Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (3 Viewers)

[peikoff]

Yes Keynesianism can handle stagflation well. Supply shocks combines with inefficient labour markets (the labour market is a BIG area of market failure, but also unions mess everything up as well). That's the basic gist.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Yes Keynesianism can handle stagflation well. Supply shocks combines with inefficient labour markets (the labour market is a BIG area of market failure, but also unions mess everything up as well). That's the basic gist.

stagflation is what proved in practice that Keynesian is a failed policy.......

 

[peikoff]

stagflation is what proved in practice that Keynesian is a failed policy.......

You specify in practice. Are saying that stagflation demonstrated Keynesian fiscal and/or monetary policy to be ineffective? This is demonstrably false as even a cursory look at economic data will testify to its efficacy

In theory, stagflation poses no problem either. Although, granted, you may not know it based on how most Keynesians talk today, Keynesian economists do recognise the existence of a supply curve in conjunction with the demand curve. And you can see that a decrease in supply will cause stagflation if labour markets fail to clear.

 

[Lentern]

This Suhartoesque equating of left of centre social democracy as communism on this place is obscene.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

This Suhartoesque equating of left of centre social democracy as communism on this place is obscene.

its the principles

if lefties believe in principles such as higher taxes on people, than why not tax people 100% if higher taxes are good for society

if lefties want more government control because its good, than why not have the government run everything if that's the case

its just extending the underlying logic and principles found in left wing arguments

if you don't believe in these principles or logic, than why do you believe in what your saying in the first place? (not specifically talking about you )

 

[Azure]

This Suhartoesque equating of left of centre social democracy as communism on this place is obscene.

its the principles

if lefties believe in principles such as higher taxes on people, than why not tax people 100% if higher taxes are good for society

if lefties want more government control because its good, than why not have the government run everything if that's the case

its just extending the underlying logic and principles found in left wing arguments

if you don't believe in these principles or logic, than why do you believe in what your saying in the first place? (not specifically talking about you )

Beat me to it.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Beat me to it.

yay! do I get a prize?
lollipops are acceptable

 

[Subhas Bose]

lol all or fuckin nothing

ridiculous

 

[scuba_steve2121]

lol all or fuckin nothing

ridiculous

just trying to understand the logic brah

 

[Lentern]

its the principles

if lefties believe in principles such as higher taxes on people, than why not tax people 100% if higher taxes are good for society

if lefties want more government control because its good, than why not have the government run everything if that's the case

its just extending the underlying logic and principles found in left wing arguments

if you don't believe in these principles or logic, than why do you believe in what your saying in the first place? (not specifically talking about you )

Oh rubbish.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Oh rubbish.

yay I win

 

[Lolsmith]

This Suhartoesque equating of left of centre social democracy as communism on this place is obscene.

Thatcher's upper class British sensibilities have been offended

lol all or fuckin nothing

ridiculous

it's such a good comparison to draw though

 

[Lentern]

Thatcher's upper class British sensibilities have been offended

Explain

 

[Lentern]

yay I win

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

insert an irrelevant phrase here that contributes nothing* that the author thinks is insightful and cool

 

[Lolsmith]

Explain

you're upset that people call anything economically left of centre communism

that we're calling you a communist

 

[peikoff]

its the principles

if lefties believe in principles such as higher taxes on people, than why not tax people 100% if higher taxes are good for society

if lefties want more government control because its good, than why not have the government run everything if that's the case

its just extending the underlying logic and principles found in left wing arguments

if you don't believe in these principles or logic, than why do you believe in what your saying in the first place? (not specifically talking about you )

Your grasp on logic then is obviously pathetically feeble. I would like to say two things

First, in theory, what you say is false. You must understand why and for what purpose we want taxes raised or government intervention. The reason is because it is effective at achieving certain, commonly desired ends. So of course, when high taxation and government involvement reach a point when they become ineffective means to ends, they will not be supported. Everything is subordinate to context. If you like taking a panadol to cure pain, why not take 200? If you think its OK to use physical violence in self defence, why don't you assault people all the time? When you realise why these statements are ludicrous, you'll see why yours are too. Saying something is good or effective or desired does not logically imply that it is so in all contexts.

Second, I'm tired of the way people use the word 'logic' nowadays, as some kind of inert synonym for 'good thinking'. Logic is the process of valid inference. Please tell me what principle of logic will take one from supporting higher taxes on the rich, to a 100% taxation rate.

 

[Lolsmith]

high taxes on the rich are good

therefore

taking all of their money via taxes must also be good

 

[peikoff]

high taxes on the rich are good

therefore

taking all of their money via taxes must also be good

That conclusion does not follow from the premise.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Your grasp on logic then is obviously pathetically feeble. I would like to say two things

First, in theory, what you say is false. You must understand why and for what purpose we want taxes raised or government intervention. The reason is because it is effective at achieving certain, commonly desired ends. So of course, when high taxation and government involvement reach a point when they become ineffective means to ends, they will not be supported. Everything is subordinate to context. If you like taking a panadol to cure pain, why not take 200? If you think its OK to use physical violence in self defence, why don't you assault people all the time? When you realise why these statements are ludicrous, you'll see why yours are too. Saying something is good or effective or desired does not logically imply that it is so in all contexts.

Second, I'm tired of the way people use the word 'logic' nowadays, as some kind of inert synonym for 'good thinking'. Logic is the process of valid inference. Please tell me what principle of logic will take one from supporting higher taxes on the rich, to a 100% taxation rate.

that's the point, what is desired? to what end? people think the government should look after certain things with no real reason for it, so if people think the government does a good job of X better than private individuals why don't you think they should do everything?. its the belief that you think a third party stealing a certain amount of your income every year and not obeying the laws of supply and demand is superior to the alternative.

Also your examples don't make any sense panadol doesn't cure pain. and a person attacking somebody is no longer self defense