Keynes VS Hayek

[csgators]

 

Most people buy from big corporations, big corporations are no longer encouraged or discouraged.

 

Corporations work like machines, they don't care who their consumer is, they just care about profit.

 

They would not be discouraged at all from it.

 

I think we found the base of the issue, you think that giving someone aid will make them feed off the aid without trying to get a better job/more money.

 

 

Giving aid to lower class individuals will likely encourage them, giving aid to large corporations does nothing.

 

Most people do not work for or get their goods and services from corporations, small business wins hands down:

 

http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

 

The problem with incentive is that it is invisible. It is little things that add up like a doctor seeing less patients because the extra money he would make would be almost completely negated by the increased tax level. How exactly does giving people stuff encourage them to go out and earn their own stuff? It might for the few people who are trying really hard and need some help but that is not the situation with most people getting government aid, in fact it has become a lifestyle spanning generations at this point for a large number of people.

[marharth]

 

Most people buy from big corporations, big corporations are no longer encouraged or discouraged.

 

Corporations work like machines, they don't care who their consumer is, they just care about profit.

 

They would not be discouraged at all from it.

 

I think we found the base of the issue, you think that giving someone aid will make them feed off the aid without trying to get a better job/more money.

 

 

Giving aid to lower class individuals will likely encourage them, giving aid to large corporations does nothing.

 

Most people do not work for or get their goods and services from corporations, small business wins hands down:

 

http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

 

The problem with incentive is that it is invisible. It is little things that add up like a doctor seeing less patients because the extra money he would make would be almost completely negated by the increased tax level. How exactly does giving people stuff encourage them to go out and earn their own stuff? It might for the few people who are trying really hard and need some help but that is not the situation with most people getting government aid, in fact it has become a lifestyle spanning generations at this point for a large number of people.

I guess it comes down to this disagreement then.

 

Can you seriously say that more people go shopping at a small local store then a target or wall mart?

 

If people don't have to worry about spending money on food, they can spend money on other things.

 

Its much easier to find a job if you don't have to worry about bills as much.

Edited May 18, 2011 by marharth

[csgators]

I guess it comes down to this disagreement then.

 

Can you seriously say that more people go shopping at a small local store then a target or wall mart?

 

That depends on what they are shopping for, the city I live in has a very active downtown with tons of small shops offering tons of goods made from local craftsman and small businesses. Obviously some products require a large company just to produce it in a scale to make it economically viable and when goods are disposable it encourages economies of scale. The thing you need to realize though is that the local Walmart is providing local jobs as well.

 

 

If people don't have to worry about spending money on food, they can spend money on other things.

 

Its much easier to find a job if you don't have to worry about bills as much.

 

 

The incentive to find work increases exponentially with the need to provide for oneself and family. If everything is already provided there is much less incentive. Some people do need help but I do not think that is the case of most recipients of federal aid. The convoluted rules and system that distributes that system actually encourages behavior that is detrimental to the recipient. The most glaring example is encouraging parent to not get married in order to receive aid. Don't even try to deny it, I know at least two couples that have not gotten married explicitly for this reason. Ben Franklin said it best:

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Ben Franklin

[marharth]

I guess it comes down to this disagreement then.

 

Can you seriously say that more people go shopping at a small local store then a target or wall mart?

 

That depends on what they are shopping for, the city I live in has a very active downtown with tons of small shops offering tons of goods made from local craftsman and small businesses. Obviously some products require a large company just to produce it in a scale to make it economically viable and when goods are disposable it encourages economies of scale. The thing you need to realize though is that the local Walmart is providing local jobs as well.

 

 

If people don't have to worry about spending money on food, they can spend money on other things.

 

Its much easier to find a job if you don't have to worry about bills as much.

 

 

The incentive to find work increases exponentially with the need to provide for oneself and family. If everything is already provided there is much less incentive. Some people do need help but I do not think that is the case of most recipients of federal aid. The convoluted rules and system that distributes that system actually encourages behavior that is detrimental to the recipient. The most glaring example is encouraging parent to not get married in order to receive aid. Don't even try to deny it, I know at least two couples that have not gotten married explicitly for this reason. Ben Franklin said it best:

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Ben Franklin

I guess I can agree with you for the most part, my big problem is that some people require help due to many reasons.

 

This would go a better direction if we were to figure out the best theoretical system to help the poor.

[csgators]

I guess it comes down to this disagreement then.

 

Can you seriously say that more people go shopping at a small local store then a target or wall mart?

 

That depends on what they are shopping for, the city I live in has a very active downtown with tons of small shops offering tons of goods made from local craftsman and small businesses. Obviously some products require a large company just to produce it in a scale to make it economically viable and when goods are disposable it encourages economies of scale. The thing you need to realize though is that the local Walmart is providing local jobs as well.

 

 

If people don't have to worry about spending money on food, they can spend money on other things.

 

Its much easier to find a job if you don't have to worry about bills as much.

 

 

The incentive to find work increases exponentially with the need to provide for oneself and family. If everything is already provided there is much less incentive. Some people do need help but I do not think that is the case of most recipients of federal aid. The convoluted rules and system that distributes that system actually encourages behavior that is detrimental to the recipient. The most glaring example is encouraging parent to not get married in order to receive aid. Don't even try to deny it, I know at least two couples that have not gotten married explicitly for this reason. Ben Franklin said it best:

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Ben Franklin

I guess I can agree with you for the most part, my big problem is that some people require help due to many reasons.

 

This would go a better direction if we were to figure out the best theoretical system to help the poor.

 

 

Sounds like it's time for you to start a new thread, I would gladly participate. :thumbsup:

[Harbringe]

As far as Food Stamps go its not about Goverrnment deficit spending , they may have initially set up the program but they do not and have not been runnning it .The Banks run it and its just another form debt currency .The participants in it such as JP Morgan (largest)and others for their efforts recieve almost a 100% return. Its not about Government spending its about a garanteed cash flow for banks.Its really simple create a ponzi scheme through deriviatives in the housing market , bring the economy down , get bailed out by taxpayers who assume the debt for your fraud and then run the program that feeds all the newly made poor .Garanteed cash flow.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYRG9f5F4gw

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zf8v7RYk6Y&feature=related

 

 

Capitalism American style for you

[csgators]

I think I need to buy a shack in the mountains, I give up. Any world that allows this crap to go on is not one in which I wish to participate.

[Maharg67]

Both Keynes and Hayek have good points and not so good ones.

 

Some regulation is needed but that means that the government that regulates needs to both be transparent in its decisions and actions; the people also need strong, reliable safeguards against corruption, beaucratic over growth and political stupidity. A big ask but something that would be good.

 

Yet people need at least a fair amount of freedom or democracy only exists as a name. Real pluralism, trustworthy watchers of the system and the ability for the people to use referendums to make changes at their own behest, all of these are important.

 

Strong, fair, reliable economic conditions can only exist if the majority of people are interested in actively supporting them. Apathy, blind following of ideologies or particular factions or leaders, corruption and other such factors stop people from doing so.

 

We get what we work for; we get what we pay for; we get what we care for.

 

The problem with capitalism is that is seems to prosper only from growth in markets, in some kind of expansionism, but where does it go from here? Competition, shortages of resources, war and decline? Neither Keynes or Hayek appear to have good answers to the real problems facing the world today. You can neither spend or save resources when you have run out of them.

 

This is my first and last post in this debate topic.

[csgators]

Both Keynes and Hayek have good points and not so good ones.

 

Some regulation is needed but that means that the government that regulates needs to both be transparent in its decisions and actions; the people also need strong, reliable safeguards against corruption, beaucratic over growth and political stupidity. A big ask but something that would be good.

 

Yet people need at least a fair amount of freedom or democracy only exists as a name. Real pluralism, trustworthy watchers of the system and the ability for the people to use referendums to make changes at their own behest, all of these are important.

 

Strong, fair, reliable economic conditions can only exist if the majority of people are interested in actively supporting them. Apathy, blind following of ideologies or particular factions or leaders, corruption and other such factors stop people from doing so.

 

We get what we work for; we get what we pay for; we get what we care for.

 

The problem with capitalism is that is seems to prosper only from growth in markets, in some kind of expansionism, but where does it go from here? Competition, shortages of resources, war and decline? Neither Keynes or Hayek appear to have good answers to the real problems facing the world today. You can neither spend or save resources when you have run out of them.

 

This is my first and last post in this debate topic.

 

 

Glad to have another poster in the debates forum, welcome. I understand what you are saying and agree with much of it, especially the part about the citizens essentially getting what they deserve. When the population does not pay attention and participate the government can get away with much more than they otherwise would.

 

The part of your post that I wonder about though is where you talk about shortage of resources, war and decline. These things are not new and when one looks at history we seem to be in a better state than in the past. The US is in decline but that has happened to all powers, it simply gives room for the rise of the next power. As far as shortage of resources that is directly addressed by Hayek. Free markets handle that intrinsically with increases in prices, leading to better usage of the scarce resource and an increase of use in alternative resources. On top of that we really aren't running out of any resources, history show contestant hand ringing on the subject but the earth has yet to stop providing anything. We still pull gold, diamonds and oil out of the earth everyday and discover new deposits. As we explore space we shall find yet more resources, possible some unknown to date.

[HeyYou]

Strong, fair, reliable economic conditions can only exist if the majority of people are interested in actively supporting them. Apathy, blind following of ideologies or particular factions or leaders, corruption and other such factors stop people from doing so.

 

And therein lies the trouble. The folks in power can make very sure that things are NOT fair, and that they get the lions share of the benefits. Of course, they do this all the while preaching how they are NOT doing this, and the sheep swallow the line. There are far too many sheep as well..... Read ANY american newspaper comments. (for those that allow public comment.) There are two sides, dems, and repubbies. You can tell which is which simple by the rhetoric they espouse. 99% of it is a a direct quote of their parties positions/beliefs. Its' friggin scarey. There are the occasional "free thinkers' that have a clue, but, they are rare, and definitely in the minority. Individually, some americans are pretty flippin' smart, collectively though, we got nothin' on a box of rocks.