The problem with Fiscal Liberalism is the efficiency of money going to use that benefits the greatest possible number of the masses.
When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.
Unfortunately, we have two schools of moronic thought labeling Fiscal Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism as being a binary only option in life.
As a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] I'm appalled we don't have central canals to connect the coasts, manage water tables against hurricanes, droughts and tornado hopping. Instead, we fork over $100 Billion into insurance payouts [back before 2001] and it's growing with each year, and no solution to stem the ignorance.
The rails are the same--we should lead and move the bulk of our workforce via lightrails in major metropolitan regions, move > 80% of the bulk cargo via train and use mid-size trucking for the "last mile."
We are as inefficient with money as one could possibly fathom, whether we label ourselves Fiscal Liberal or Fiscal Conservatives.
This banter between Social Programs and Military Programs spirals us into ideology and division.
Hopefully, Barack spits on both sides and leads how rebuilding the foundation will make it most advantageous for entrepreneurship to flourish. No company wants to lay the fiber, build the rails and carve the canals.
They want to manage and extend services from those foundations--two areas the government doesn't want to do.
Its unfortunate the conversation appears to have died, but thanks for the intelligent post!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The problem with Fiscal Liberalism is the efficiency of money going to use that benefits the greatest possible number of the masses.
When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.
Unfortunately, we have two schools of moronic thought labeling Fiscal Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism as being a binary only option in life.
As a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] I'm appalled we don't have central canals to connect the coasts, manage water tables against hurricanes, droughts and tornado hopping. Instead, we fork over $100 Billion into insurance payouts [back before 2001] and it's growing with each year, and no solution to stem the ignorance.
The rails are the same--we should lead and move the bulk of our workforce via lightrails in major metropolitan regions, move > 80% of the bulk cargo via train and use mid-size trucking for the "last mile."
We are as inefficient with money as one could possibly fathom, whether we label ourselves Fiscal Liberal or Fiscal Conservatives.
This banter between Social Programs and Military Programs spirals us into ideology and division.
Hopefully, Barack spits on both sides and leads how rebuilding the foundation will make it most advantageous for entrepreneurship to flourish. No company wants to lay the fiber, build the rails and carve the canals.
They want to manage and extend services from those foundations--two areas the government doesn't want to do.
The problem with Fiscal Liberalism is the efficiency of money going to use that benefits the greatest possible number of the masses.
When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.
Loved your post.
I would like to add that the main problem with the economy is a simple problem. Mainly, when it comes down to the basiscs, it's all about "Production."
It's the lack of production that kills an economy. Nothing else. Communism by definition kills production, so does Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing.
Get the production up and the economy will improve.
Use "bail out's" (moving money around = no production) and the economy suffers even more.
What we need to do is to start producing. Without production we can't sustain our society. It doesn't much matter what we produce as long as we produce.
... Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing ...
That would be only a certain "kind" of capitalism? The worst kind, perhaps? Forgive me for being to simplistic, but the basic principle of capitalism is quite sound. It's the runaway insane shuffling-money-around capitalism so horribly perpetrated in the US, UK and other financial centres that really makes capitalism look bad. <again, too tired to make any useful comment, actually... and I've probably missed whatever the heck else is going on in this thread.>
LOLZ @ Shelton Ehrlich's conservative crybaby antics. Apple has always been a liberal leaning company so go grab your toys and go play elsewhere if you don't like it.
I would like to add that the main problem with the economy is a simple problem. Mainly, when it comes down to the basiscs, it's all about "Production."
It's the lack of production that kills an economy. Nothing else. Communism by definition kills production, so does Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing.
Get the production up and the economy will improve.
Use "bail out's" (moving money around = no production) and the economy suffers even more.
What we need to do is to start producing. Without production we can't sustain our society. It doesn't much matter what we produce as long as we produce.
The economy works by balancing supply and demand, production and consumption. Japan was the great "Producer," looked to dominate the whole Pacific and Asia and look what happened to it - it fell off the map for a while.
Also communism by definition does NOT kill production - have you checked out the gnp of that place called China lately? It kills some individual economic expression and limits the benefits of the economically successful. It is the centralized govt control that is terrible and that occurs under dictators, not communists.
Our current economy is not just the result of Clinton and Bush policies, it is the natural result of Reaganomics (neo-liberal economics) in which the supply side is juiced rather than the demand side. That works for a while, but then at some point demand at the margins falls and the rich don't buy enough to keep things going. Supply-side economics doesn't work if no one is buying what the producers are supplying. Demand drives the free market, not the producers.
Once you hold an equilibrium where the consumers have the jobs to also be producers, then things go well, but de-regulated Reaganomics will always produce banks that are too big to fail and corporations that are too big to fail and dependency upon fuel that is too easy to buy and financial instruments that are too abstract to be linked to practical market forces, especially with a citizenry that needs education and health care that increases by 10x the rate of salary growth.
Comments
When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.
Unfortunately, we have two schools of moronic thought labeling Fiscal Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism as being a binary only option in life.
As a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] I'm appalled we don't have central canals to connect the coasts, manage water tables against hurricanes, droughts and tornado hopping. Instead, we fork over $100 Billion into insurance payouts [back before 2001] and it's growing with each year, and no solution to stem the ignorance.
The rails are the same--we should lead and move the bulk of our workforce via lightrails in major metropolitan regions, move > 80% of the bulk cargo via train and use mid-size trucking for the "last mile."
We are as inefficient with money as one could possibly fathom, whether we label ourselves Fiscal Liberal or Fiscal Conservatives.
This banter between Social Programs and Military Programs spirals us into ideology and division.
Hopefully, Barack spits on both sides and leads how rebuilding the foundation will make it most advantageous for entrepreneurship to flourish. No company wants to lay the fiber, build the rails and carve the canals.
They want to manage and extend services from those foundations--two areas the government doesn't want to do.
... I'm appalled we don't have central canals to connect the coasts...
I've actually never heard about this idea before, but please do explain further. Very intriguing.
Sounds good to me!
Now, when's that updated Mac mini coming out?
Jimzip
Probably when the polar icecaps melt completely.
Probably when the polar icecaps melt completely.
(Trying to make an Al Gore joke, who is on Apple's board of directors, but can't think of one. Haven't slept since Friday.
The problem with Fiscal Liberalism is the efficiency of money going to use that benefits the greatest possible number of the masses.
When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.
Unfortunately, we have two schools of moronic thought labeling Fiscal Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism as being a binary only option in life.
As a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] I'm appalled we don't have central canals to connect the coasts, manage water tables against hurricanes, droughts and tornado hopping. Instead, we fork over $100 Billion into insurance payouts [back before 2001] and it's growing with each year, and no solution to stem the ignorance.
The rails are the same--we should lead and move the bulk of our workforce via lightrails in major metropolitan regions, move > 80% of the bulk cargo via train and use mid-size trucking for the "last mile."
We are as inefficient with money as one could possibly fathom, whether we label ourselves Fiscal Liberal or Fiscal Conservatives.
This banter between Social Programs and Military Programs spirals us into ideology and division.
Hopefully, Barack spits on both sides and leads how rebuilding the foundation will make it most advantageous for entrepreneurship to flourish. No company wants to lay the fiber, build the rails and carve the canals.
They want to manage and extend services from those foundations--two areas the government doesn't want to do.
The problem with Fiscal Liberalism is the efficiency of money going to use that benefits the greatest possible number of the masses.
When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.
Loved your post.
I would like to add that the main problem with the economy is a simple problem. Mainly, when it comes down to the basiscs, it's all about "Production."
It's the lack of production that kills an economy. Nothing else. Communism by definition kills production, so does Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing.
Get the production up and the economy will improve.
Use "bail out's" (moving money around = no production) and the economy suffers even more.
What we need to do is to start producing. Without production we can't sustain our society. It doesn't much matter what we produce as long as we produce.
Example: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/fea...ugal081020.wmv
The amount of production that the US is importing is mind-blowing.
... Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing ...
That would be only a certain "kind" of capitalism? The worst kind, perhaps?
Democratic socialism FTMFW!!
I would like to add that the main problem with the economy is a simple problem. Mainly, when it comes down to the basiscs, it's all about "Production."
It's the lack of production that kills an economy. Nothing else. Communism by definition kills production, so does Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing.
Get the production up and the economy will improve.
Use "bail out's" (moving money around = no production) and the economy suffers even more.
What we need to do is to start producing. Without production we can't sustain our society. It doesn't much matter what we produce as long as we produce.
The economy works by balancing supply and demand, production and consumption. Japan was the great "Producer," looked to dominate the whole Pacific and Asia and look what happened to it - it fell off the map for a while.
Also communism by definition does NOT kill production - have you checked out the gnp of that place called China lately? It kills some individual economic expression and limits the benefits of the economically successful. It is the centralized govt control that is terrible and that occurs under dictators, not communists.
Our current economy is not just the result of Clinton and Bush policies, it is the natural result of Reaganomics (neo-liberal economics) in which the supply side is juiced rather than the demand side. That works for a while, but then at some point demand at the margins falls and the rich don't buy enough to keep things going. Supply-side economics doesn't work if no one is buying what the producers are supplying. Demand drives the free market, not the producers.
Once you hold an equilibrium where the consumers have the jobs to also be producers, then things go well, but de-regulated Reaganomics will always produce banks that are too big to fail and corporations that are too big to fail and dependency upon fuel that is too easy to buy and financial instruments that are too abstract to be linked to practical market forces, especially with a citizenry that needs education and health care that increases by 10x the rate of salary growth.
Reaganomics was always unsustainable.