Day in the life of a typical Democrat

You left off a few very important events like the murder of Dr. King which set this nation back. LBJs Great Society which essentially destroyed the black family, and gave rise to Baby Daddies who take no responsibility. The rise in drug use and the Gangsta society, the full implications of which are yet to be experienced. By far the worst thing to happen to America is white liberals. They don't understand anything they create, thinking they are doing good, but they don't understand a thing about human nature. Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

FNF, Au contraire, mon frère. By far the worst thing to happen to America is conservatives who think anything they create is the be all end all and there can be no more progress, thinking that the only good is good for themselves, and they only focus on the darker sides of human nature not recognizing all the good that CAN be done if we would just try a bit more. Conservatives think they know all there is to know about human nature and don't think any more good can be done.

What I don't understand about conservatives is that they celebrate risk taking in business... to make a profit, but they revile risk taking in society to make a better society.....to make a better life for people. They celebrate organization in business but seem to revile it for working people (unions) and society (laws and regulations). Businesses are in essence little monarchies and since conservatives seem to love business and detest the interchange and testing of ideas and policy in democracy, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that they actually hate democracy and are secretly monarchists.

Almost everything that conservatives now want to "conserve" was once considered progressive or even radical (like democracy or free markets), but once it became proven and accepted those same conservative adopted those ideas but continue to believe that no further progress can be made and most change is bad.

Even the "nuclear" family is a modern concept. For most of human history there was no concept of mother, father and 2.3 kids apart from everything else. There was the extended family and the clan/tribe.

The modern conception of sex, sexuality and procreation is essentially Victorian and anyone who thinks it is Biblical (other than cherry picked and translated) is just ignoring anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions. Just the fact that you are reading this on a 'ho board goes to prove that socially accepted conventions are really just a lie.

I didn't see a finished, complete concept there AUX. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Ok, I was counting on it being obvious but since you were so polite I'll explain. JL implies that deficit spending and printing money are bad and cause inflation which is also bad (but made him money because the real estate market goes up every year - mostly). Deficit spending, printing money and inflation have all been with us since the inception of the U.S. and are far better than the alternatives which would be no savings in the private sector, contraction of the money supply (and the economy) and deflation/stagflation.

The times we have attempted to pay off all our deficits too fast we have had bad depressions and recessions. Put simply, the finances and accounting of a sovereign currency issuer like the U.S.A. don't work like the finances of a currency user like you, a business, a city, county or state. Not having a deficit means that the private sector has no money since the currency issuer has to create the money and spend it for the private sector to have any. That necessarily means that there is a deficit because that is how the accounting has to be done to make sense. Now that is not to say that there should be runaway deficits, but that deficits should be managed so they aren't too low and aren't too high. Printing money is important too because you have to have enough liquidity for the economy to function, but if you print too much you risk having too much inflation. Inflation should also be managed so you don't have deflation, like in Japan over the last 20 years, risking stagflation and you don't have runaway inflation like Weimar Germany or Argentina in the 90s.

Also, most macro economic teaching is still done on the principles of the Gold Standard or commodity based money, however, all the countries of the world have moved off of commodity based money since the 1970s and many of those concepts and much of the accounting just do not apply anymore in a world of fiat monetary systems and floating currencies because the structural realities have changed with the system changes. Most people and politicians don't understand macro-economics at all and so are effectively "low information voters" and easily manipulated against their own interests.

The ideas that printing money (we don't actually print much of it anymore because the vast majority is 1s and 0s) is bad when you have a fiat monetary system and that inflation is bad just shows a complete lack of economic understanding. Printing too much money is bad, but the way you know you printed too much money is inflation starts to tick up above 4 or 5%.

Austxjr, as an atheist I don't believe in the bible, and as such I do not walk in lockstep with the controlling faction of the Republican party. I am registered Independent but basically I hate all politicians for I feel their only goal is to promote their party. The lazy should be left to the laws of evolution. I would aid the sick and the lame and let the rest either change or die. Liberals would call this cruel and inhuman, but I call it evolution. I am even bending the natural selection process by aiding the sick and the lame, but they have no choice, and see I can be a little bit liberal. The tribe would not support an able bodied person who simply refuses to work, and that is what liberals endorse. The mere fact that you are born does not give you a right to what I have worked for.

Ok, I was counting on it being obvious but since you were so polite I'll explain. JL implies that deficit spending and printing money are bad and cause inflation which is also bad (but made him money because the real estate market goes up every year - mostly). Deficit spending, printing money and inflation have all been with us since the inception of the U.S. and are far better than the alternatives which would be no savings in the private sector, contraction of the money supply (and the economy) and deflation/stagflation.

The times we have attempted to pay off all our deficits too fast we have had bad depressions and recessions. Put simply, the finances and accounting of a sovereign currency issuer like the U.S.A. don't work like the finances of a currency user like you, a business, a city, county or state. Not having a deficit means that the private sector has no money since the currency issuer has to create the money and spend it for the private sector to have any. That necessarily means that there is a deficit because that is how the accounting has to be done to make sense. Now that is not to say that there should be runaway deficits, but that deficits should be managed so they aren't too low and aren't too high. Printing money is important too because you have to have enough liquidity for the economy to function, but if you print too much you risk having too much inflation. Inflation should also be managed so you don't have deflation, like in Japan over the last 20 years, risking stagflation and you don't have runaway inflation like Weimar Germany or Argentina in the 90s.

Also, most macro economic teaching is still done on the principles of the Gold Standard or commodity based money, however, all the countries of the world have moved off of commodity based money since the 1970s and many of those concepts and much of the accounting just do not apply anymore in a world of fiat monetary systems and floating currencies because the structural realities have changed with the system changes. Most people and politicians don't understand macro-economics at all and so are effectively "low information voters" and easily manipulated against their own interests.

The ideas that printing money (we don't actually print much of it anymore because the vast majority is 1s and 0s) is bad when you have a fiat monetary system and that inflation is bad just shows a complete lack of economic understanding. Printing too much money is bad, but the way you know you printed too much money is inflation starts to tick up above 4 or 5%. Originally Posted by austxjr

If you weren't such an asshole you might be able to see where we agree, rather than thinking that your regurgitation of your high school economics is profound.
It is great to run deficits and print money, as long as you don't do too much of it. We are currently getting away with it but we are pushing it too far, with no obvious plan to pay it back, other than continuing to tax the productive. If deficits and printing money were universally good, everyone would do it, because it is free money. But look at all the countries, some of which you mentioned, where it blew up in their face.
Additionally, government spending stimulates the economy whether it is spent on productive people or unproductive people. Theoretically, you could throw money to a crowd and get economic activity, but what long term goal have you achieved? Stimulus should be utilized on the productive, not the crooks, Republican or Democrat. To further complicate matters, government is a poor judge of character, and tends to reward its friends, and the masses of takers.

If you weren't such an asshole you might be able to see where we agree, rather than thinking that your regurgitation of your high school economics is profound.
It is great to run deficits and print money, as long as you don't do too much of it. We are currently getting away with it but we are pushing it too far, with no obvious plan to pay it back, other than continuing to tax the productive. If deficits and printing money were universally good, everyone would do it, because it is free money. But look at all the countries, some of which you mentioned, where it blew up in their face.
Additionally, government spending stimulates the economy whether it is spent on productive people or unproductive people. Theoretically, you could throw money to a crowd and get economic activity, but what long term goal have you achieved? Stimulus should be utilized on the productive, not the crooks, Republican or Democrat. To further complicate matters, government is a poor judge of character, and tends to reward its friends, and the masses of takers. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Wow, this is getting scary. Looks like we agree on at least three things, maybe four (pussy is good being one of course). But apparently I did get under your skin since you tried to insult me and you had to jump in and reply. Mission accomplished.

Oh, BTW, that isn't even close to either my high school or college economics. I'm currently closest to agreeing with Monetary Realism after closely studying several Keynesian schools and MMT not to mention their opposition in the Austrians and current mainstream neo-classical economics. Bottom line on all of it is we are always either getting away with it or not (and not is usually bad). Pushing it too far is your opinion and not backed up by the facts as far as I know. If inflation explodes and cannot be reined in, then you will have been right. If not, then you will have been wrong, but I don't have a crystal ball to know the future on that, do you?

I look at it a bit like running an F1 or LeMans prototype. Ideally you are pushing the limits of what you have and getting away with it, but conditions are always changing and you don't always know 100% of what is going on so sometimes things blow up and sometimes you make mistakes that have bad consequences.

Everybody does run deficits and print money as long as they are a sovereign currency issuer (the EU states are not, but the EU is). It isn't universally good because too much of it produces too much inflation. All these things are subjective because this is all a human created ecosystem and is as much psychology as math and accounting.

Your contention about free money comes from an understanding of money and especially of modern money. Money is merely an accounting mechanism for value, like points in a bowling alley or on a football field. It has very useful purposes but does not have and does not need intrinsic value to have value. The value it brings is in making markets more fluid and workable and in sustaining value for perishable items. This is similar to the value banking and finance bring to economies. My guess is that you are still at least partially operating off a gut feeling that money does and should have some intrinsic value which is the "common wisdom", but causes more problems that it solves.

Yes, of course, stimulus should be used on the productive and not the crooks. You state the obvious. You do get some economic activity when it goes elsewhere, but not as much. The tipping point is anyones guess and subjective, but not a zero sum game.

Here you show your prejudices and lack of an open mind. "government is a poor judge of character, and tends to reward its friends, and the masses of takers." Government is just an organization of people that does good and bad things. It is not intrinsically better or worse than private activity. For every one poor judgment of government I can show you two bad or criminal acts of private business... so what. We should be against all bad and criminal acts in both the private sector and the public sector, shouldn't we? Are you really saying that the private sector DOES NOT reward its friends and there are no "takers" in the private sector? My experience would tend to indicate otherwise. I've seen it in both sectors and it goes back to what FNF mentioned about knowing human nature. Both sectors are subject to it.

Austxjr, as an atheist I don't believe in the bible, and as such I do not walk in lockstep with the controlling faction of the Republican party. I am registered Independent but basically I hate all politicians for I feel their only goal is to promote their party. The lazy should be left to the laws of evolution. I would aid the sick and the lame and let the rest either change or die. Liberals would call this cruel and inhuman, but I call it evolution. I am even bending the natural selection process by aiding the sick and the lame, but they have no choice, and see I can be a little bit liberal. The tribe would not support an able bodied person who simply refuses to work, and that is what liberals endorse. The mere fact that you are born does not give you a right to what I have worked for. Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

I believe in it (it exists and influences far too much of our society and thinking of course) just not in anything it says LOL. Good for you, but still lots of our American values, especially Republican values are derived from it. That was my only point and some of those values are very good values indeed.

I find it interesting that you take exception when you think I was telling you what you think, but you get to define what liberals endorse. It is sad that you hate politicians because they are a necessary part of any culture and society. Anytime you have limited resources and more wants than can be fulfilled you have politics, negotiation and compromise. Just because it is messy, as is much of human life and society, and you don't like playing the game (something tells me you are very good at it when you do) doesn't mean it doesn't have it place. I don't like many of the things politicians today do, but I think most get into the game for noble reasons (much like doctors and lawyers) and then often get corrupted by the system and by human nature. You say conservatives know human nature, yet you don't get that politics is an inextricable pat of that. Interesting.

Aux has been busy;

What I don't understand about conservatives is that they celebrate risk taking in business... to make a profit, but they revile risk taking in society to make a better society.....to make a better life for people.

You keep saying the same thing about conservatives and you know it's not true....or do you think it is. Look at what you wrote here. Conservatives "celebrate" risk in business. Business is about risk. You take a risk when introduce a new product. You take a risk when you hire someone. You take a risk in where you locate your business. Make the right choice and you succeed. I am about to show you the lie. In a progressive government there none of that risk that Aux spoke of. Products will be introduced because government said that it is time. No risk. Every possible new hire will be the same. No risk. Government will tell you where to locate your business based on what government needs. Risk? Any failure will be offset by government (taxpayer) money. So no risk.

As for society and risk. The liberal progressive way is to reduce or eliminate risk. Have you read Brave New World? It was written in 1931 by a former progressive who wrote about a society without risk. Every birth was planned (except there was not birth, babies were created in laboratories) and the future of every child was planned out (meaning that every child was genetically altered for the work they would do for the rest of their lives), everyone worked their lives away between drugging and fucking. There was no risk in the progressive future. Aux you have it half assed backwards. The people you revere are the ones who are promoting what you're against. Wrong is not right, Up is not down, and the sun does not rise in the west. Open your eyes!

Wow, this is getting scary. Looks like we agree on at least three things, maybe four (pussy is good being one of course). But apparently I did get under your skin since you tried to insult me and you had to jump in and reply. Mission accomplished.

Oh, BTW, that isn't even close to either my high school or college economics. I'm currently closest to agreeing with Monetary Realism after closely studying several Keynesian schools and MMT not to mention their opposition in the Austrians and current mainstream neo-classical economics. Bottom line on all of it is we are always either getting away with it or not (and not is usually bad). Pushing it too far is your opinion and not backed up by the facts as far as I know. If inflation explodes and cannot be reined in, then you will have been right. If not, then you will have been wrong, but I don't have a crystal ball to know the future on that, do you?

I look at it a bit like running an F1 or LeMans prototype. Ideally you are pushing the limits of what you have and getting away with it, but conditions are always changing and you don't always know 100% of what is going on so sometimes things blow up and sometimes you make mistakes that have bad consequences.

Everybody does run deficits and print money as long as they are a sovereign currency issuer (the EU states are not, but the EU is). It isn't universally good because too much of it produces too much inflation. All these things are subjective because this is all a human created ecosystem and is as much psychology as math and accounting.

Your contention about free money comes from an understanding of money and especially of modern money. Money is merely an accounting mechanism for value, like points in a bowling alley or on a football field. It has very useful purposes but does not have and does not need intrinsic value to have value. The value it brings is in making markets more fluid and workable and in sustaining value for perishable items. This is similar to the value banking and finance bring to economies. My guess is that you are still at least partially operating off a gut feeling that money does and should have some intrinsic value which is the "common wisdom", but causes more problems that it solves.

Yes, of course, stimulus should be used on the productive and not the crooks. You state the obvious. You do get some economic activity when it goes elsewhere, but not as much. The tipping point is anyones guess and subjective, but not a zero sum game.

Here you show your prejudices and lack of an open mind. "government is a poor judge of character, and tends to reward its friends, and the masses of takers." Government is just an organization of people that does good and bad things. It is not intrinsically better or worse than private activity. For every one poor judgment of government I can show you two bad or criminal acts of private business... so what. We should be against all bad and criminal acts in both the private sector and the public sector, shouldn't we? Are you really saying that the private sector DOES NOT reward its friends and there are no "takers" in the private sector? My experience would tend to indicate otherwise. I've seen it in both sectors and it goes back to what FNF mentioned about knowing human nature. Both sectors are subject to it. Originally Posted by austxjr

In your last paragraph where you debate my point about government being a poor judge of character, perhaps I should have explained my thinking better. I agree all crooks, government and business exist and should be punished. Many businessmen make poor judgements and reward their friends, of course. The problem when the government does it is that they spend someone else's money, thus favoring their political friends with their opponents money. In business if I reward my friends with my money, it is OK because I earned it. When the government rewards my enemies with my money, it is an injustice.