What is the libertarians answer for stopping an asteroid impact?

[Padawanbater2]

its pretty straight forward. federal reserve uses Keynesian economics which by the 1970's (federal reserve born 1913) it had become obvious how bad a failure Keynesian ecomics was, and Austrian economics became very popular in certain pockets within the USA. Now that another long term bubble happened its really being sough after by more and more.

Keynesian economics came about in the mid-1930's as a result of the great depression. So seeing as the federal reserve was established in 1913, I'm not sure how you can imply Keynesian economics is responsible for the policies of the federal reserve. A major cause of the crash of 1929 was the deregulation of industry throughout Harding and Coolidge's administrations. Then the great depression happened, FDR was elected and implemented New Deal policies largely influenced by Keynesian economics. The American, as well as European and Asian economies, grew at unprecedented rates after the war largely due to government spending, programs like the Marshall Plan which included removing trade restrictions and barriers to business. That's why it's colloquially known as the golden age of capitalism, something our friend @Uncle Ben doesn't seem to believe existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

"Within its own framework, Keynesian economics makes a lot of sense. But it leaves out some important issues. One is inflation. If, instead of an oversupply of goods, people spend more than is produced, there are pressures for prices to rise and the economy experiences inflation. Microeconomics looks at the effect of price rises when prices of other goods remain constant. Put another way, it looks at the effect of relative price changes. But price increases for one good can lead to increases in the prices of other goods. The problem is, however, that if all people raise their prices by 10%, it is equivalent to nobody raising relative prices; all that will happen is the price level will rise. Classical economists had focused on inflation - an increase in the price of all goods - arguing that when aggregate demand (expenditures in the economy) exceeds aggregate supply (production in an economy), inflation will result. Keynesian economists assumed the price level was constant.

When inflation became a serious problem, as it did in the 1970s, macroeconomics swung back to Classical economics and, over time, Keynesian economics lost influence. Keynesian economics wasn't addressing the problems of the times. Policy makers still used Keynesian policies, but they also used Classical policies. By the 1980s, the two types of economics had merged into a new conventional macroeconomics. At that point, macroeconomics was neither Keynesian nor Classical but a combination of the two. That new conventional macroeconomics formed the core of modern macroeconomics until the crash of 2008 when output declined, unemployment rose, and the U.S. economy did not recover as conventional economists had predicted it would. To everyone's disappointment, it seemed as if the U.S. economy had fallen into a structural stagnation."

-Macroeconomics -Colander (p.125)

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

Keynesian economics came about in the mid-1930's as a result of the great depression. So seeing as the federal reserve was established in 1913, I'm not sure how you can imply Keynesian economics is responsible for the policies of the federal reserve. A major cause of the crash of 1929 was the deregulation of industry throughout Harding and Coolidge's administrations. Then the great depression happened, FDR was elected and implemented New Deal policies largely influenced by Keynesian economics. The American, as well as European and Asian economies, grew at unprecedented rates after the war largely due to government spending, programs like the Marshall Plan which included removing trade restrictions and barriers to business. That's why it's colloquially known as the golden age of capitalism, something our friend @Uncle Ben doesn't seem to believe existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

"Within its own framework, Keynesian economics makes a lot of sense. But it leaves out some important issues. One is inflation. If, instead of an oversupply of goods, people spend more than is produced, there are pressures for prices to rise and the economy experiences inflation. Microeconomics looks at the effect of price rises when prices of other goods remain constant. Put another way, it looks at the effect of relative price changes. But price increases for one good can lead to increases in the prices of other goods. The problem is, however, that if all people raise their prices by 10%, it is equivalent to nobody raising relative prices; all that will happen is the price level will rise. Classical economists had focused on inflation - an increase in the price of all goods - arguing that when aggregate demand (expenditures in the economy) exceeds aggregate supply (production in an economy), inflation will result. Keynesian economists assumed the price level was constant.

When inflation became a serious problem, as it did in the 1970s, macroeconomics swung back to Classical economics and, over time, Keynesian economics lost influence. Keynesian economics wasn't addressing the problems of the times. Policy makers still used Keynesian policies, but they also used Classical policies. By the 1980s, the two types of economics had merged into a new conventional macroeconomics. At that point, macroeconomics was neither Keynesian nor Classical but a combination of the two. That new conventional macroeconomics formed the core of modern macroeconomics until the crash of 2008 when output declined, unemployment rose, and the U.S. economy did not recover as conventional economists had predicted it would. To everyone's disappointment, it seemed as if the U.S. economy had fallen into a structural stagnation."

-Macroeconomics -Colander (p.125)

Fractional reserve lending is much older than 1913. The notion that everything i said is somehow meaningless because the wikipedia page you read about keynesian economics says 1930's is laughable. haha.

there will ALWAYS be booms and busts in economy, thats just the way it is.....will the market correct itself or will the government interventionist show up? do you want the bust to be corrected in a year, or drag it out 2-4 years? you said you know not of the internal workings, and since they are a private corporation nobody will totally. it doesnt matter tho, because with a solid understanding of economics is very which one robs you, and which one doesnt.

 

[Flaming Pie]

We are fucked on that timeframe.

Can't we predict the paths of comets and asteroids by like 50 years?

 

[Flaming Pie]

That highlights an interesting aspect of the discussion - to the libertarian, profit margins are the only motivations to do business, so coming in over cost estimates automatically means it's a failure. That's not how I look at things. Regardless, are there any private highway construction corporations that could have built it faster and/or more efficiently?

It's not about profit, numb nuts, it's about accomplishing a task efficiently.

Government projects are slower and cost more than private projects. Why?

Usually it is because the people who approve the contracts have no idea what the "best" and most cost effective solutions are.

 

[theexpress]

The scenario is we spot a meteor headed for Earth that is scheduled to impact in 4 months

What would the libertarian do?

Jose aldo leg kicks

 

[Padawanbater2]

Fractional reserve lending is much older than 1913. The notion that everything i said is somehow meaningless because the wikipedia page you read about keynesian economics says 1930's is laughable. haha.

there will ALWAYS be booms and busts in economy, thats just the way it is.....will the market correct itself or will the government interventionist show up? do you want the bust to be corrected in a year, or drag it out 2-4 years? you said you know not of the internal workings, and since they are a private corporation nobody will totally. it doesnt matter tho, because with a solid understanding of economics is very which one robs you, and which one doesnt.

You said "the federal reserve", not "fractional banking". John Maynard Keynes published his system of economics in 1936 in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. So while demand side policies may have been implemented before 1936, they weren't called "Keynesian economics".

Furthermore, fractional banking/the federal reserve is a system of finance, not economics. The two subjects are completely separate from each other.

I agree, capitalism ensures a boom/bust cycle (called a business cycle):

But you assume it is always self-correcting. This is the fatal flaw in classical thinking and the insight Keynes recognized that made him famous.

"The key idea of the Keynesian AS/AD (Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand) model is that in the short-run, the economy can deviate from what it is capable of producing, (potential output). It is based on the assumption that the economy can deviate from potential output and that government could correct that deviation with demand-side policies (monetary policies), and fiscal policy.

Suppose the economy falls into a recession; that is, output falls below its potential. According to the AS/AD model, this could happen if aggregate demand falls for some unexplained reason. In response, firms decrease output and lay off workers, which lowers people's income. Lower income leads consumers to cut expenditures further, which once again causes firms to decrease production. So the fall in aggregate demand creates a cycle that feeds on itself and can develop into a vicious downward spiral.

In the AS/AD model eventually this downward cycle of aggregate demand and production ends, settling at an equilibrium that is lower than the original income. That equilibrium might not be at the economy's potential output. Thus, for Keynes, there was a difference between equilibrium output and potential output. Keynes believed that at certain times the economy needed some help in reaching its potential output."

-Macroeconomics, Colander (p.182-183)

 

[ChesusRice]

Can't we predict the paths of comets and asteroids by like 50 years?

Only if we see them

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's not about profit, numb nuts, it's about accomplishing a task efficiently.

Government projects are slower and cost more than private projects. Why?

Usually it is because the people who approve the contracts have no idea what the "best" and most cost effective solutions are.

Libertarianism is about the importance of liberty in human life and the limited role of government, it doesn't qualify efficiency.

 

[althor]

I most certainly believe government is necessary but to think our crackpot government could successfully deter a world destroying asteroid is beyond my capabilities. They would spend all their time trying to cash in on it even if they all died and couldnt spend a penny of it.

 

[althor]

It's not about profit, numb nuts, it's about accomplishing a task efficiently.

Government projects are slower and cost more than private projects. Why?

Usually it is because the people who approve the contracts have no idea what the "best" and most cost effective solutions are.

Biggest issue with the government is the red-tape. You run into a unforseen issue, you turn in a request. First it sits on one desk for 3-4 days before being stamped and sent to the next desk to sit on for 3-4 days. Finally, about two weeks later, you get an answer back on the issue. Or they send it back requesting more information to start the process over again. In the meantime, everything is at a dead stand-still.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I most certainly believe government is necessary but to think our crackpot government could successfully deter a world destroying asteroid is beyond my capabilities. They would spend all their time trying to cash in on it even if they all died and couldnt spend a penny of it.

Makes perfect sense

 

[Flaming Pie]

Libertarianism is about the importance of liberty in human life and the limited role of government, it doesn't qualify efficiency.

Says you.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Biggest issue with the government is the red-tape. You run into a unforseen issue, you turn in a request. First it sits on one desk for 3-4 days before being stamped and sent to the next desk to sit on for 3-4 days. Finally, about two weeks later, you get an answer back on the issue. Or they send it back requesting more information to start the process over again. In the meantime, everything is at a dead stand-still.

I worked at a college campus. It took them two weeks to get a work order for killing ants in the building.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Biggest issue with the government is the red-tape. You run into a unforseen issue, you turn in a request. First it sits on one desk for 3-4 days before being stamped and sent to the next desk to sit on for 3-4 days. Finally, about two weeks later, you get an answer back on the issue. Or they send it back requesting more information to start the process over again. In the meantime, everything is at a dead stand-still.

See "cost effective".

To private companies, time is money.

To government time lost is nothing they sniffle about. Just reprocess it all over again if it takes too long.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Says you.

What do you mean says me? What do you think libertarianism means?

And if you're so concerned with government waste, why nothing to say about the PP investigations that just took place? Do you know how much money that wasted?

 

[Flaming Pie]

What do you mean says me? What do you think libertarianism means?

And if you're so concerned with government waste, why nothing to say about the PP investigations that just took place? Do you know how much money that wasted?

Do you know it is the job of the government to investigate?

 

[Padawanbater2]

When there's credible sources behind the accusations or evidence

 

[ChesusRice]

Do you know it is the job of the government to investigate?

There is nothing to investigate. This was a political attack and the Republican party should use their own cash for campaign smears

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

There is nothing to investigate. This was a political attack and the
Republican party should use their own cash for campaign smears

If the government produces laws on paper, and then enforces those laws, where does the money come from? Seems like all politicians produce the same thing. Laws on paper.
DISCLAIMER: i reserve the right to point out the democratic party gave a private corporation the right to produce the money on paper after you're Internetless education answer is given.

 

[ChesusRice]

If the government produces laws on paper, and then enforces those laws, where does the money come from? Seems like all politicians produce the same thing. Laws on paper.
DISCLAIMER: i reserve the right to point out the democratic party gave a private corporation the right to produce the money on paper after you're Internetless education answer is given.

What private corporation Ron Paulbot?