The Government Does Not Create Wealth?

[thoughtone]

No it rewards a positive action. It rewards doing something.

Doing something? What does that mean? All movies do something. I thought the Oscars were about rewarding the perceived "best."

You in this comment framed the argument exactly. The Oscars are not objective, just like the economy is not objective. It is not a natural science, it is a man made event.

Those that have or have the best access have the best chance to build wealth. The rules change all the time.

As you said, there has never been totally free markets. It can't exist without rules or regulations, whether those rules and regulations are perceived to be skewed toward one side or another.

Building wealth has never existed without government intervention. The rules have favored the haves for centuries, now labor has understood how to manipulate the rules in their favor.

 

[thoughtone]

The government can actively choose a winner or loser, or the government can step back while a winner is being decided.

Tell me were the government hasn't chosen a winner in the economic history of the world?

Your arguments are purely theoretical and have no basis in reality.

 

[Greed]

No, not at all.

Isn't that inconsistent with any complaint you've ever had about money in government, income inequality, or fairness?

 

[Greed]

Doing something? What does that mean? All movies do something. I thought the Oscars were about rewarding the perceived "best."

You in this comment framed the argument exactly. The Oscars are not objective, just like the economy is not objective. It is not a natural science, it is a man made event.

Those that have or have the best access have the best chance to build wealth. The rules change all the time.

As you said, there has never been totally free markets. It can't exist without rules or regulations, whether those rules and regulations are perceived to be skewed toward one side or another.

Building wealth has never existed without government intervention. The rules have favored the haves for centuries, now labor has understood how to manipulate the rules in their favor.

If you think labor has a chance of winning in the Money-to-Politicans game, then maybe you need to reread muckraker's productivity no longer linked to wages post again.

Tell me were the government hasn't chosen a winner in the economic history of the world?

Your arguments are purely theoretical and have no basis in reality.

So because the world has always subscribed to savagery, it's fine to keep perpetuating it?

 

[thoughtone]

If you think labor has a chance of winning in the Money-to-Politicans game, then maybe you need to reread muckraker's productivity no longer linked to wages post again.


So because the world has always subscribed to savagery, it's fine to keep perpetuating it?

Your arguments are purely theoretical and have no basis in reality.

Exist in the real world!

 

[Greed]

Exist in the real world!

That's fine, keep thinking you're the one being practical.

 

[thoughtone]

That's fine, keep thinking you're the one being practical.

I'm about solutions, not ideology.

 

[Lamarr]

I'm about solutions, not ideology.

Solutions?

How do you solve the problem of 'debt'........with more 'debt'?

Or is that under the guise of creating 'wealth'?

 

[thoughtone]

Solutions?

How do you solve the problem of 'debt'........with more 'debt'?

Or is that under the guise of creating 'wealth'?

Which is more important the debt or high unemployment?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Isn't that inconsistent with any complaint you've ever had about money in government, income inequality, or fairness?

Not in any way.

 

[Lamarr]

Observation;

With all the 'cheerleading' surrounding govt creating 'wealth', we shouldn't hear anymore criticism of 'free markets'. It's clear that govt doesn't allow free markets to exist.

 

[Greed]

I'm about solutions, not ideology.

There is no value in a solution that doesn't work.

Solution, throw money at banks.
Solution, throw money at health insurance companies.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Observation;

With all the 'cheerleading' surrounding govt creating 'wealth', we shouldn't hear anymore criticism of 'free markets'. It's clear that govt doesn't allow free markets to exist.

Nor should it allow "self regulating" free markets to exist.

 

[thoughtone]

Nor should it allow "self regulating" free markets to exist.

"self regulating"

Ah, the good old days!

 

[QueEx]

Nor should it allow "self regulating" free markets to exist.

And he has so far failed and refused to show us where one "actually exists."


.

 

[thoughtone]

And he has so far failed and refused to show us where one "actually exists."


.

Well, just because they never existed doesn't mean they ever existed.

 

[Lamarr]

And he has so far failed and refused to show us where one "actually exists."


.

Not true, I gave examples so damn long ago, your bgol all-stars must have forgot! They didn't have a response then & don't have one now!

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=604671&highlight=barber+shop. POST 8

 

[Upgrade Dave]

There is no value in a solution that doesn't work.

Solution, throw money at banks.
Solution, throw money at health insurance companies.

Throw money into the infrastructure that got rural people electricity, drivable roads (so they could do business)and in many states, irrigation.

Not true, I gave examples so damn long ago, your bgol all-stars must have forgot! They didn't have a response then & don't have one now!

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=604671&highlight=barber+shop. POST 8

We didn't forget. We just haven't finished laughing yet.

Unless "Barbershop" is the name of a country I hadn't heard of.

 

[Lamarr]

We didn't forget. We just haven't finished laughing yet.

oh, I get it......everything's a joke!

UD, No matter how you wanna chop it up;

Wealth is derived from savings. The US govt is 16.6 Trill in the hole....they have no savings

You, or any of your supporting cast, cannot name an instance where the govt has not coerced, inflated, or flat-out took wealth to create wealth

 

[Upgrade Dave]

oh, I get it......everything's a joke!

Not everything, L, just that shit you said.

UD, No matter how you wanna chop it up;

Wealth is derived from savings. The US govt is 16.6 Trill in the hole....they have no savings

You, or any of your supporting cast, cannot name an instance where the govt has not coerced, inflated, or flat-out took wealth to create wealth

Let me show you how stupid I think this argument is

Ambulances don't save lives. They just don't. That's not even their purpose. But they assist and facillitate people who do save lives.
By a very strict definition, it can be argued that government doesn't "create wealth" but that's not the purpose of government in the first place but it can and does assist and facillitate the creation of wealth.
I'm sure there will be someone contorting themselves to argue that point but I've long grown bored of philosophical debates that are not bound by history and actual events.

 

[Greed]

By a very strict definition, it can be argued that government doesn't "create wealth" but that's not the purpose of government in the first place.

Amen. Fucking finally one of you admit that the point of government isn't to shift around wealth.

Now if you would just admit that governments exist to protect rights.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Amen. Fucking finally one of you admit that the point of government isn't to shift around wealth.

I didn't say that.

Now if you would just admit that governments exist to protect rights.

Why admit something that's not true. Governments exist however those that rule them allow them them to exist. A dictatorship is a form of government, how do they protect rights?

 

[Greed]

I didn't say that.

And you were so close to rejecting savagery.

Why admit something that's not true. Governments exist however those that rule them allow them them to exist. A dictatorship is a form of government, how do they protect rights?

Would it help you if I said the point of governments existing is to protect rights.

If it's not protecting rights then it is a dictatorship.

That's a very good point you brought up. Does your government protect rights? And if not is it a dictatorship?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Would it help you if I said the point of governments existing is to protect rights.

If it's not protecting rights then it is a dictatorship.

No. A dictatorship is government. It's not about helping me, I'm good. Just make sure you know what the words you use mean. Be specific on what kind of government you mean as far as protecting rights.

 

[sahusahir]

C'mon now.

The government BORROWED ITS ASS OFF from the private indivudual to "rebuild" Europe and Japan.

The private person did not spend its dollars but instead gave it to the GOVERNMENT so it could give it to Europe and Japan.

And, the whites stole from cultures and civilizations all around the world, in the form of private corporations (Crown Corporations).

The government did not CREATE WEALTH, it simply stole it from others.

Once, again, GOVERNMENT takes from everyone for its own political purposes.

Governments do create something... WAR AND DEBT!

u tripping, who are these private individual u speaking on, that could bank roll an effort of that manitude. Keynesian economics did that. In the here & now When the banks & investment firms bankrupt the economy it was the people who financed they ass. U tripping, been listening to too much right wing ideology. Its always the people who pay. Debt runs this economy and this scenerio came about because of 30 years of reaganomic (also known as free market capitalism, globalization, etc).

 

[sahusahir]

Observation;

With all the 'cheerleading' surrounding govt creating 'wealth', we shouldn't hear anymore criticism of 'free markets'. It's clear that govt doesn't allow free markets to exist.

No such thing as a free market. The market is not free, but corporations want to do whatever they want without consequences. When they can't get their way they start this free market nonsence. When they have a monopoly all that free market talk goes out the window. i'm done. U don't know what u talking about.

 

[Lamarr]

u tripping, who are these private individual u speaking on, that could bank roll an effort of that manitude. Keynesian economics did that. In the here & now When the banks & investment firms bankrupt the economy it was the people who financed they ass. U tripping, been listening to too much right wing ideology. Its always the people who pay. Debt runs this economy and this scenerio came about because of 30 years of reaganomic (also known as free market capitalism, globalization, etc).

Things are about to heat up!

All I will say is when the banks & investment firms over-leveraged themselves (bein greedy) it was the free-market that tried to correct their behavior by sending them to the poor house.......But Bush & Obama intervened in the market with TARP in an attempt to correct the stupidity of Keynesian economics!

 

[Greed]

No. A dictatorship is government. It's not about helping me, I'm good. Just make sure you know what the words you use mean. Be specific on what kind of government you mean as far as protecting rights.

Are you implying what is considered rights is subjective or the concept of rights is subjective or something else altogether?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Are you implying what is considered rights is subjective or the concept of rights is subjective or something else altogether?

Rights are subjective. Rights are not God given. I know people like to say that but it's not true. If they are, why doesnt everyone on the planet have the same rights? One God right, even if he has different names?

 

[thoughtone]

Things are about to heat up!

All I will say is when the banks & investment firms over-leveraged themselves (bein greedy) it was the free-market that tried to correct their behavior by sending them to the poor house.......But Bush & Obama intervened in the market with TARP in an attempt to correct the stupidity of Keynesian economics!

Lamarr, you on many occasions lament the ending or lack of enforcement of Glass Steagall, yet you continually pull the talking point out of you ass that Keynesian economics was responsible for TARP. Keynesian economics has nothing to do with bailing out banks when their accounts are over drawn. Keynesian economics is about unemployment and production capacity of the economy. This is first year basic economics.

It was the libertarians during the 1970s and 80s that wanted and got deregulation of the banks which created national banks and unfettered credit lines to people who couldn't or shouldn't qualify.

The more you comment the more ill informed you appear.

 

[Lamarr]

Lamarr, you on many occasions lament the ending or lack of enforcement of Glass Steagall, yet you continually pull the talking point out of you ass that Keynesian economics was responsible for TARP.

Bush & Obama was responsible for TARP

Keynesian economics has nothing to do with bailing out banks when their accounts are over drawn. Keynesian economics is about unemployment and production capacity of the economy. This is first year basic economics.

"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend, which is the point of this thread! If they did, they wouldn't be $16 Trill in debt

It was the libertarians during the 1970s and 80s that wanted and got deregulation of the banks which created national banks and unfettered credit lines to people who couldn't or shouldn't qualify.

yeah, yeah.......And when the "free-market" tried to penalize the banks for their reckless behavior (GREED....the behavior, not the poster ), Bush & Obama, the true Keynesians they are, stepped in and bailed em out.

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" - George Bush

Bush didn't save shit, the fundamentals are more jacked up now than in 2008, thanks to Keynesian economics. And Obama has accelerated the reckless Bush economic policies (QE4Eva)

Welcome to the 4th Bush term, complete with domestic drones!

 

[thoughtone]

Bush & Obama was responsible for TARP



"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend, which is the point of this thread! If they did, they wouldn't be $16 Trill in debt



yeah, yeah.......And when the "free-market" tried to penalize the banks for their reckless behavior (GREED....the behavior, not the poster ), Bush & Obama, the true Keynesians they are, stepped in and bailed em out.



Bush didn't save shit, the fundamentals are more jacked up now than in 2008, thanks to Keynesian economics. And Obama has accelerated the reckless Bush economic policies (QE4Eva)

Welcome to the 4th Bush term, complete with domestic drones!

So now you, like Greed are shifting the argument. Keynesian Economics was not about bailing out the banks. That other bullshit is typical. Their were a lot of Republicans that voted for Tarp as well as Democrats that voted against it.

The (so called) Free Market did a good job of correction during the 1930s too.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend, which is the point of this thread! If they did, they wouldn't be $16 Trill in debt






!

That is the belief and if done properly, it works. When the private sector cuts back due to recession/depression, the government should step up but only temporarily. Politicians believe it because it works.

edit
Now that my wife's gone, I have time to expound on this post.
Lamarr, this isnt about "creating wealth" at all. But the government stepping in to support the economy and keeping things afloat until the private sector rights itself. You can't fight long term debt and deficits before you address unemployment.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/joe-scarborough-wrong-deficit-much-130415998.html

 

[Greed]

Rights are subjective. Rights are not God given. I know people like to say that but it's not true. If they are, why doesnt everyone on the planet have the same rights? One God right, even if he has different names?

I don't think people not respecting other's individual rights is proof against rights existing and being objective. I don't believe in God given rights either, but I do believe in the concept of the universality of rights.

I think humans are born with rights they are owed to have honored. Yes, all of human history hasn't given a shit, but people are still entitled to it. I also believe they'll never get it, but just because savages will always be in charge doesn't mean that humans are meant to be subjected to savagery.

No human deserves to be subjected to force just for trying to live their lives while not hurting anyone else, that's morality and it should especially apply to governments.

Stop making it illegal to work, stop jailing people for non-violent offenses, and stop taking what little they have and giving it to others to "create wealth," whether it be a banker or a rural farmer.

Rights aren't subjective, it's just that no one gives a shit about them.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I don't think people not respecting other's individual rights is proof against rights existing and being objective. I don't believe in God given rights either, but I do believe in the concept of the universality of rights.

I think humans are born with rights they are owed to have honored. Yes, all of human history hasn't given a shit, but people are still entitled to it. I also believe they'll never get it, but just because savages will always be in charge doesn't mean that humans are meant to be subjected to savagery.

No human deserves to be subjected to force just for trying to live their lives while not hurting anyone else, that's morality and it should especially apply to governments.

Stop making it illegal to work, stop jailing people for non-violent offenses, and stop taking what little they have and giving it to others to "create wealth," whether it be a banker or a rural farmer.

Rights aren't subjective, it's just that no one gives a shit about them.

By definition, that makes them subjective.
I don't believe anyone is entitled to anything. If people want certain rights, they need to fight for them because the people in power (and there will always be "people in power" whatever system you talk about) will not cede those rights out of the goodness of their hearts.