purpose of the IMF and WB is to channel tax dollars to connected corporations. The huge multinational banks and corporations in specifically love the IMF, as both used IMF funds -- taxpayer funds -- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis in the 90s.
The IMF money comes from U.S. Congress? I thought all participant countries also give funds. In other words, it’s a paid membership.
Yes, it's not exclusively the US Congress, but is MOSTLY comes from Congressional participation.
That’s exactly what I was asking. And no, I didn’t change the subject, since the subject was you claiming this:
I don't think you meant to change the subject, but this is two different things. One is in regards to domestic policy regarding kids and work -- the other is regarding foreign issues. The latter would bring in another question; should the US govt. get involved or not?
Keep in mind, just because I don't want the govt. involved doesn't mean I don't think private charity should get involved. Especially we as Christians should be aware of this.
So, do you really believe that child labor is consistent in countries like Germany – instead of Third World?
I'm misunderstanding your question -- can you rephrase it? Sorry, it's my fault for not understanding, not yours.
I understand your right (and mine) to but an electronic gadget (or a pair of shows, or a TV, etcetera) with as little money as possible. But when our save on the money means paying somebody overseas with less than 1 USD per hour (or is it per day?), then both you and I, let alone as Christians, have a problem. A huge one. So whenever all of us turn our TV on let’s think about that for a second: somebody had to starve so that we would enjoy a match or movie by paying 400 USD instead of 2000 or so.
In my view, mankind has utterly failed. Which is expected, once one reads the Bible.
This gets into even more questions like the case for outsourcing, the regulating of private charities, etc. etc. However, if you think one has to spend a lot more in order to help someone else via a transaction, this is exactly what the Broken Window Fallacy is addressing.
This is one of the arguments socialism makes to justify itself, but the problem is it doesn't increase the value of living for some, it decreases the value of living for everyone.
And yes, mankind has failed -- we are stained with sin.
I think your questions are absolutely valid ones, especially since the narrative tends to paint the free market and Austrian Economics as something immoral and wrong, but I have to disagree with the narrative. I wouldn't side with Austrian Economic policies if they in fact hurt the common good of the people.
You're asking absolutely fair questions, and I commend you for that.
I came here for theology and faith 