A couple of things I see;
1. Before the 1960s, people with mental illnesses were generally cared for in institutional settings, mostly state-run psychiatric facilities. Many advocates saw this as "warehousing" people who could be cared for in less restrictive settings. Federal legislation and the courts powered a move toward deinstitutionalization, calling on states and counties to provide resources for social services, vocational rehabilitation and treatment services. The introduction of effective antipsychotic medications also drove the trend toward deinstitutionalization.
If it was unwise for the gov't to be in the care business then why is it wise now?

2. A question; what is a legitimate reason not to have health insurance when programs such as medicaid and medicare available?

3. The maker of the video admits that some people fall through the cracks but that woud be the case regardless of the system so that is a wash in my way of thinking.

The thing that really scares me to death is how the United States people are being completely eaten up by politics, politicians, and people trying to make a buck off the controversy (in steps Michael Moore). I am amazed at how so many people in my country believe everything they hear about just about anything you could imagine simply because the guy saying it is on their political side (usually the two sides are Republicans vs. Democrats). This guy Michael Moore could pretty much say just about anything he wants on any topic he wants and their will be people who buy every word of it regardless of the credentials of this one individual. All they know is that he is a Democrat, on their side politically, so go ahead and spread whatever propoganda you want and I will foolishly believe you without question.

This guy only wants to make money. He isn't up for changing anything. He wants to write books, make movies that people will call documentaries, and continue to stir the pot as much as he can to make millions of dollars. It isn't just him either. Go to any book store, watch 24 hour cable news shows, or watch many movies pushing political agendas. I feel like all this stuff is really starting to "Dumb Down" the american population.

Here is a list of questions I like to ask people with their usual responses to push my point on govt ran health care (especially people who are for it):
1) Do you trust your government? No, nearly 100% of the time
2) Do you trust politicians? No, nearly 100% of the time
4) Can you name 1 government program that is ran efficiently (or well)? No, nearly 100% of the time
5) Can you name any government programs that aren't ran well and are completely waistful? Social Security, Tax System, General Voting, WelFare, ect.... I usually get at least 5 programs off the tops of people's head

And the final question....
6) Then why in the world would you want your government to be in control over your health care needs? Blank stair nearly 100% of the time. If they were honest they would simply say because my party candidates tell me it is a good idea.

People, you better start thinking for yourself a little bit.

Just because at one point a government system wasn't working properly doesn't mean that automatically governmetn programs don't work.
People who can't afford it. There are infact poor people in the USA.

Theres also the fact that often private insurance companies don't deliver what they promise because they serve profit before consumer. I haven't heard anyone explain how that isn't true.

But the fun thing about this conversation is that you don't trust government and think that the private sector is more reliable. And I do trust government, or at least I do more than the private sector. And honestly if you consider the laws and culture around corporations in the US you see that it is a conflict of interest to get essential services run by private companies. It is enshrined in law that a corporation serves its shareholders first and that leads often to shady business practices. This is just my Pinko-Marxian distrust of the Free Market, or whatever it is thats masquerading as it.

Most everything you have (such as a job, high income, standard of living, quality of life, ect.....) comes from a free market system, not the government. Remember, the only difference between government and a large corporation is the large corporation operates to earn profits, and the government operates to earn votes for particular candidates. Make no mistake corporations earning profits benefit you way more than a politician earning a vote. Corporations create jobs, invest profits in other ventures that eventually create even more jobs, offer us goods and services that we want, and so forth. Politicians earn your vote, and that is about it.

It still baffles me that people would actually want politicians in the US using their health care needs as a political football to kick all over the place. Your entire health care system would change frequently to whichever direction the political winds are blowing, and your taxes would go up to pay for less health care that you would receive. I just can't seem to figure out why people would trust the government over their health care.

Spoken like a true conservative hocking. You're right in some ways. The market (it isn't free and I won't get into that but rest assured it'd make you sigh at my naivete) creates an economic circumstance in which my labour and most eveyrone elses is needed to manufacture and produce the wealth for that corporation, or that tycoon, or tat king, or whoever else is holding the biggest share of control.

But you seem to think that somehow democracy and freedom spring from nowhere. And if the market is good and brilliant all by its self then why has an untamed market been responsible for the utter lack of freedom that sent the pilgrims fleeing to North America? Yes the market gives me a job, but before laws made by government to regulate that labour people like you and me were working 12 to 14 hour days or more for significantly less. We were dying on the job because the conditions were poor. And we had no rights anyway because the King was the only government anyone needed.

It always surprises me when I hear an american complaining about the very thing that makes his country special. Your constitution makes your nation the greatest on the earth. My country couldn't exist without yours but it seems like so many of your countrymen hate the very thing that makes them distinctive. Freedom doesn't sprout out of unregulated economics. Government is the only guarentee that the average un-wealthy man has at a good life. And besides that for all that you allege the government is corrupt the private sector is just as corrupt. By its nature corporations are compelled to create wealth above all else including the welfare of its consumers and employees. Thats why the industrial revolution was ugly for the workers.

This blind faith in the market is so perverse because it is the inverse of the trends of democratic freedom. It was Moussolini that connected corporatism with fascism. But you aren't going to listen to that so we hsould probably get back on topic.

I appreciate your honesty there P-funk, but you certainly haven't masqueraded anything, to your credit. Since I suspect the only system you've personally known, mom and dad, is just that a marxist, populist system. The parents make the rules(laws), and provide for the health and welfair of the governed, their children. Since that is the only system you have known and you have survived in good health it is not suprising that you are in favor of such systems.

Corporations are made up of people. Those corporations, which you hold in such low regard, also have a responsibility to its employees, to stay in business, not just share holders, who by the way are also people. Not everyone can be a gov't employee, although that seems to be what you are advocating.

If that is the case those companies will not be writing policies for very long. The free market will not allow it. If you were to enter a retail establishment, lets say a restaraunt, and it served you rice instead of the potatoes you ordered and when you complained they said too bad for you, would you pay them or go back? No. Would you tell others about your experience? You bet you would and that resaraunt would not be in business long. So I can't see how an insurance company can often get away with that type of behavior.


Medicaid is exactly the means by which 'poor' people may insure themselves. Should we force them to avail themselves to the program?

What has change about gov't which makes this true? I'm open to an answer because at this point I don't know of any change.

I think you underestimate my own appreciation of my ideas. It is not simply that I am young that I think this way. It is far too simple to attribute that to age. And even if I were older there are other ways you could rationalize it, aside of course from accepting logic or reason as means to achieve a point of view.

As for corporations yes they are made of people. So are governments. The difference between a government and a corporation is that the purpose of government is to pursue the interests of the people as a whole. Corporations have a primary goal to a minority. If governments can be corrupt so can corporations, but which one is acting for your interests? Corporations are effectively a government program for the rich. Those with the means create massive organizations for their ends. These people are shareholders. Citizens are merely shareholders in the government.

What you say makes perfect sense provided you assume that the market works as presribed by your economic model. And for you to expect that to occur is no different than for me to expect a socialist utopia to grow out of a violent dictatorial revolution. The free market is a nice idea but in practise it isn't as fair as is implied. Competition is the heart of the market but the main purpose of all corporations in the process of accruing wealth is to create financial security. And financial security is the opposite of a competitive market. Its a paradoxical theory, especially since lobbies have perverted the laws of the government to make it easier. And corporations don't function like small scale restaurants. Its a false comparison. Corporations operate on a completely differnet economic level.


Why force them to do anything? Why not just make it free so that when they get hurt they have the coverage they deserve. If it costs a bit more then so be it. Healthcare is an essential. The government shouldn't operate a system based entirely on efficiency of finance. It must also satisfy the most practical level of service primarily, but still within a reasonable finiancial balance.

But again you assume that all government programs dont work. Its a fixed perception thats incorrect. If government doesn't work then why do we cling to it? If the market always provides then why do government programs get fiinanced? Its a dichotomy where one is religiously pure and the other is sinfully inefficient. But the reality is so complex that neither is perfectly evil or good. This perpetual love for the market is just another extremist point of view thats only acceptable because its also a mainstream one.

I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work:

"Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."

Quote:

I think you underestimate my own appreciation of my ideas. It is not simply that I am young that I think this way. It is far too simple to attribute that to age. And even if I were older there are other ways you could rationalize it, aside of course from accepting logic or reason as means to achieve a point of view.

I’m not underestimating/diminishing your real belief in your ideas/ideals, or your age. I’m just giving one explanation as to why you may have those ideas/ideals, and’ I think it will change as you get older. My outlook certainly has changed over the years. Although I didn’t advocated your stance, there was a time when my views were more ‘liberal’.

Quote:

As for corporations yes they are made of people. So are governments. The difference between a government and a corporation is that the purpose of government is to pursue the interests of the people as a whole. Corporations have a primary goal to a minority. If governments can be corrupt so can corporations, but which one is acting for your interests? Corporations are effectively a government program for the rich. Those with the means create massive organizations for their ends. These people are shareholders. Citizens are merely shareholders in the government.

OK, when has the Canadian government done what you wanted them to do? If you are of the age of majority then you know that they do not. I never said that government was corrupt. I did imply it is self sustaining on someone else’s dime. Out of curiosity where is the cutoff between the rich and the poor?

Quote:

What you say makes perfect sense provided you assume that the market works as presribed by your economic model. And for you to expect that to occur is no different than for me to expect a socialist utopia to grow out of a violent dictatorial revolution. The free market is a nice idea but in practise it isn't as fair as is implied. Competition is the heart of the market but the main purpose of all corporations in the process of accruing wealth is to create financial security. And financial security is the opposite of a competitive market. Its a paradoxical theory, especially since lobbies have perverted the laws of the government to make it easier. And corporations don't function like small scale restaurants. Its a false comparison. Corporations operate on a completely differnet economic level.

If the government wasn’t already heavily involved in the market it certainly would work!
OK, how else does a corporation better itself without growing profit? That is the same manner that people better themselves and others in the modern world. Lets say for a moment that your utopian society existed. How does one better themselves. Or do you believe that no one should want to get ahead? Because if that is the case then you have disregarded human nature and dare I say it evolution of man. Social evolution is no less valid than biological if you believe in evolution. It can be tracked.

Quote:

Why force them to do anything? Why not just make it free so that when they get hurt they have the coverage they deserve. If it costs a bit more then so be it. Healthcare is an essential. The government shouldn't operate a system based entirely on efficiency of finance. It must also satisfy the most practical level of service primarily, but still within a reasonable finiancial balance.

How hard is it for any one to go to the current medicare office and place ones name on a piece of paper. That is all it takes. Perhaps they know that from then on the gov’t will tell them what to do? The program only invalidates those that the gov’t claims can afford their own insurance. Do you see the hypocracy here? That is the problem allowing buearocracts into healthcare or any other personal endevour.

Quote:

I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work: "Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."

I really enjoy it when you quote comedians. Certainly whom the nation should follow.:rotfl:

I am going to keep this brief. I don't want to leave the impression that I am totally anti-government. I am not. The government serves a purpose in areas such as national defense, and creation of laws that protect its citizens. This was the founding fathers idea of government. The main reason pilgrims loaded up on ships to search out the new land was because they were running away from a heavy handed government that regulated everything. This idea continued on all the way through the revolutionary war that was started because of a heavy handed government that was taxing the colonies very heavily. The idea of America's founding was based on private enterprise free from government regulation.

This idea has continued on since those early days in America's history. That is why we have become the most successful economy in the entire world. Usually the only people who are complaining about our system are people who have lived in our system for their enire lifes. They have no idea what it is like to be truly poor and unemployed like many people are in other countries. They have become spoiled to our way of life, and have no idea what it would be like to live under a heavy handed government that regulated everything they did. Most of the world is gravitating towards our form of free markets, not away from it. Not bad for a country that has only been around for just over 200 years when compared to other countries that have been around just over 2000 years.

My final point is this, many people are taught to believe that corporations are these nasty little creatures that are out to get us all. Where does this idea come from? Much of it comes from politicians themselves. It is really simply, they must create a monster in your mind in order to get you to vote for them to protect you from this monster. In our political system today people will say just about anything to get elected, and most people believe them without question because we are so tied to our political parties that we have lost our ability to thing rationally on our own. Ironically, who are the first people to scream and hollor about corporations moving operations overseas. The same people who are framing them up to be monsters. I would think they would be thrilled to be losing these monsters to countries overseas who are willing to take them in by the handfuls.

Don't believe everything you hear. To really understand the benefits of free trade, and free markets you really should take a college level course in the principles of macroeconomics, international trade, and economic history. Any one of these classes would help you understand how important free markets are. I am not saying this trying to act like you are some kind of uneducated idiot. I do not believe that at all. This is advice I give to anybody I talk to who has an interest in truly learning how economic systems work. This is a science that many American's are losing touch with mainly because it is not taught in high schools like it used to be taught.

Sorry for back to back posts, but I couldn't resist posting this up. This is my point exactly. There is a Wall Street Journal acticle in Monday's paper about how John Edwards, a person who is desperate at this point to stay in the race for the democratic nomination to run for president that is currently being ran away with between Obama and Clinton, came forward today supporting a bill to increase taxes on publically traded private-equity partnerships.

Here is one paragraph from the Journal:

"Mr. Edwards, campaigning in New Hampshire, said in an interview that he supports the so-called Blackstone bill levying corporate taxes on publicly traded private-equity partnerships, a move to tax hedge-fund managers' "carried interest" at ordinary income rather than the lower capital-gains rates, and eliminating the ability of those managers to defer taxation by shifting income into offshore entities. Taken together, the former North Carolina senator asserted, these steps would raise $4 billion to $6 billion a year."

Here is a politician going after those nasty corporate people right. Well, here is another interesting point that many of us already know about Mr. Edwards.

As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article:

"Mr. Edwards's stance could help shore up his populist credentials after criticism of his personal wealth and lifestyle have eroded his poll standings. While making amelioration of poverty a centerpiece of his campaign, the one-time trial lawyer earlier this year reported that he had received $1.7 million in salary and investment income from Fortress, where his holdings total $16 million."

Fortress is one of these Hedge Funds Mr. Edwards is going after. This is laughable. Edwards is doing what all politicians do, he is saying whatever it takes to try to get elected. His stance is not based on fact at all, it is simply based on the fact that he needs to "shore up his populist credentials after criticism of his personal wealth and lifestyle have eroded his poll standings". This is my point exactly. Many "Populist" won't even know that Edwards was a consultant to one of these nasty hedge funds, held over $16 million with that nasty hedge fund, and was actually paid an additional $1.7 million in salary from one of these nasty hedge funds. All they will know is that hedge fund is a nasty monster, and Mr. Edwards will protect you from them as long as you vote for him.

Yes, this happens to be a Democrat. But don't think they are the only ones who do this. Politicians do this all the time. Republicans, Democrates, and Independents.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:: rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Actually I think that the reason the US has become the most successful economy in the world is because the settlers happened to land on the biggest unexploited plot of land in the world that happened to be rich in resources while the rest of Europe fought over the scraps of empires. I don't mean to downplay the grit and determination of the American spirit, not at all. But you hand a man a million dollars it doesn't matter how good a gambler he is. Thats giving him a huge leg up.

I wasn't taught anything negative about corporations. If anything we're taught to play the game and become functioning members of the economy and to accept it as the way it ought to be. My own critical ideas about it are based on what I see and interpret. I don't think that it is about politicians either. Actually saying its politicians is totally fallacious since they're the ones that benefit most from corporate lobbies and the fact that the current president and vice president are former CEOs says it all about politicians and their relationship with corporate America. We talk about corrupt politicians in America and Canada and Britain and anywhere else and usually its because they aren't doing whats good for us but whats good for them, and for them thats helping the people that payed them to get elected. You also glorify the plight of the corporation. As if its some beneficient entity here by the grace of god. The reason other countries want corporations is because they have no money, so the corporations exploit them with slave wages and suppress any and all attempts to secure the same labour rights we have in our country. Thats not because they're evil, but because they're prudent inhuman organizations that act like machines. And we mourn the overseas job movement because out here now you need years of college just to be competitive in the job market for these high skill jobs. And of course unlike before with vocational gigs that are now in the Phillipines, going to college means that you are immediately in debt if you happen to not be rich or a rhodes scholar. Globalization is not the wondrous economic utopia that its cracked up to be. Its not them trying to civilize the savages; bring them into our wonderful palace of capitalism. Really its just the greed and amorality of corporations exploiting an opportunity.

Again you assume I am an ignorant sheep reading stright from the Socialist Worker's Party newsletter. I assure you that I have read plenty of diverse points of view on economics and the free market. John Kenneth Galbraith appeals to me more than Milton Friedman. But I will be honest, I didn't get half way through the Ulysses of economic treatises: Das Kapital. My though is that I am not an ignorant fool speaking words I don't actually understand. Give me more credit than that. And I have taken college level course on economics. I have a fairly decent understanding of the principles of market capitalism and socialism et al. And don't misunderstand me, I do not disagree with trade and the concept of the market. Quite the opposite really. My perspective is that whatever you call America, it isn't true market capitalism, not in its current form. The idea is that competition automatically regulates the economy and roots out the unfair p[ractices of businesses that create monopolies and cartels and other such economic stangleholds that secure the self interest of the party at hand but defeats the collective interest of the rest of the market. I cite corporations specifically because they are too powerful in the world and the balance of the market is not applicable to such masses of wealth. It begins to go back to the 19th Century when the American Supreme Court declared that a corporation is legally a person. At that point the game was afoul.

So even if you refute all my claims or think that I am totally wrong, don't think that I say this because I am a stooge. I actually know what I'm saying, and I see things from both sides of the aisle, and chose this spot right here. And this spot is not specific to any one idea or ideology or group consciousness. I have my own mash of lefty concepts and not so lefty practical policies.

Cheers

EDIT. And apropos to John Edwards. I totally disagree with your assessment of his position. People are always saying that politicians serve not the people who elect them but the people who pay for his campaign or whom he has a personal or professional relationship with. Thats correct much of the time. But for Edwards to be now supporting a tax on the very people that he had worked with is not hypocrisy, but him doing what he thinks is good for the nation despite his supposed natural loyalties.

On that then we can agree totally. I am young and I am still evolving my world view. I do believe that it is sufficiently matured to let me be confident in it until I find myself doubting it at which point I won't hesitate to change my stance. Inevitably I will change as I age. I just don't think that I'll be necessarily significantly more conservative. I hold a dual view of the world. The idealist theory of how things maybe could work, and the practical way that I think we ought to do it. I don't agree with warfare or even joining the army. But I also see that its necessary to have one. I'm a idealistic pascifist and a pragmatic supporter of my nation's use of military when it is necessary. I hold those two seemingly contradictory ideas at once as I do with many things. I can liken it to St. Augustine's City of God and City of Man. One looks to the city of god as a superior existance but doesn't try and make the city of man into what it isn't or cannot be. Thats right, I am so brash as to compare myself to Augustine.:D


It ultimately isn't about what I want the government to do. Its about the government doing the right thing. If you look at the nature of Canadian parliamentary government you see that its effectively a 4 year elected dictatorship. We put our faith in a party to do the right thing for us. But at the same time I have found in history that the best things have happened to Canada under minority governments (hello universal health care). A broad interest protected by as many parties at once as possible. But it isn't about the government acting every day as I wish to see it, its about the structure of government fulfilling its purpose of protecting the interests of the population. There is a difference between the elected body of the government and the rest of the semi-permanent structure. For instance Ministers are in charge of a ministry. Whenever a minister is reassigned or a party wins power the old minister leaves but the ministry itself and the people working in it don't change at all. Its like you choose who to captain the boat, but after the mutiny you don't rip out the planks.

As for the rich/poor divide, it isn't about that either. Every man and woman is a citizen. The difference though is that the rich don't need the help of government very often since they are self sufficient to the highest order relatively speaking. And since the majority of the population is either poor or average in income those are the people who get the bulk of the government's attention, on average.


If government involvement in the market is what stunts it why then did laissez-faire tactics do nothing to prevent the depression? Why did the depression happen at all? Nobody has ever cited overzealous government in the crash of 1929. In fact it was the intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black, be it Keynesian economics under FDR, or War Economy in WW2 under FDR. I do not contradict the concept of profit. I however do see the motivation to acquire profit at the cost of so many other things, as it often is, as a contradiction to the interests of the market and those that depend on it.
Regarding my alleged utopia, which I only referred to in jest as I don't myself agree with the violent Lenin style of dictatorial socialism, you misrepresent the spirit of the entire venture. I'll use the term socialism to broadly cover what I assume you're referring to for clarity's sake. Socialism is not a counter to the natural progressive tendencies of the human being, its quite the opposite. It is conceived to be a way that would allow everyone to freely expand and explore their presense in the world without being hampered by someone else's position or desire or actions. Practically speaking the Utopia is alot like a Heaven that you know you'll never see. Its a shining light that you try and imitate because you know you'll only have the best representation of the above mentioned idea of ultimate equality. Many people criticize this by calling it forced inequity. That is of ocurse true if you wish to paint all marxist based left wing ideology with the brush of Stalinist russia and his cohorts around the world. The irony is that Communism was not anything to do with Marx. It was simply a newer more efficient version of the feudal system that the Romanov's lived in. That it used the face of communism as a propoganda tool is irrelavent.

Rest assured that my left wing "utopian" ideas do not reflect a desire to see everyone equally miserable, equally bound, and equally broke and intellectually stagnated. The ideas of socialism can be seen to function brilliantly in smaller environments. Open Source software being one. It has in its short life become better and more utilitarian (I'm using that word alot today) than much of the software produced by the free market, and alot more efficient at reacting to changes and demands in the market. The ideas are simple: all information must be released freely to the open community and everyone can change the code as they please, so long as they share it. And you can't make a profit by selling the code as proprietary property. It isn't proof absolute, but its enough to show the concept is not totally indictrination.


Actually studies have shown that the bureaucracy of the private sector is actually larger and more expensive than that of government in many cases. Healthcare being one. But ultimtaely I dont see the need to make anyone sign up. Its just something that I think we all deserve. As such its there when you need it. It isn't the government forcing you to do anything. In Canada you can still deny medical treatment. The difference is that you don't have to sign up to get it. Its just moral view on it as an essential part of any civilized society.

Quote:

I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work: "Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."

I really enjoy it when you quote comedians. Certainly whom the nation should follow.:rotfl:
[/quote]


As they say don't shoot the messenger. Just because he's a comedian doesn't mean that he isn't right. He just says it in a fun way. And besides, one of America's greatest President's was a B movie star from the 50s. Go figure.:p

P_Funk, you said,

"If government involvement in the market is what stunts it why then did laissez-faire tactics do nothing to prevent the depression? Why did the depression happen at all? Nobody has ever cited overzealous government in the crash of 1929. In fact it was the intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black, be it Keynesian economics under FDR, or War Economy in WW2 under FDR. I do not contradict the concept of profit. I however do see the motivation to acquire profit at the cost of so many other things, as it often is, as a contradiction to the interests of the market and those that depend on it."

You say it was the "intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black". You are kidding right. The leading industrialized nations responded to the crisis by imposing trade barriers on imports with the hopes of increasing demand for domestically produced goods and to raise revenue from tariffs. Concerns about low agricultural prices, an influx of imports, rising unemployment, and declining tax revenue generated public sentiment for trade restraints. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 17, 1930 responded by raising tariffs by up to 50% on a wide range of goods. Unfortunately, the resulting fall in imports created unemployment abroad that quickly invoked protectionism in response, creating unemployment back in the US! Many fruitful trading relationships fell apart and the depressed domestic economies could not make up for them. By March 1933 international trade plummeted to 33% of its 1929 level. Since there were even more communications, logistic, and financial barriers to be overcome back then than there are today, it is likely that the goods traded internationally were of great economic value and advantage to the economies that were receiving them. The loss of such trade was devastating and had ripple effects not unlike bank failures. Even though tariff rates rose by up to 50%, imports declined so sharply that tariff revenues fell 46% from $602 million in 1929 to $328 million in 1932. This not to mention the loss of tax revenue from the domestic unemployment the tariffs caused indirectly. And you say, "intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black".

There is even more. Under the political thinking of the day (and since nothing else was working) the federal government decided it was morally prudent to pursue a balanced budget. As tax revenue was plummeting along with economic activity in the period from 1929 to 1932 it was only natural to raise taxes to cover the mushrooming deficit. Does this not sound familiar in todays political views of the United States. Only because most people are totally oblivious to economic history.

In 1932, Republican president, Herbert Hoover, with the support of the newly elected Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, passed the largest peacetime tax increase in the history of the United States. Marginal income tax rates were raised from 1.5% to 4% at the low end and from 25% to 63% at the top of the scale. A huge tax increase by any measure.
Some people say the timing for this couldn't have been worse because tax increases are generally associated with decreases in aggregate demand for goods and services and the incentive to earn. But the low tax rates prior to 1932 had not prevented the drop in demand to date. At that point the situation was becoming so severe that anybody that still had a job had every incentive to earn, if only to keep it. The main obstacle to demand then was probably fear of spending! If you earned money, you saved as much as you possibly could and with bank failures everywhere, you probably hid your savings under the mattress. So maybe it was just as well to pay more out in taxes because then the government could spend it for you and stimulate the economy that way. But the tax increase did take money out of people's hands that could have been spent more "efficiently" if not equitably, so it is considered to be a factor, which prolonged the downturn. Under the circumstances the government should have simply borrowed and engaged in generous deficit spending.

Our government did not bring us out of the great depression. Adolf Hitler assisted the world in coming out of the Great Depression moreso than the US government by starting World War II.

As far as what caused the depression to begin with. One of the larger factors was not having a central bank that knew how control money supply. The federal reserve system we know today was formulated shortly after the Great Depression. That is why we have never had another depression, and why most economic textbooks have completely eliminated "Depression" out of the Business Cycle terminology (the Business Cycle today is simply Recession, Recovery, and Prosperity). The government also started creating some of their "Anti-Free Trade" agenda's during the late 1920's as well.

P_Funk, I really think you would enjoy an economic history class. I really mean that. I am not insulting your intelligence. I am seeing that you at least think about things, and develop ideas on your own. You just need to back them up a little bit better, and spend more time developing them maybe. Take this as encouragement. An economic history class would cover Keynesian Economics, Classical Economics, and newer forms of the Classical Economics developed by Milton Friedman. All this sounds like it is right down your ally.

I don't think that that is our problem with Moore, it is his proposed solutions to these problems that we don't care for much. That and his demonization of those who don't agree with him.

He's a slick propagandist, that is why I don't care for him. If he wants to give up 2/3 of his income to socialized medicene, that's fine with me, but don't ask me to do it.

Yes, I know this link is from News Max.

I'm not going to waste my money by going to the cinema to see this. That's my 2 pence. :smug:

Indeed Hoover's efforts were ill-conceived to a certain degree. However as much as you can say that the increased tariffs didn't work you scrupulously avoided any discussion of the legitimacy of Keynesian economics as introduced under The New Deal by FDR. You cite a balanced budget as one of the trends but under Keynes' idea you do the opposite, and have the government spend spend spend to inject money and jobs into the economy. With that you add significant social safety nets to keep people working and spending when they lose their jobs. I wasn't talking about Hoover, I was talking about FDR. I probably should have mentioned that... oh wait, I did say FDR and Keyens. And I did also mention that even if the New Deal wasn't sufficient to pull the economy out of depression, as many economist historians suggest, it was the war with Germany that did it. And as I also mentioned, a war economy is basically the government regulating absolutely everything in the economy. Are you sure you read what I typed?

Again I point to Keyenes. He said spend like a fool in Vegas during the bad times and save like a Christian during the good. The existance of balanced budgets are not always a bad idea, but often it should only be done when you have no debt left to pay off, a debt which you probably accrued during your anti-economic downturn spending spree. In the 1980s Mulroney acquired a very Reaganesque debt for Canada and the Liberals in the 90s payed it off. Now the Dollar is resurging, the economy is doing well, and we're seeking top bolster our social programs once again so that we can defend from any future downturns.

I might add that taxation itself is not a bad idea. Its illuses do not mitigate its importance. In fact the father of the Free Market himself, Adam Smith, said that you should tax the rich to a healthy degree more than the other average and poor people since they can afford more to give up.

""The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

Italics added. Certainly you can tax too much but somehow I think that under our current conventional wisdom we accept that the rich ought ot get taxed less than they can afford to.

Indeed and FDR did just what you said, deficit spending. As I said, Keynesian theory.

Hitler provided the impetus for the war but he didn't make the economy function as it did in the US. That was the government streamlining it and regulating it for wartime efficiency. Interesting really that the US industrial monster was built by the government and made to be so efficient. The private sector was present but its doubtful that free market forces are very good at making for a speedy war economy. The aftermath of that same economy led to the boom of the late 40s and 50s. Also the national debt owed to the US by other internation allied nations for war funding was responsible for shifting the economic capital of the world from London to New York.

Theres also the theory that overproduction by the market outstripped the demand and forced companies to drop wages and fire workers which lowered their spending potential and started the cycle. That wasn't the government's fault. And the Federal Reserve is a Federal governmental organization. Though it operates as part private, part public, it is still there by the decision of the government despite not being directly controlled by the government. The head of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is appointed by the President. Thats not quite the government being hands off. And if you want to talk about free trade with the US then you'll have to get me into another thread because I would totally rip NAFTA a new one. The US is behavior is naturally protectionist. I'll just say that.

I thought I'd already said I'd read Keyens and Marx and Freidman and Galbraith and taken a general course about them all. But you're right, it is up my alley and I plan on taking more.

And just as an aside to this whole discussion, I enjoy talking economics more than politics around here just because it seems to bring out the civility in people. I mean, economics is so dry and boring that its hard to get red faced isn't it?;)

Here is the basics of Keynsian Economics vs. Classical Economics:

Classical Economics: Say's Law Holds, markets clear, market forces push economy toward full-employment, prices are flexible both up and down, government intervention is unnecessary due to market forces correcting any disequilibrium problems, and the aggregate supply curve is considered to be vertical under the assumption that all prices are variable in the long-run. This is a long-run view of an economy. Summary, let consumer and producers interact in free markets to generate commerce, and everything corrects itself with the passing of time.

Keynesian Economics: Rejects Say's Law, markets do not clear most of the time, market forces alone fail to push the economy toward full-employment, prices are sticky downward, government intervention is necessary to achieve the full-employment level of output, and the aggregage supply curve is horizontal under the assumption that all prices are sticky in the short-run. This is a short-run view of the economy. Summary, let the government do all the spending in bad times to try to correct market downturn in the short-run, and then when things are back to normal (or as close to normal as possible), bring down government spending and let consumers and producers interact to keep the economy going.

Sorry, I simply don't have time to read your entire posts. You were probably right when you were wondering if I read your entire post. I probably didn't. Not because I didn't want to, but because I just didn't have time. I do enjoy the debate though. We disagree on quite a few points. I don't want government taking my money from me and spending like they want, I want to spend my own money. I am not totally against Keynesian economics though. I do think deficit spending at times is totally fine. After 9/11 here in the US would have been a perfect time for deficit spending just like Bush did. But he also did another magnificent thing, he cut taxes to put money back in efficient spenders hands. This was a mixture of the classical approach, and the keynesian approach on top like icing. Our economy recovered in a textbook fashion, and it is something economist will study for years to come. The great recovery after 9/11. Many people predicted we would still be in a recession in 2007, but we were out of the recession within a year after 9/11. In fact, government revenues increased, and government deficits decreased, as a result of Bush's tax cut. Same thing happened with Reagan's tax cuts as well. You want to raise goverment revenues, cut tax rates. People and profit seeking firms will always spend money more efficiently than government does. This is very clear in this case. People generate more profits and income whey they spend their own money (that is why you see government revenues rise after a tax cut) than when government spends that money for them. (Have you heard how much money my government has spent over in Iraq, and how much they spend there every month now. My point exactly.)

Your other points:

Your point on taxes: I am not really arguing the marginal tax rate structure. I has gotten excessive, but it has moved in a positive direction over the last few years under Bush. Taxing someone more than 30% of their earnings gets a bit rediculous. But that is another topic.

Your point on Hitler bringing US out of recession: The US industrial monster was not built and made to be so efficient by the government. The government depended on the private industry to produce war innovative war goods by the millions. If you think government invented and produced all the war goods during WWII you are kidding yourselve tremendously. During WWII, I think it was very necessary to have a deficit spending government. But we would have lost WWII undoubtedly if it had not been for innovative free enterprise in America. Have you commanded a UBoat in late 1944 early 1945 yet. Holy cow. Government did not event all that stuff.

The only other thing I have to say to you is that I agree with you that the US is becoming very protective of its markets. This is going to get worst under democratic leadership I am afraid.

I was just reading this article in the WSJ. Take a look at it and you will know what I mean when I say governments do not spend money wisely. How much do you think this has boosted our economy. Very little if at all. It simply spending that drains money out of our economy and we get very little in return.

Here is the article from WSJ:

The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say. All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion. The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers. For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40% increase over 2006. The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates. The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion. The estimates call into question the Pentagon's projection that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.

End of article....

This is only one example of government spending. The US democratic congress, who is more concerned about the war on Bush rather than the war on terror, has passed only 6 major bills since taking power back. What have they been doing instead of passing all of those laws they claimed they were going to pass. They have launched over 300 investigations that will lead to absolutely nothing, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews, and held over 600 oversight hearings. None of these will lead to anything. Just political show for upcoming 2008 elections. The administrative cost and legal costs of all of these worthless hearings cost millions upon millions of dollars. This is supposed to boost our economy. A complete waist of american money and resources.

This post sums it all up in an easy to see format for all the dumb-downed.

Excellent post hocking. You have a gift for reason. Thank you. :sunny:

Its alright if you don't read everything, though I do read everything you write. But I only do that with long answers that are actually good. Not something I get to say around here much. I definitely like the Keynesian style more, which is to intervene when things are sh1te and to roll back and save during the good times. However I see an extra level of involvement that the government should take. The theory behind the calssical style of economics is solid enough if you consider the success of the economy as the only marker. But to more marxist leaning fellows such as myself the inequities that naturally occur in the economy illicit a sort of desire to see a bit more levelling out of how things go. This isn't to say that I want to see growth retarded, but that the almost sociopathic need to support economic growth is not in the best interests of everyone. That is fundamentally where people like me and you disagree. It isn't that I don't understand the economy or that you do for that matter, but that we see a different scale of justice in it. Success over taxation maybe we can argue some, but even then I don't think we're that dissimilar. When I talk about government responsibility I mean social programs that prevent uncontrollable or unncessarily mundane social problems from preventing someone from being a productive member of society. I do like the government spending my money because the government can do things for me better than I can for myself in some cases. For one they build the roads we drive on. Its not that corporations wouldn't but that you don't want to trust someone that isn't accountable primarily to you to do it. And I see that you're cynical of government accountability but I guess I'm too young to be that jaded yet, or something like that. I do have gripes with the government, don't get me wrong, but I see its usefulness as being in the economic sector too.

Perhaps I didn't make it as clear as I wanted to. I don't mean to say that the government literally bilt the economy, but that through its direction and control it lead it to what it is. There is a reason that war is waged by government, and thats because the free market is too spastic and well competitive to be efficient in a time when speed and sharp decision making is necessary. The government in war had the ability to direct companies to produce a certain thing, how to produce it, and to fund it as well and as a result the now much spoken of Military Industrial Complex exists. It was more like the government directed the economy to do what was necessary for the war. That was what I meant. The innovative free enterprise was merely reigned in much like a private citizen is trained to be a member of an army unit. His strengths and weaknesses are moulded to conform to a particular need but his individuality is still important to success.

In regards to expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, war is never lucrative to a nation but in very rare circumstances. The US made money after WW2 because of the massive loans to other nations. Nowadays war is constantly beneficial to the arms sector of the US but not directly to the country itself. So yes war is a drain, especially a useless war.

As for investigations into wrongdoing, well I gotta say that you want your government to be accountable. It might cost alot but what is the point of government that won't investgate itself because it isn't cost effective? Its a price to pay and I must say that internal investigations of government are never so expensive as ongoing occupations. We can't discount the inefficiency of many departments in this, but there exist these kinds of things in all human organization. There are examples of government effectiveness too. And at the end of the day its the imperfect system we have and without it the free market wouldn't be so free anyway. But I will say that unnessesary wars and accountability investigations are not exactly the best examples to make. There are ones that are less excusable or less fathomable.