Fantastic Back and Forth: Progressive v. Conservative

The back and forth banter I found in the comment section of a British economist's opinion piece on fiscal austerity was so interesting I had to share.

Both commenters do a good job of embodying the arguments I hear from each movement; I clearly subscribe to one of their line's of thought, but decide for yourself:

Original article HERE.


Indeed. 2011 is gonna be 1938 all over again with federal spending coming to a screeching halt and the purchasing power of consumers being undermined. The Republicans have Obama right where they want him, creating a national consensus in support of modern-day economic Know-Nothingism that drowns out investment in the only sector willing to invest in the American economy, that being government. By playing along with the Republican narrative that running a budget surplus is a top priority in a time of economic hardship, Obama is positioning Republicans to roll him in 2012 when the GOP narrative returns to "why didn't you do more to fix the economy?!" five minutes after Obama takes their advice and slashes spending, triggering a double dip recession. The time for "austerity" was 2006, but nobody ever wants to sacrifice when times are good. We're seeing the consequences for that now.
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 7:03 PM |
32 of 41 people liked this comment.


Well it looks like we can all rest assured that the Star Tribune hasn’t lost its ability to find well educated elitists to tell us why common sense belongs to idiots or why we should all be Keynesians. I don’t know about you but my hackles get up whenever someone tries to convince me of something by referring to the “Ricardian equivalence”. Maybe throwing around lots of big words will convince the commoners that they just don’t have what it takes to understand public policy and should therefore leave all the decision making to the pros. Maybe they’ll abandon the notion that when it comes to spending money, government should behave roughly the same as they do: that they shouldn’t buy things they can’t afford or go deeply into debt. Yes I’m sure if all of us followed the advice of Mr Blanchflower, we would all be broke and therefore completely dependent on and at the mercy of government. Maybe that’s the point all along.
posted by rockpile12 on Jan. 28, 11 at 7:35 PM |
18 of 50 people liked this comment.


rockpile12--somtimes the truth hurts
posted by martytoil on Jan. 28, 11 at 7:41 PM |
27 of 37 people liked this comment.


Martytoil - please enlighten me to the truth.
posted by rockpile12 on Jan. 28, 11 at 7:44 PM |


rockpile12, you would have no problem convincing an overwhelming majority of Americans that government spending in these times is a bad bargain if you could convince your buddies in the business community to invest in American jobs in lieu of government. But despite your limitless faith in the private sector being the life-saving elixir that would cure us all if only government got its boot off of their necks, the private sector isn't going to invest in American jobs in any meaningful way...and I think you know that. For all your talk of an overbearing government gobbling up resources, this could all go away if the $2 trillion the business community is sitting on was invested in the American economy, putting Americans to work making American products and fixing up devastated American communities. But that won't happen...because in the postglobalized economy we live in, American workers are increasingly less attractive to would-be employers. After two generations of selling out your neighbors to the lowest bidders, those who follow your worldview have created the present dystopia where the only entity ready, willing, and able to invest in its own people is the bankrupt government. You created your own hell...and we're all burning in it.
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 7:59 PM |
35 of 44 people liked this comment.


Mark27 – lots to disagree with you on. First, please explain how taking money out of the economy via taxation and redeploying a portion of it back to areas some bureaucrat thinks are worthy is a good idea. Also please explain how government knows how to spend our money better than we do. That is what Mr Blanchflower and apparently you are advocating. Secondly, I agree with you that our middle class has become way expensive in a global economy but you seem to think it’s the fault of conservatives or the rich. You couldn’t be more wrong. Your (you liberals) social security has made the American worker more expensive. Your (you liberals) Federal Unemployment Tax and State Unemployment Tax has made the American worker more expensive. Your (you liberals) workers compensation has made the American worker more expensive. But most importantly, your (you liberals) unions have really, really made the American worker more expensive. You sir (you liberals) have created your own hell.
posted by rockpile12 on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:11 PM |
13 of 45 people liked this comment.


rockpile12--Did you not read the article?
posted by martytoil on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:15 PM |


Martytoil - yes I read the article. What's your point?
posted by rockpile12 on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:19 PM |



rockpile12, now more than any time in memory, the "private sector spends money more wisely than government" canard seems naive. Right now we have a business community sitting on $2 trillion of loot that it's not creating jobs with in a time where the need for them to spend that money has never been greater....and you have government scrambling to fill the void for the lack of private sector's lack of investment in the American people. This is not so much a blasphemous indictment on the business community, as you allege, as it is a recognition of its limits and that its motivations are often diametrically opposed to the best interest of the population.......
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:26 PM |
24 of 30 people liked this comment.


rockpile12, and as for the second half of your posts, you could not have more perfectly showcased why conservatives are poised to ultimately lose the societal struggle for middle-class salvation. Your prescribed remedy appears to be wholesale forfeiture of every institution that separates the American middle-class standard of living from the world of rice paddies, rickshaws, and sewers running down the street that American workers are competing with. You feign concern for the plight of the middle-class all the while lecturing them that they need to give up their retirement compensation, their unemployment safety net, and their collective bargaining ability with management. But I have a nagging suspicion you are like most conservatives and excluding yourself from your own calls for "austerity". Are you forfeiting a large portion of your salary to your employer in the name of fostering a better climate of competition in the global economy?
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:35 PM |
27 of 33 people liked this comment.


Mark27 – once again I would ask you why do you think that is? Why do companies sit on cash instead of spending it or hiring people with it? Companies are not spending because of uncertainty. Uncertainty is the bane of business So, the next question is why are they uncertain? In addition to the uncertainty of the Euro or the solvency of countries where they do business, the biggest piece of uncertainty lies in health care costs. Companies are still scrambling to figure out what the new health care laws will do to them or even what their options are. They’re uncertain whether they will have to pay some ridiculous carbon tax. Again, this uncertainty and consequently lack of hiring are direct or indirect results of liberal policy. That’s why I find it so ironic that you want to champion the cause of the middle class but advocate policy that is uniformly detrimental to them. As much as you don’t want to admit it, private enterprise is the best thing that ever happened to the middle class and is their best hope of prosperity. I would offer India, China, Brazil and Korea as a few examples.
posted by rockpile12 on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:42 PM |
9 of 32 people liked this comment.


rockpile12, so if you get hurt at work, will you choose to forgo any compensation, rendering yourself unemployable in the foreseeable future while being on the hook for your own medical costs? Or is that only acceptable for Joe Sixpack on the other side of the tracks in your world where workers compensation is a large part of the "hell" I've created for myself? Seems to me that if you want to be taken seriously in your advocacy for America to sink to Third World quality working and living conditions for the overwhelming majority of its people, you need to explain to us how rockpile12 would react if he had some skin in the game, not just calling for unlimited sacrifice from "the other guy".
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 8:51 PM |
23 of 30 people liked this comment.


rockpile12, you go first buddy. You just insisted that America's only path to global economic competitiveness is wholesale forfeiture of retirement compensation, unemployment insurance, compensation complicity for workplaces that injure their workers, and any and all collective bargaining between workers and management. Rather than spew mindless platitudes about the "uncertainty" plaguing the American business community in a time of record profits and extended tax cuts, perhaps you could improve your salesmanship of returning to Gilded Age America by assuring us that you would be a willing participant in the kind of poverty you prescribe for the rest of us.
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 9:00 PM |
20 of 24 people liked this comment.


Mark27 – look at your last few posts. They are full of expectation of entitlement. Your employer should provide you this, your employer should provide you that. Does an employer have to worry about this crap if he employs workers from India? Does an employer have to worry about paying FICA, FUT and SUT taxes on workers from India? The answer is no and that is one of the biggest reasons why our middle class is suffering. We are all competing with workers from around the world. If you possess a valuable skill, you’ll be rewarded for it. If you don’t, what do you have to offer that an Indian worker can’t best? The American worker is very expensive and the free market is telling you loud and clear they’d better lower their cost.
posted by rockpile12 on Jan. 28, 11 at 9:01 PM |
9 of 31 people liked this comment.


rockpile12, you will find that a society that achieves a worthwhile quality of life does feel an "entitlement" that said quality of life be sustained. Should Joe Sixpack have to apologize for wishing to sustain the institutions that leave him better off than the 11-year-old orphan on the streets of Shanghai pulling rickshaws for tips and eating out of dumpsters? It's an amazing juxtaposition when you hear conservatives decry returning from a 35% top tax rate to a 39.6% top tax rate as "punishing the successful", but when it comes to the workers of the globe who've elevated themselves to the middle class through collective bargaining and retirement compensation, you all but insist that the successful be punished.
posted by Mark27 on Jan. 28, 11 at 9:13 PM |



Cheers,
Drew

Social Security, A Compact Between Generations

I just read an article from Paul Krugman giving a strong counterpoint to the popular analysis saying social security is going bankrupt and must be scrapped, cut, slashed, reorganized, privatized, etc etc etc. I have been a fairly firm subscriber to this line of thinking as well, and I suspect that YOU have been, too?

Anyway, it's back to the realm of uncertain for me. I know some of the big facts about it, but there's much to be discovered. Here's the link to the article.

Here's part of my dialogue with the friend who showed it to me:

While this does provide an interesting and seemingly sound argument in defense of SS, I have heard statistics citing the fact that SS will begin paying out more than it gets in around 2016/2017. The whole aging population/changing demographics thing will start to hurt a bit. Of course, then we should be able to use the surplus to take care of those costs, until ~2037, when (I may be wrong) we can only pay about 80% of benefits.

What I don't know is what the truly long term situation is, say, in the 20-50 years beyond the 2037 threshold. If it won't be trending in the other direction (and how would that happen unless we start breeding like rabbits?) at that point, I don't see how changes are avoidable.

Another thing that is HIGHLY relevant to my opinion here is where the 2.5 Trillion in surplus is at right now. Borrowed like Pawlenty's "delayed school payments"? Highly relevant for me.

Cheers,

Drew

Cheers,

Drew