On economic issues, do you consider yourself to be more liberal or conservative?
OBAMA 2012!!! He is for equality and doesn't lie!
HolyBabble It seems you're right!
Well actually it's only in the US that the economic position of Democrats would be classified as liberal. Democrats, generally speaking, favor intervention into the market. There's nothing liberal (ie, free!) about that.
@11yroldpwn you are correct!
Liberal means demacrat
I actually don't know.. What's "liberal" when it comes to the economy? Is it similar to "socialist"? Would that make "conservative" similar to "libertarian"?
Drink it in... slowly, so you don't miss a drop!
Obama is radical. Vote Rick Santorum 12'
Anyone who works and wants to keep your own money would answer conservative.
Keynesians long for a controlled utopia where Austrians see the world as it is, accepting the pace yet understanding the value of PATIENCE. The depression of the 20's could have been as long/damaging as the Great Depression but the central planners and gov intervention was not there to enhance it.
What is seen is a struggle for control to fix petty insecurities/faults of a pure free market. Debt not backed by savings only endangers us more, it doesn't save us from being crippled. The idea we need fiat money to perpetuate debt in order to stabilize us is no more than economic propaganda.
Johns theories were well in place before his time. All he did was present the theory under his name in an organized matter. The first Bank of The United States under Hamilton's ideas was Keynesian before Keynes was born. He represents the fundamental idea of central economic planning.
We have implemented aspects of both Keynesian (Fractional reserve banking, external government stimuli, low interest rates) and many aspects of Von Mises Austrian as well (taxation, deregulation of financial sector).
We don't have a purist Keynesian state nor an Austrian one, this to say either hasn't worked in practice is fallacious. We have aspects of both. Supply-side "trickle down" is an offshoot of the ABCT.
@mixhead we didn't have Keynesian economics in the 20's. John didn't even start pushing his theory of aggregate demand until the 30's. Even then we hadn't completely done away with neoclassical economics. debt is a great thing. Our economy is crippled without it.
Keynesians and Austrians are exactly alike, in that they both are not entirely right.
why is that hilarious? where's the wealth in this country?
I find it hilarious that CA says that 60% are fiscally conservative.
History is being challenged and Keynesians are beginning to look like the culprit for such horrid cycles whereas Austrians are beginning to bloom. Keynesianism wrote our economic history so of course they are always the saviors.
@veritas Austrians put more emphasis on savings for investment whereas Keynesians put the emphasis on debt for investments. Keynesians ignore the fast recovering depression of 1920 but act as saviors of the self-keynes-inflicted great depression that lasted longer & deeper had they not intervened.
landoffree - those aren't excuses they are facts. Again, you are implying that every un- or under-employed person is there because they are lazy and that you are not the beneficiary of numerous advantages in your life. You seem pretty darn arrogant to me. Not surprised you can't keep employees.
@JasHaynes. That is not Keynesian economics. Keynesians want to spend during economic downturns to artificially boost demand, then repay Debts during prosperity. Austrians propose leaving the economy as it is and praying it will recover.
Both are flawed, one more so.
@landoffree. I don't care about the poorest 1% of the population. They are not the problem. Some make more an hour than they do in a year.
Look at the big picture, the trivial things. We have a GNI of $15 trillion and you are looking at the small pittance we spend on welfare.
The reason I say it was the exception is because this demand lasted only 4 years and was funded by bonds eventually the momentum would have been lost.
@Mixhead- you are correct on both points, however the war effort of the time was a significant demand for materials which created more jobs, and that's what I was referring to.
It still took 8 years to rebuild destruction and malinvestment from the pointless destructive economic policies of Hoover and Roosevelt as well as the destructive War.
@JesHaynes I agree gov spending is a Keynesian fallacy as well but WWII was not the exception but another misconception. It was the dismantling of regulations that freed up the market. War is the destruction of resources.
When Greece falls from this type of practice along with the other European nations, the US will follow. This may plunge the world into yet another war where the exception is likely not to work.
@Mixhead-government spending its way out of debt is a popular Keynesian fallacy. WWII was the exception and not the rule. This fallacy is not only being used in the US but also in other nations around the world.
If WWII got us out of the great depression then we should draft all the unemployed out to war. Unemployment 0% and GDP would skyrocket due to all that gov spending! This false economic analysis was observed and perpetuated by the Keynesians in the world. Common sense can expose its fallacies.
Then we can administer IQ tests to everyone so we can judge whether or not they can have an original thought. that should solve all of our problems. Good thinking.
@HolyBabble-I'm certain that the studies you read in the New York Times or USA Today are all unbiased and 100% accurate. It's a shame our society can't all be as smug as you are and attend a highly prestigious university where liberal professors can brain wash us.
Religious Conservatives rank far lower on IQ tests.
Multiple studies have shown that kids who are beaten over the head with a Bible and given Holy Water enemas consistently rank lower on intelligence tests.
If you taxed the Fed at less than 1% we would be out of the deficit within one presidential term. Just so you get your facts straight it was not FDRs spending that got us out of the depression, it was world war 2 and the demand of jobs and talent that pulled us out.
Need more funding for the government? Tax the Fed. It's very being in existence in the US was warned about by the founders, and signed into existence by Woodrow Wilson predecessor to your hero FDR. Likely the very reason we had the Great Depression.
You then lower taxes across the board. It's the governments job to fund the military and military programs. One of if not the only thing our tax dollars should be funding to provide for a common defense as stated in the preamble of the constitution.
@JakeyLeft- You don't reduce a deficit by increasing taxes on the rich. You do it by cutting spending on the so called "vital" programs like social security and Medicare (which were meant to be temporary programs anyway, now bankrupt).
I don't know what your definition of average is, but I can tell you that in order to start a business you don't have to have a college degree or much for substantial "book" intelligence. It takes opportunity, talent, and recources.
Take Jelly Belly for instance, the guy who started it had no support at all from his idea. This is a typical story across the board on start ups. the only variable I agree with you on is opportunity, which ultimately should be the 1st variable.
Like your 100k in loans they too have to struggle to make ends meat. The 2nd variable relies on the 1st. The 3rd variable of support is not needed at all. Many start ups did not have the support of family and peers, in fact quite the opposite simply because people are afraid of risk.
You're 2nd variable of having $ to start a business is not true at all, if you are talking about it being your own personal funds. Start ups are in debt at the get go either through investments in they're businesses or through loans obtained by banks or by less than ethical means.
They are privately owned businesses, some of which don't necessarily have the brightest crayons in the box running them. It doesn't take intelligence to start a business, it takes talent.
@dlyliny1- your argument is flawed I know many people who have started businesses w/out the variables you have mentioned. Starting with the 1st intelligence. Have you been to a pawn shop or a tow service? I don't know if you know this, but most of those places aren't franchises.
And yes, I put myself thru college & grad school ($100k in loans, no parental help) & I STILL struggle to make ends meet.
wasn't valued by yr family/ friends (peer effect), he'll prob not ever achieve what u r saying everyone "can". Consider urself fortunate but don't b so arrogant as to believe that bc u did it, so can everyone, bc it isn't that black & white.
easily or u don't like school, it'll b difficult to become super successful (unless u have a brilliant mind for inventions, etc). I'm not saying that people of average intellect can't be successful or don't try but if one is of avg intell, doesn't have the $ means to attend college, and education
@landoffree, u forget some very important variables, 1st of which is intelligence; 2nd is money; 3rd is support; 4th is plain dumb luck/opportunity. U need a combo of all 4 to really succeed financially. Usually u need $ to make $ (go to school, start a biz, etc). Also if u don't learn things
Freedom is the ability to choose, not the regulation of governments; that is enslavement hosted by tyranny.