• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California has now been sentenced to DEATH

from Councilman

Part of the trouble coming here is the the push back that might come because of the voter fraud that took place with all the illegal who are free to vote in California no questions allowed to be asked.

Could you please print or link to the actual evidence of "all the illegal who are free to vote in California no questions allowed..."

That seems to be central to your post and your accusation.

I too feel your state is doomed financially.
 
When will we be able to see how accurate your prediction of death is? How will we see it?

By what date will it be dead and what will the indicator be?
 
I find it hilarious how some of those who advocate redistribution of income and parasitic government activity are so livid about the tea party movement.

parasitic government? well, perhaps, but the parasite i invite is better welcome than the one that attaches itself to me against my will. I VOTE for the folks in government... i don't vote for swine that mistake greed for sense of self entitlement. like ****, folks like that just happen
assinine [sic]-whining about the wealthy and demanding they pay more and more so you can feel better about yourself?
you really have a hangup about how everyone is envious of you, don't you? you can't be THAT cute.

you do realize that you are simply reinforcing the stereotype of the rich white guy that cannot see value in anything BUT money and cannot understand that others do, doncha? i feel pretty good about myself without your money and without your approval.
trust government has sent 100Million people to early graves

in order to generate more money for rich white guys.

geo.
 
Yeahhh!!! Down with CA!!!

Wait, isn't CA part of the U.S.? So doesn't that mean that its economy matters to the whole?

Better change the slogan then...

Yeahhh!!! Down with U.S. economy!!!

If there were an emoticon for shooting oneself in the foot, I'd probably use it right about now.
 
Wait, isn't CA part of the U.S.? So doesn't that mean that its economy matters to the whole?

yeah... sure does. it has the largest GSP in the country and, in fact, the state of california, if considered as a nation, would have the 9th largest GDP in the world. if california were taken OUT of the U.S. and THEN compared... it would rank somewhere near 3rd.

of course, that is all over now that we have decided to try to stop poisoning the state in order to line the pockets of rich "foreigners".

long live the golden state, where "tea party" is still nothing more than a game that little girls play.

geo.
 
Just a general lesson:

Keynesian theory, in a nut shell, and despite what Wiki says about it, is really quite simple, and the idea has validity if practiced properly, but it is not what most people think it is. or I should really say, that the root of Keynesian theory is in the application of the economic model.

Essentially, Keynesian theory states that govenment should play a larger role in the economy, but unlike current western style "free-market" economies, where Government set monetary policy, provides inefficient supply and demand models, produce a not for profit "good or service", Keynesian theory suggests that, if managed correctly, Governemnt can act as a corporation, and the private sector would be an essential subsidiary to the parent company. What it all means is that, Government should, according to Keynesian theory, take sole ownership of certain segments within the structure of the national economy, and run them for profit. The root idea being that, certain segments once monopolized, would institutionalize supply and demand, but, would not interfer with the macro economic progress of the private sector.

If successful, the theory is that, the portion wholly controlled by government would be profitable enough to fund all necessary government endevours. Things like welfare, medicare, medicaid, SS, roads, bridges, and military. The net result is that, the individual is taxed less, has more money to spend, and the economy boons. As things go by, and with politicians in control, more things get added to the list of entitlements, and we all know where that leads too.

Off the top of my head, a few nations ahve tried it, Singapore comes to mind, China is doing a form of it now, and various other nations in the past.

The problem with Keynesian theory is that, politicians control the flow of money. Workers, are allowed to unite (Eventually), and form unions within the government controlled sectors - net result is that the government as a corporation becomes inefficient, stagnent, corruptable, and eventually the people in control at one point lose control, and those that gain control, are left with a mess that is hard to undo. So, the new handlers think they can do it better, and the scenario repeats itself.

Keynesian theory, doesn't take into account the corruptability of men; the very men who control the flow of the money. In theory, and on paper Keynesian theory works, and works quite well, in practice however, it fails miserably.

To the poster that said Keynesian theory isn't socialism, I beg to differ. The very idea is socialist to its core. I will grant you though, that, in theory it could work. Perhaps that's why people keep trying it. :)


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Keynesian theory, doesn't take into account the corruptability of men; the very men who control the flow of the money. In theory, and on paper Keynesian theory works, and works quite well, in practice however, it fails miserably.
That is the core of the problem with larger government. Replacing a greedy capitalist monopoly with a corrupt bureaucratic government monopoly is merely going from the frying pan to the fire, and hardly represents progress for the ordinary citizen. In fact it is worse, because overthrowing a government is generally a very bloody process.

The better solution for consumers is always open competition and free markets.
 
That is the core of the problem with larger government. Replacing a greedy capitalist monopoly with a corrupt bureaucratic government monopoly is merely going from the frying pan to the fire, and hardly represents progress for the ordinary citizen. In fact it is worse, because overthrowing a government is generally a very bloody process.

The better solution for consumers is always open competition and free markets.

and of course, full disclosure. I've often advocated that the root to the systemic (Gawd I hate that catch phrase) obstruction to advanced free markets, is the lack of full disclosure. If government did nothing else but insure full disclosure by way of aggressive regulatory actions; the positive outcomes would be worlds apart from what we have now. In fact, when it comes to economic theory, the only role an effective government should play in the economy, in my opinion, would be for this capacity, and this one alone. If I had to choose another important role, it would be in supporting new and emerging markets, and insuring the viability of current markets.

Let's take a simple example.

Doctors generally all get paid the same rate for their services, right?


So here's the scenario. Doctor *A* is a surgeon, and you need your leg amputated because you have gang green? Doctor *A* works out of the local university hospital, employees a full medical team, has all the latest and greatest, and insured up the whazoo. Doctor *B* is also a surgeon with the same experience, however he works out of his house, or a small office that he has converted part of into a operating room. He too employs a staff, and is insured. Doctor *A* has never been sued, and his record is clean, however Doctor *B* has had a couple of minor law suits, and one for malpractice event that took place almost after the poor fella got out of Med-School. Now, let's say that doctors MUST have a registry, a registry that is maintained by a "government" agency, that, among other things performs quality control over every single doctor in the US. Call it the BBB but run by the government, this agency is also incentivized by keeping accurate, and up to the minute records on all the licensed doctors in its database. Not staffed by public unionized employees, but real motivated people that are paid for their hard work independent of their co-workers achievements, but I digress...

So, now we have two doctors, one has had a couple of hiccups in his career, the other is squeaky clean. The operation, as operations go, is fairly routine. Doc *A* charges top dollar for Doctors in his "rating category" (Rated by the monitoring agency on a scale), Whereas, Doc *B* is free to charge what he wants, and is not obligated to charge less, but in a proper fully disclosed market, where the consumer takes an active role in their consumption, the poor Doc can't charge the same as Doc *A*. So, you're the patient, you can choose to pay top dollar, maybe miss that vacation this year, or delay paying off the boat, or, you can save a few bucks, weigh the risk, and get your leg cut off, and take that vacation, or pay off that boat? You get to decide, and you have all of the variables in front of you. Nothing is hidden.

That's how the free fully disclosed market is supposed to work.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
parasitic government? well, perhaps, but the parasite i invite is better welcome than the one that attaches itself to me against my will. I VOTE for the folks in government... i don't vote for swine that mistake greed for sense of self entitlement. like ****, folks like that just happen
you really have a hangup about how everyone is envious of you, don't you? you can't be THAT cute.

you do realize that you are simply reinforcing the stereotype of the rich white guy that cannot see value in anything BUT money and cannot understand that others do, doncha? i feel pretty good about myself without your money and without your approval.


in order to generate more money for rich white guys.

geo.

yeah Mao and Pol Pot were rich white guys

same with Mugabe, Macias, and Idi Amin
 
Hell, if California can survive the governorship of the gipper and the the largest tax increase in California history or any other state (up to that time) it can survive this blip. :2wave:
 
Hell, if California can survive the governorship of the gipper and the the largest tax increase in California history or any other state (up to that time) it can survive this blip. :2wave:

lets hope not
 
So you hate california? Is it the same as hating france?

They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.
 
Just a general lesson:

Keynesian theory, in a nut shell, and despite what Wiki says about it, is really quite simple, and the idea has validity if practiced properly, but it is not what most people think it is. or I should really say, that the root of Keynesian theory is in the application of the economic model.

Essentially, Keynesian theory states that govenment should play a larger role in the economy, but unlike current western style "free-market" economies, where Government set monetary policy, provides inefficient supply and demand models, produce a not for profit "good or service", Keynesian theory suggests that, if managed correctly, Governemnt can act as a corporation, and the private sector would be an essential subsidiary to the parent company. What it all means is that, Government should, according to Keynesian theory, take sole ownership of certain segments within the structure of the national economy, and run them for profit. The root idea being that, certain segments once monopolized, would institutionalize supply and demand, but, would not interfer with the macro economic progress of the private sector.

If successful, the theory is that, the portion wholly controlled by government would be profitable enough to fund all necessary government endevours. Things like welfare, medicare, medicaid, SS, roads, bridges, and military. The net result is that, the individual is taxed less, has more money to spend, and the economy boons. As things go by, and with politicians in control, more things get added to the list of entitlements, and we all know where that leads too.

Off the top of my head, a few nations ahve tried it, Singapore comes to mind, China is doing a form of it now, and various other nations in the past.

The problem with Keynesian theory is that, politicians control the flow of money. Workers, are allowed to unite (Eventually), and form unions within the government controlled sectors - net result is that the government as a corporation becomes inefficient, stagnent, corruptable, and eventually the people in control at one point lose control, and those that gain control, are left with a mess that is hard to undo. So, the new handlers think they can do it better, and the scenario repeats itself.

Keynesian theory, doesn't take into account the corruptability of men; the very men who control the flow of the money. In theory, and on paper Keynesian theory works, and works quite well, in practice however, it fails miserably.

To the poster that said Keynesian theory isn't socialism, I beg to differ. The very idea is socialist to its core. I will grant you though, that, in theory it could work. Perhaps that's why people keep trying it. :)


Tim-

Incorrect.

Keynesianism is based on the concept of nominal wage rigidity (sticky wages). It is a means of protecting markets from productivity traps. Think of a productivity trap as a phenomenon where people who were productive before a very long bout of unemployment are no longer capable of producing at their previous levels due to diminished skills.

What you have just described is a tenant of fascism.
 
Keynesian in simple English.
Keynesian economics (Keynesianism) describes the economics theories from famous economist John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes believed that capitalism was a good economic system, but sometimes, when the economy becomes bad, the government should step in and do something about it.

When the economy is bad, people tend to save their money instead of spend it, and in result there is less economic activity.

Keynes believed that the government should spend a lot of money (even if it has to borrow the money and go into debt) to create jobs for unemployed people, and then those people would spend their money, which would create more jobs and get the economy's motor running again.

Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression was an example of Keynesian economics.

Some people such as conservatives, libertarians, and people who believe in Austrian economics are against Keynesian economics because they believe the economy can recover on its own without government intervention.

During the late 1970's Keynesian economics became less popular because inflation was high.

When a big recession happened in 2007, Keynesian economics became more popular. Leaders around the world (including Barack Obama) created stimulus packages which would allow their government to spend a lot money to create jobs.

Many economists such as Paul Krugman believe in Keynesian economics.
 
They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.

Realistically the problem with California is the spending with out the taxation part, people are voting for all sorts of new programs, but not voting to pay for thoe programs causing the government to borrow money
 

The main issue with Keynesian economics is not the theory of it, but on how it is practiced ( only half of his main theory is practiced by governments.

The government is to moderate the economic cycle, run deficits during economic slowdowns to keep demand at a reasonable rate, and to run surplus's during the good times, to lessen demand. The economic cycle is smoothed out over time, resulting in fewer extreme cycles which is generally bad for most investors and companies

Most governments dont do the surplus part of the theory and just keep the spending part
 
Incorrect.

Keynesianism is based on the concept of nominal wage rigidity (sticky wages). It is a means of protecting markets from productivity traps. Think of a productivity trap as a phenomenon where people who were productive before a very long bout of unemployment are no longer capable of producing at their previous levels due to diminished skills.

What you have just described is a tenant of fascism.

Please, are you kidding me? Productivity trap?/ :)


Tim-
 
Quick question, hasn't California has a Republican governor for 24 out of the past 30 years?

Just askin'.
 
They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.

That's because we're all Americans, thats how a country works. Now what you mean to say, at least what you would say if you knew what you were talking about, is the spend and NOT tax. California has a lot of debt not because it taxes and spends its because it doesn't tax and then borrows to spend.
 
They need to be punished for the idiocy of electing tax and spend liberals over and over. They are bankrupt and I am tired of some of my taxes going to bail out that state.

And there it is ladies and gentlemen. Its not about what natural course will take hold in a particular situation. Its about punishment for having different ideas.
 
Back
Top Bottom