Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Recap of the past few years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Recap of the past few years

    The essential political difference between what is often referred to as the right and the left lies in a differing vision of what man is capable of through the use of reason alone.

    Let us examine the various events of our time in view of this difference.

    1. Stimulus spending reflects a faith in centralised planning as a means of increasing economic growth over and above what it would otherwise be if resources were allocated through the market place. And yet the American economy remains largely as it was before in terms of its overall health. What about other nations?

    Two years ago, Treasury published in the budget papers an analysis of the impacts of fiscal stimulus. The graph purported to show that there was a positive relationship between the size of stimulus…

    The conclusion to be drawn is that government-based central planning does not actually do altogether much other than give rise to large incentives for pork barreling and headlines about "projects" that lead to no particular conclusion. Short-term, rushed and with no coherent objective other than to spend, stimulus ends in waste.

    This should not be surprising, as central planning in the Soviet Union was equally an utter failure. Central planning attempted on a smaller scale is no different even if it is referred to nicely as "Keynesian economics".

    Edit: Foreign policy is another aspect of human affairs in which it is often believed that reason alone can induce others to change. If only we are nice to our enemies, they shall be nice to us. Cultural factors, beliefs and traditions, however, are a far more powerful force than reason. Let us examine how the attempt to use reason to create allies of enemies has worked out for the West so far.
    2. In Libya, the Western fervour for humanitarianism and the belief in our strength as the place of the mighty, the good and the moral overcame any need for a sober analysis of what we were doing and why. The Libyan rebels, of whom we knew little except that they openly cooperated with Al Qaeda, told us civilians were being massacred. Turns out the West was being played for fools. The massacres were not only unconfirmed by independent reports; they were also non-existent.

    Now a Libyan client state is established but can do nothing to protect its own borders as a swathe of Al Qaeda affiliates contest other groups for power.

    Benghazi remains in Ansar Al Sharia's hands and the United States has done nothing before or since the attacks to stop them, other than to hire some of them for consular security before the attacks.

    To make matters worse, an obscure youtube video no one in the Middle East had ever heard of was blamed for the attacks. An outright lie was confected and no one in the US Administration had either the sense or the courage to call it for what it was for weeks on end. The President referred to the attacks as an act of terror, in that it inspired fear, on one occasion early in the piece but refused to acknowledge that it was an act of terrorism. Nor did the rest of administration do so for weeks.

    3. In Egypt, an ally is replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whom even Obama now acknowledges in "not an ally" of the United States, but whom he has not yet deemed an enemy. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood terms the United States worthless, attacks Jews as global dominators, and calls for "resistance" against Zionist-American oppression.

    4. Similarly, the United States continues to regard Turkey as an ally notwithstanding that its Islamist government has broken from the Western tradition and now regularly makes anti-Western and anti-semitic comments. Its ambassador to Chad has even described Al Qaeda as not being a terrorist group, without any repercussion.

    5. In Syria, the Administration funded and armed the "moderate" groups without realising that those weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Then they fell into the wrong hands: the hands of Al Qaeda affiliates. Another foreign policy success.

    6. In Gaza, the Administration successfully pressured Israel to weaken sanctions on Gaza. Success! Hamas' hand is stronger as a result.

    7. In Iran, the Administration, via Secretary Kerry, who for years paid visits to Assad and termed him a moderate, now calls for sanctions not to be strengthened lest radicals like the ones that physically slaughtered the moderates in the last election win again. That Kerry seriously believes that Iranian elections mean something, anything, and is premising its policies on that assumption, is about as foolish as his beliefs vis-a-vis Syria.

    8. Did I mention the Administration seriously termed Assad a reformer and held out hope for months that he would back away from mass slaughter? It's like asking Stalin to play nice. What planet are they on?

    9. Did I mention the Administration seriously expects us to believe it's opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons while it (a) appoints officials who support that outcome; (b) believes Iranian elections are legitimate enough to be affected by American sanction policies?

    10. The Boston attackers were let go and no longer watched because they did not express violent views towards the United States in interviews with the FBI, even as they expressed Islamist beliefs and were warned by Russian intelligence about the danger posed by those very attackers. Meanwhile, American training manuals warned not to go too hard on Islamists who did not turn violent. The FBI followed protocol and those mean old Islamists decided to go violent anyway. Well, it wasn't in the manual so how can we blame them for disregarding everything they should know about Islamist terror?

    But as Hillary is wont to say, what difference does it make? Well, I suppose the people of the Middle East, and the people of Boston, are finding out exactly what difference it makes when an Administration neither knows nor understands its foreign policy priorities, let alone the world around them.
    Last edited by Zevico; May 19, 2013, 06:10.
    "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

  • #2
    This is the low quality post we've all come to expect out of you Zevico. Graphs where the axis are not labeled, displaying countries group by undefined terms, and multiple variables lumped together or ignored. For instance most of the US stimulus, at least 2/3rds, was actual tax cuts while most of the remainder was aid to states for things like unemployment & food stamps, with actual stimulus (as Keynes himself would have defined it) making up only about 7% of the bill. Yet you lump it in with a bunch of other countries without defining what is a stimulus or breaking down exactly what was in the varies bills each countries passed. You just lump all of it under the bull**** term "central planning" mostly because you're not very bright, you're very poorly educated on the topic, and because you're just not intellectually curious as a person preferring to steal other people's blog posts and pretend they're your original ideas.

    So why don't you go back to peddling theories about racial determinism of outcomes and leave the serious discussions to the adults, ok?
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

    Comment


    • #3
      "A bill which is 2/3rds tax cuts is central planning like the COMMUNISTS! DERP!"

      Do you ever listen to yourself, man? Because you sound ****ing stupid to the rest of us.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Zevico View Post
        This should not be surprising, as central planning in the Soviet Union was equally an utter failure. Central planning attempted on a smaller scale is no different even if it is referred to nicely as "Keynesian economics".
        "equally" and "no different"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dinner View Post
          This is the low quality post we've all come to expect out of you Zevico. Graphs where the axis are not labeled, displaying countries group by undefined terms, and multiple variables lumped together or ignored.
          The terms, variables etc are stated here.
          Two years ago, Treasury published in the budget papers an analysis of the impacts of fiscal stimulus. The graph purported to show that there was a positive relationship between the size of stimulus…


          For instance most of the US stimulus, at least 2/3rds, was actual tax cuts

          Two thirds? Where are you getting these figures? Per the Economist:
          What did Barack Obama’s stimulus package really achieve?

          The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
          [b]$288 billion in tax cuts.[b]
          $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
          $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

          Roughly one-third. Why not begin with the correct factual premise, and proceed with the argument? Let me pre-empt you by stating that a bill largely devoted to increasing funding on "benefits, education and health care" as well "federal contracts, grants and loans" is unlikely to create growth in the long or the short term, simply because it is being thrown anywhere and everywhere with the simple object of spending as much as possible. No one asked if more funding for any of these things was necessary or helpful, and there is no evidence that any of it has substantially assisted the economy. The proof is in the pudding. Economically the United States stands in basically the same position as it was before. Labour force participation is down about 3% from the time the Obama Administration came to office, to levels not seen since the Carter Administration in 1978. This is not a sign of a healthy economy.

          while most of the remainder was aid to states for things like unemployment & food stamps

          Likely to induce people to stop looking for work or finding it. Also an exercise in central planning. See also the drop in the labor participation rate.

          with actual stimulus (as Keynes himself would have defined it) making up only about 7% of the bill.

          "Benefits, education, health care" and governmental "loans, contracts, grants" constitute central planning, and poor central planning at that.

          You just lump all of it under the bull**** term "central planning"

          How is that term bull****? If government bureaucrats and politicians decide to "stimulate" the economy by playing with the resources of the taxpayer like some game, we are engaging in central planning. The scope of that planning is far greater in expanse under communism but the exercise is essentially the same.

          you're very poorly educated on the topic

          See that package consisting of about one third tax cuts?

          and because you're just not intellectually curious as a person preferring to steal other people's blog posts and pretend they're your original ideas.

          My intellectual curiosity is not the subject of this thread. Nor is my intelligence, or your false accusation about my "peddling theories about racial determinism" relevant. Why you see fit to accuse me of such is a matter for you. Personally, I derive no pleasure from petty insult exchanges and will not engage in them.
          "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Aeson View Post
            "equally" and "no different"
            In that they both fail, horribly, compared to market-based alternatives.
            "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, another summary, more concise and to the point:

              Zevico is a right wing chickenhawk, centering his entire worldview around what is ultimately beneficial for Israel.
              "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

              Comment


              • #8
                looks like a lot of clever sounding but obscure gibber
                Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Alexander's Horse View Post
                  looks like a lot of clever sounding but obscure gibber
                  On review, it seems I switched topics from economic policy to a foreign policy without giving a through linkage between them. I would point out that the belief that our enemies can be turned into friends if we help them, as Obama has, is basically a form of faith in the power of reason to change people: the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turkish AKP, the Libyan people, even Islamists living in the United States. For all this humanitarianism the only return is American blood. That's my point. And if you want to call it "gibber", that's a matter for you.
                  "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Zevico View Post
                    In that they both fail, horribly, compared to market-based alternatives.
                    "Equally", "no different"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Zevico View Post
                      The essential political difference between what is often referred to as the right and the left lies in a differing vision of what man is capable of through the use of reason alone.

                      No, it's definitely prowess in bed.
                      The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He's done this before - it only makes sense if you study at the same yeshiva
                        Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                        Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Aeson View Post
                          "Equally", "no different"
                          Oh, very well. Yes, the degree of failure in a Communist state is far greater because there no one has the economic or political freedom to criticise, discuss and induce changes in behaviour. Yes, central planning in the West is to that extent more effective, and probably in a few limited other ways as well. But the basic failure is the same. Economy wide planning simply cannot account for changes in behaviours or utilise resources as well as the market.
                          "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Alexander's Horse View Post
                            He's done this before - it only makes sense if you study at the same yeshiva
                            You're all class. Are cheap pot shots your only game?
                            "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes, the failure of Communism was much greater than the failure of Keynesian economics. One lead to failed states and hundreds of millions dead. The other (to whatever extent) was part of what lead to the most wealthy people and nations that have ever been. But other than that, they're the same and their failure is the same!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X