WEner Invasion

[Skooma Addict]

Since every other thread is about libertarianism, I think there ought to be a thread about the WEners. There has been a disturbing trend lately, which needs to be stopped all costs to ensure our economic and my mental well being. The middle/upper class "Generation We" progressives have the arrogance to spew their nonsense and claim that they somehow know the answer to all our problems without knowing anything whatsoever on the subject they blabber on about. What the WEners don't understand is that they really aren't enlightened hip tolerant people as much as they are just flat out, well, stupid.

Now, it is in all of your best interests to reject WEners because quite frankly, they epitomize the stereotype that a young leftist is an uninformed self righteous jerk. Breaking that stereotype would be in your self interest.

One thing specifically that I cannot stand about your typical WEner is when they babble on about how they want to "preserve our wildlife." People who want to leave productive land unused so they can go hike on it or whatever are no different from the King who won't allow people to settle on land because he wants to hunt on it.

Do you agree my assessment? By the way, I am not just talking about members of some organization called "Generation We." There are plenty of people who fall into the WEner category.

(For those of you unfamiliar with the WEners, here is a short video of them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJ6m-W921E

[Havet]

Since every other thread is about libertarianism, I think there ought to be a thread about the WEners. There has been a disturbing trend lately, which needs to be stopped all costs to ensure our economic and my mental well being. The middle/upper class "Generation We" progressives have the arrogance to spew their nonsense and claim that they somehow know the answer to all our problems without knowing anything whatsoever on the subject they blabber on about. What the WEners don't understand is that they really aren't enlightened hip tolerant people as much as they are just flat out, well, stupid.

Now, it is in all of your best interests to reject WEners because quite frankly, they epitomize the stereotype that a young leftist is an uninformed self righteous jerk. Breaking that stereotype would be in your self interest.

One thing specifically that I cannot stand about your typical WEner is when they babble on about how they want to "preserve our wildlife." People who want to leave productive land unused so they can go hike on it or whatever are no different from the King who won't allow people to settle on land because he wants to hunt on it.

Do you agree my assessment? By the way, I am not just talking about members of some organization called "Generation We." There are plenty of people who fall into the WEner category.

(For those of you unfamiliar with the WEners, here is a short video of them)

So what do they actually propose?

I think a quote applies here:

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist"

[Skooma Addict]

So what do they actually propose?

Most of them are strongly progressive. They mostly propose universal health care, crumbling regulations on business, laws to "protect the environment", "equal education" ect. All that kind of stuff.

[Havet]

Most of them are strongly progressive. They mostly propose universal health care, crumbling regulations on business, laws to "protect the environment", "equal education" ect. All that kind of stuff.

So what makes them more dangerous than common progressives? Where exactly do they support ideas without knowing anything?

[Jimmie Higgins]

"WEners" Ha.

Well I've never heard of this and I can't watch the video because I'm at work, but your description makes it sound like they are just regular old liberals.

[Skooma Addict]

Uninformed ideologues are more dangerous than common progressives. For starters, there are are varying degrees of progressivism, and these people are, like they say, "highly progressive." They also aren't really outside the mainstream like socialists are. What do you mean where exactly do they support ideas without knowing anything? Do you want me to find articles published by them or something? It should be pretty obvious though.

[Kléber]

http://images.straypic.com/popcorn-in-bed.jpg

I'm sold.

[Havet]

What do you mean where exactly do they support ideas without knowing anything? Do you want me to find articles published by them or something? It should be pretty obvious though.

Well, you said:


have the arrogance to spew their nonsense and claim that they somehow know the answer to all our problems without knowing anything whatsoever on the subject they blabber on about.

So I was wondering where did you see an example of them supporting something or claiming they know the answer to a problem without actually knowing anything about it.


Uninformed ideologues are more dangerous than common progressives. For starters, there are are varying degrees of progressivism, and these people are, like they say, "highly progressive." They also aren't really outside the mainstream like socialists are.

Oh Olaf..it seems you have had one too many encounters with IcarusAngel...it's starting to affect you :D

How are they more dangerous, is what I asked, but you just re-stated it without proof, then claimed they are dangerous because they claim they are highly progressive.

It doesn't really matter if they're mainstream or not, because you haven't concisely explained why they are more dangerous than common mainstream progressives in the first place.

Hope I was clear this time!

[Skooma Addict]

So I was wondering where did you see an example of them supporting something or claiming they know the answer to a problem without actually knowing anything about it.


From the ones that I have debated with on my college campus. I am talking about a surge in the number of uninformed middle/upper class progressives. I define these people as WEners because they act like and believe the things that the Generation We crowd is spewing. I am not saying that all upper class progressives are uninformed. I am pretty surprised that you don't know what kind of people I am talking about.


How are they more dangerous, is what I asked, but you just re-stated it without proof, then claimed they are dangerous because they claim they are highly progressive.

It doesn't really matter if they're mainstream or not, because you haven't concisely explained why they are more dangerous than common mainstream progressives in the first place.

They are more dangerous than your average progressive because a moderate progressive does not hold views that are as radical. My friends for example who are moderate progressives are anti-war and pro-regulation. But they aren't obsessed with making a "green economy" or having what the WEners call "equal education."

[Havet]

From the ones that I have debated with on my college campus. I am talking about a surge in the number of uninformed middle/upper class progressives. I define these people as WEners because they act like and believe the things that the Generation We crowd is spewing. I am not saying that all upper class progressives are uninformed. I am pretty surprised that you don't know what kind of people I am talking about.

Well, know I do :)


They are more dangerous than your average progressive because a moderate progressive does not hold views that are as radical. My friends for example who are moderate progressives are anti-war and pro-regulation. But they aren't obsessed with making a "green economy" or having what the WEners call "equal education."

But, what is wrong with radical view per se?

Anyway, I understand your point. What do they mean by equal education by the way? We (mixed economy countries) have been experiencing that for 40 years!

[Comrade Anarchist]

seems like some stupid eco, nationalist, collectivist shit pie. No but to get serious the fact of the matter is that "generation we" more like generation wii (lol bad joke) is totally ignorant to capitalism, austrian economics, all forms of economics in general. It seems that they wish to sacrifice more power to the government but they don't want a big government same bullshit everyone is *****ing about today. Problem is that progressivism no matter how stupid it and anti progress it is always stays around like a terd in the corner, no one will pick it up and throw it away. They may believe all that shit but i bet that everyone in that video goes to eco rallies and bangs and dances and yet they all probably fall for the ban dihydrogen monoxide hoax. They take the governments word for everything and all they want to do is sacrifice more

[IcarusAngel]

There is more evidence that the problems that they are discussing exist than there is evidence for Mises axioms and Mises' logic.

Mises wasn't a mathematician or a scientist. He had no business making assumptions about human nature or human axioms. Frankly that whole thing is a cult. Olaf is upset that one movement based on different ideas (and non-cultish ones) are more popular than his own kooky beliefs.

[IcarusAngel]

all forms of economics in general..

The vast majority of economists describe themselves as "progressives."

There are only 1 to 2% of republican scientists in each field.

[John_Jordan]

There is more evidence that the problems that they are discussing exist than there is evidence for Mises axioms and Mises' logic.

Mises wasn't a mathematician or a scientist. He had no business making assumptions about human nature or human axioms. Frankly that whole thing is a cult. Olaf is upset that one movement based on different ideas (and non-cultish ones) are more popular than his own kooky beliefs.

You just have a one-track mind don't you?

Everything is Mises this, Axiom that.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The vast majority of economists describe themselves as "progressives."

Ya they are called keyensians and they have destroyed and zombified the economy since the 20's.

[IcarusAngel]

The modern economists are not all Keynesian. They just recognize that the market, left unfettered, starts to hamper individual rights and individual freedom. The government comes in to solve disputes created by consolidated resources.


Oh Olaf..it seems you have had one too many encounters with IcarusAngel...it's starting to affect you :D

lol. This from the guy whose only sources are the CATO institute and the Chicago school of economics, and who thinks "deregulation" is leftist.

(Notice how hayenmill doesn't cite examples of where I'm "wrong.")

[Comrade Anarchist]

The modern economists are not all Keynesian. They just recognize that the market, left unfettered, starts to hamper individual rights and individual freedom. The government comes in to solve disputes created by consolidated resources.

The government doesn't solve anything. Not all modern economists are not keynesian but many have adapted keynes to their beliefs. The free market left unfettered is the epitome of individual rights and freedom. It allows people to choose and control their destiny. I actually dont see how the free market free of all state, political, and military control is harmful to individuals.

When the government steps in all they do is prolong depressions and recessions. The big myth that hoover failed b/c of rugged individualism is bullshit, the guy passed a stimulus package that did nothing, and FDR did jack shit, he was saved only b/c of a fucking war, and then after the war there was a fucking recession which goes to show that war is not good for capitalism. All obama is doing is creating fake markets, propping up zombie banks on wall street, and taking away demand from future markets. Whenever government steps in the economy gets worst.

[IcarusAngel]

Do you have tourette Syndrome or something?

And FDR saved capitalism far before the US entered the war. The 30s had overall a growth rate that was higher than Reagan's supposed "seven fiat years." The only time the economy slowed under FDR was when he listened to the conservatives in his congress and tried to balance the budget. This caused the "recession of '37," which was promptly corrected by FDR.

FDR brought more power and resources to people. Rural electrification was one example. He also gave people government jobs. Unemployment was down to 5% if you include the government jobs FDR implemented during the GD. This stimulated weak demand and further stimulated the economy.

Free-markets led into the GD. Power was consolidated in the hands of the wealthy, like after the Reagan years, and the economy was not prepared for failure at the higher levels. Had resources been dispersed the economy would have never collapsed. The Chicago school of economics set up "free-market" experiments all over Latin America, and ALL of them failed. Over 6 million people died due to starvation and lack of basic health care.

Starving people in the name of "property rights" has nothing to do with individualism or freedom.

[Skooma Addict]

There is more evidence that the problems that they are discussing exist than there is evidence for Mises axioms and Mises' logic.

Mises wasn't a mathematician or a scientist. He had no business making assumptions about human nature or human axioms. Frankly that whole thing is a cult. Olaf is upset that one movement based on different ideas (and non-cultish ones) are more popular than his own kooky beliefs.I think we made it pretty clear in our previous discussion that you don't know what you are talking about. After all, you think something is pseudo-science if it hasn't been peer reviewed. All you do anymore is call AE a cult without giving actual arguments.


The modern economists are not all Keynesian. They just recognize that the market, left unfettered, starts to hamper individual rights and individual freedom. The government comes in to solve disputes created by consolidated resources.You do know that most economists are generally pro-market, right? Neoclassicals are very friendly towards the market compared to the rest of the population. But yea, they aren't anarchists.


FDR brought more power and resources to people. Rural electrification was one example. He also gave people government jobs. Unemployment was down to 5% if you include the government jobs FDR implemented during the GD. This stimulated weak demand and further stimulated the economy.

Creating unproductive jobs and paying farmers to destroy their crops does not stimulate the economy. The Great Depression would have been over a lot quicker if Hoover and FDR pursued free market policies. Ever wonder why the depression of 1920/21 ended in 1 year even though it started off worse that the great depression? Because the government didn't do anything. FDR was one of our worst presidents ever.

[CartCollector]

The WEners (as you call them) remind me of the Goode Family:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=260600&title=saving-the-narwhal-through-pottery

It's typical bourgeois liberalism- focusing on feel-good semipolitical projects that do nothing to help anyone or fix long-term problems.

[Nolan]

You do know that most economists are generally pro-market, right? Neoclassicals are very friendly towards the market compared to the rest of the population. But yea, they aren't anarchists.

"Progressive" doesn't mean anti-market. There's the Glenn Beck in you talking. The fact that you spank your child to get parental (political) points doesn't mean you hate them. I think it's just a fad. They'll be kissing Reagan's feet in no time.


The Great Depression would have been over a lot quicker if Hoover and FDR pursued free market policies.An assertion.* Ok, Mises, enlighten us.

*Is this a case of the free market suddenly existing when it's convenient to say so? I guess that's why propertarians vote like they do.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/libertarians-vote-t130198/index.html)

Ever wonder why the depression of 1920/21 ended in 1 year even though it started off worse that the great depression? Because the government didn't do anything.The difference being the recession of 1920/21 was caused by the end of WWI and the effects it had on the work force, labor, etc., whereas the Great Depression was a disaster waiting to happen caused by over a decade of the policies you just praised, of particular interest the extreme concentration of wealth. In the "Roaring 20s," things weren't so rosy for American farmers (which Hoover tried to help when the depression hit by driving prices up) or labor unions.


FDR was one of our worst presidents ever.Kinda off-topic, but he worked for my area. Mom told me once great-granny used to talk about how FDR would have been dictator if it had been up to us.

[RGacky3]

The Great Depression would have been over a lot quicker if Hoover and FDR pursued free market policies.

Yeah, because thats ALWAYS worked in the past, every time a country pursued more free market policies everything went dandy, but every social-democratic countries went straight to the dump, right?

[Demogorgon]

The Great Depression would have been over a lot quicker if Hoover and FDR pursued free market policies. You do know there are countries in the world other than America right? Why don't you look at them to see how your "what ifs" play out. Britain pursued a far more "free market" policy during the depression and suffered considerably worse than America.


Ever wonder why the depression of 1920/21 ended in 1 year even though it started off worse that the great depression?
It can't have had anything to do with the economic jitters that always occur after major conflict as industry shifts from producing war goods to regular goods?

[CartCollector]

The Great Depression would have been over a lot quicker if Hoover and FDR pursued free market policies.Yeah, because there would have been a socialist revolution. You seriously think that the masses of the homeless, starving and unemployed would fiddle while the US burned? Remember, during the Great Depression, there was a senator named Huey Long who supported a program called "Share Our Wealth" and he was VERY popular. Some historians believe that Huey Long's popularity led to FDR enacting the "Second New Deal," which included programs such as the WPA and Social Security. FDR supported the programs he did because if he didn't, at the very best he wouldn't have been re-elected and at the very worst there would have been a revolution.

[Skooma Addict]

"Progressive" doesn't mean anti-market. There's the Glenn Beck in you talking. The fact that you spank your child to get parental (political) points doesn't mean you hate them. I think it's just a fad. They'll be kissing Reagan's feet in no time. Modern day progressives are not what I would consider pro-market. They aren't socialists, but they do generally favor more regulation and they want the government to support their pet programs.


An assertion.* Ok, Mises, enlighten us.

*Is this a case of the free market suddenly existing when it's convenient to say so? I guess that's why propertarians vote like they do. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/libertarians-vote-t130198/index.html)Instead of interfering, the government allowed the downturn to play its course, and it thus ended in one year, even though it started off worse (I believe the sharpest 1 year decline in Americas history) than the great depression.


The difference being the recession of 1920/21 was caused by the end of WWI and the effects it had on the work force, labor, etc., whereas the Great Depression was a disaster waiting to happen caused by over a decade of the policies you just praised, of particular interest the extreme concentration of wealth. In the "Roaring 20s," things weren't so rosy for American farmers (which Hoover tried to help when the depression hit by driving prices up) or labor unions. Yes, the recessions had different causes. I am aware of this. But the recession of 20/21 could have been very bad if the government decided to start interfering like they did in the GD. The FED didn't flood the markets with liquidity, no stimulus packages/work programs were created, and there were no bailouts. If the government would have done these things, the depression would have been worsened. Pointing out that the recessions had different causes misses the point. There were very bad policies followed in the 20's.

[CartCollector]

Modern day progressives are not what I would consider pro-market. They aren't socialists, but they do generally favor more regulation and they want the government to support their pet programs.
Nonetheless they do support a market and the private ownership of capital. Therefore they are pro-market and capitalist (capitalist in the ideological sense, not necessarily the class sense) by definition.

[Skooma Addict]

Nonetheless they do support a market and the private ownership of capital. Therefore they are pro-market and capitalist (capitalist in the ideological sense, not necessarily the class sense) by definition.

Fine. They are technically pro-market in the sense that they aren't socialists and they do favor the existence of a market.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, the recessions had different causes. I am aware of this. But the recession of 20/21 could have been very bad if the government decided to start interfering like they did in the GD. The FED didn't flood the markets with liquidity, no stimulus packages/work programs were created, and there were no bailouts.
Further to my previous (ignored) point, there was a large amount of cashing of war bonds in that time period, so the markets were in effect flooded with liquidity.

[Skooma Addict]

Further to my previous (ignored) point, there was a large amount of cashing of war bonds in that time period, so the markets were in effect flooded with liquidity.

As for your other point, I don't see what makes you think Britain pursued policies that free marketers would approve of. Mises and Keynes both agreed that Britain should not have returned to the gold standard in the way it did. Britain returned to gold in 1923 at it’s pre-war parity. This caused a sharp increase in the rate of interest and a consequent depression.

There were causes of the 20/21 depression besides the cashing of war bonds. For example, by 1920, a dollar was capable of purchasing about half the goods as it could in 1914. Also, compare America in 1920 with Japan in 1920. Both entered a recession, and they each pursued very different policies with very different outcomes.

[Demogorgon]

As for your other point, I don't see what makes you think Britain pursued policies that free marketers would approve of. Mises and Keynes both agreed that Britain should not have returned to the gold standard in the way it did. Britain returned to gold in 1923 at it’s pre-war parity. This caused a sharp increase in the rate of interest and a consequent depression.

There were causes of the 20/21 depression besides the cashing of war bonds. For example, by 1920, a dollar was capable of purchasing about half the goods as it could in 1914. Also, compare America in 1920 with Japan in 1920. Both entered a recession, and they each pursued very different policies with very different outcomes.

I am not merely talking about the return to the Gold Standard (though I could say plenty about that). I was referring to the fact that there was no stimulus spending in Britain and the fact that the Government stuck rigidly to a balanced budget.

I did not say that the recession in the early twenties was caused by cashing of war bonds, I said that was part of the reason the country came out of it quickly. The money provided the sort of Keynesian boost needed to restore the economy.

[Havet]

lol. This from the guy whose only sources are the CATO institute and the Chicago school of economics, and who thinks "deregulation" is leftist.

Strawman...as usual :rolleyes:


(Notice how hayenmill doesn't cite examples of where I'm "wrong.")

Neither do you :)

[Salyut]

Read thread title as weiners, was confused.

Anyway, I'm more concerned about yuppies and the boomers holding on to power. These guys strike me as some lame transitory movement that'll vanish in two years.

[Skooma Addict]

I am not merely talking about the return to the Gold Standard (though I could say plenty about that). I was referring to the fact that there was no stimulus spending in Britain and the fact that the Government stuck rigidly to a balanced budget.

I did not say that the recession in the early twenties was caused by cashing of war bonds, I said that was part of the reason the country came out of it quickly. The money provided the sort of Keynesian boost needed to restore the economy.

Or the fact that British labour unions aggressively resisted any downward movement in nominal wages, necessary to avoid unemployment in a deflation. Not to mention the British government (not the market) was responsible for the depression to begin with thanks to their idiotic return to the GS at pre-war disparities.

I am not seeing how the cashing of war bonds would get a country out of its worst 1 year downturn in its history, especially since they have been unable to do so in much milder cases.

You can have the last word.

[Demogorgon]

Or the fact that British labour unions aggressively resisted any downward movement in nominal wages, necessary to avoid unemployment in a deflation. Not to mention the British government (not the market) was responsible for the depression to begin with thanks to their idiotic return to the GS at pre-war disparities.

I am not seeing how the cashing of war bonds would get a country out of its worst 1 year downturn in its history, especially since they have been unable to do so in much milder cases.

You can have the last word.
There's too much to say to give a good response at this time, but I will say now that you are changing the subject regarding Britain. First of all the behaviour of the Labour Unions is not the behaviour of the Government. Perhaps you think the Government should have intervened to ban or restrict unions?

As for the Gold Standard. Well returning to it in general was an idiotic move and using the prewar rate was extra idiotic. But what would you have done. Not exactly Austrian orthodoxy to say the Government should be able to change the value of the currency, is it?

[Skooma Addict]

I was going to give you the last word but I guess ill respond to your questions. I am not accusing you of anything, but I just want to let you know beforehand that I don't want this to turn into a thread where it is me arguing with 1 other person for 5 pages.


There's too much to say to give a good response at this time, but I will say now that you are changing the subject regarding Britain. First of all the behaviour of the Labour Unions is not the behaviour of the Government. Perhaps you think the Government should have intervened to ban or restrict unions?The government shouldn't have supported the unions. Unions shouldn't be given any assistance by the government whatsoever. I don't think the government should have banned unions, it just shouldn't have supported them. But I don't think unions caused the crises. They just made it worse.


As for the Gold Standard. Well returning to it in general was an idiotic move and using the prewar rate was extra idiotic. But what would you have done. Not exactly Austrian orthodoxy to say the Government should be able to change the value of the currency, is it?Well the ideal would have been to abolish Britains abhorrent monetary system and establish free banking.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Do you have tourette Syndrome or something?

And FDR saved capitalism far before the US entered the war. The 30s had overall a growth rate that was higher than Reagan's supposed "seven fiat years." The only time the economy slowed under FDR was when he listened to the conservatives in his congress and tried to balance the budget. This caused the "recession of '37," which was promptly corrected by FDR.

FDR brought more power and resources to people. Rural electrification was one example. He also gave people government jobs. Unemployment was down to 5% if you include the government jobs FDR implemented during the GD. This stimulated weak demand and further stimulated the economy.

Free-markets led into the GD. Power was consolidated in the hands of the wealthy, like after the Reagan years, and the economy was not prepared for failure at the higher levels. Had resources been dispersed the economy would have never collapsed. The Chicago school of economics set up "free-market" experiments all over Latin America, and ALL of them failed. Over 6 million people died due to starvation and lack of basic health care.

Starving people in the name of "property rights" has nothing to do with individualism or freedom.

As i said before FDR only created FAKE markets. He created unsustainable jobs that took away workers from the private market. He undermined capitalism and prolonged the great depression. WW2 was a god send to him b/c without which the government have eventually had to end all those job programs and even more people would have been out of work. If unemployment goes down b/c of a growth of government jobs then the economy is fucked. Once again he shrank the amount of workers available to employers. Just like hoover's stimulus package he did nothing more than prolong the great depression.

I'm not worshiping reagan i believe the guy was a prick and the epitome of a state capitalist. He was a neo con and it was his destructive polices that have led to the bankrupting of the government today, which by the way i wish would just collapse and die.

A free market will correct itself when bad business decisions are made. Everyone was using credit when they knew they couldn't afford to so everyone was punished by the free market. If the free market is continuously perverted then people will never learn lessons and will eventually become accustomed to using pull in the government to survive which will lead to a massive crash.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think missing from this discussion is a larger view of the US economy - neither Keynsian policies or neoliberalism could "fix" the underlying contradictions of the capitalism system (which can vary from state-capitalism all the way to "free-market" neoliberalism depending on the needs of big business at the time).

In the 1930s the US used government interventions to stimulate the economy because during economic contractions, the capitalists simply sit on their money and wait for the recovery to begin hiring and investing again. That's what's going on now and why the economy may not fully recover for a while (at least as far as workers are concerned) - some profits have been recovered but that's because production has decreased (and labor) and so costs are lower. Sitting on capital can usually work for business when the bust is localized and just part of the business cycle. Workers suffer, production decreases, and then the boom returns in other regions and investment can begin again in new areas or rebuilding the lost productive forces (rehiring, opening new plants to replace closed plants). The problem in the 30s was that it was a world-wide bust based on underlying problems in the world economy that began before WWI (and ultimately led to WWI and WWII). So it's true that FDR responded to organized working class pressure in order to prevent the real possibility of revolution (FDR, and conservatives, and the mainstream press all feared that this is where we were possibly headed), but it was also in response to competing nations that had used state-capitalist or keynsian programs to offset the worse part of the crisis. FDR's programs were as much to appease strikers and unemployed workers (and prevent further radicalization) as it was to help business once the economy recovered. So the highways were built in the 30s - business certainty profited from this in the long run, dams, bridges, and all sorts of infrastructure that could be used to reduce costs for business. As massive as this intervention was - not to mention and equally massive state-capitalist intervention to create a military force for WWII (Detroit stopped producing cars and only build war-machines for a year or so) it took a total reshuffling of the capitalist imperialist order for the economy to really recover.

After that, was a period of "guns and butter" where social programs along with massive military spending helped maintain profitability, but by the late 60s, this Keynesian model was beginning to also run into irreconcilable problems due to the limitations of capitalism. This time the ruling class, responded with neoliberalism: privatization of government programs and services, austerity for workers, calling in debts from latin america, and generally restoring profitability for big business by deconstructing the the labor-business peace policies of the 50s and 60s and reducing labor costs through layoffs and increased workloads (which means also trying to break the unions).

So right now we are in a weird time because our rulers have no real answer to the long-term economic decline since the 70s and so they are basically hoping to recover profits in the short term by taking it out of the working class (more austerity, more union busting - in the US, it's public sector unions that are under the knife). Ultimately this is bound to cause some kind of push back but worker organization or revolution or new union militancy are not given, it could just be despair and riots or even neo-fascism. Among the ruling classes of the capitalist world it will also cause increased tension and possible military conflicts.

So, there are two likely long-term outcomes for solving the capitalist crisis - worker revolution and a differently constructed society or WWIII. It was siad better a long time ago during a differnet long-term capitalist crisis: it's either socialism or barbarism.

[CartCollector]

What's that Comrade Anarchist? The US government didn't do anything to help the economy, but WWII saved it? Let's look at a graph:
http://i50.tinypic.com/aa5fo.jpg
Let's see... starting at the left, the deficit seems pretty stable around 4% of GDP until something happens around 1942 and it jumps to 28%! My my my, I wonder what could have happened then that caused the government to increase its spending that much. It couldn't have been the war, oh no, everyone knows fighting a war in two theaters against the most powerful military alliance in the world costs peanuts. It must have been the WPA or Social Security or some other "socialist" thing.
But in all seriousness, let's look at what the government did during the war that affected the economy. It rationed goods, fixed prices, bought a whole lot of weaponry, vehicles, and gear for its soldiers, and raised taxes to prevent too much inflation from increased government spending. So basically, when you say that WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression, you say that state intervention in the economy did. It's a rather odd thing for an anarchist to say.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Let's see... starting at the left, the deficit seems pretty stable around 4% of GDP until something happens around 1942 and it jumps to 28%! My my my, I wonder what could have happened then that caused the government to increase its spending that much. It couldn't have been the war, oh no, everyone knows fighting a war in two theaters against the most powerful military alliance in the world costs peanuts. It must have been the WPA or Social Security or some other "socialist" thing.
But in all seriousness, let's look at what the government did during the war that affected the economy. It rationed goods, fixed prices, bought a whole lot of weaponry, vehicles, and gear for its soldiers, and raised taxes to prevent too much inflation from increased government spending. So basically, when you say that WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression, you say that state intervention in the economy did. It's a rather odd thing for an anarchist to say.

WW2 pulled the economy out of the great depression b/c it created a new market for goods, military goods. In a war jobs are needed. Soldiers go to war so they leave the factories and allow the women and others to take their jobs, so everyone has a job. War markets are destructive to economies. They create new markets but the markets unsustainable and eventually war will end and people will lose jobs for the workers coming home. What i mean is when i say ww2 saved the fdr is that is created new markets and allowed him to create demand for new war products.

So let me recap, I said that when governments intervene they create fake markets and actually take away future demands and workers away from the private sector. WW2 was like all wars governments v.s. governments, so the government pretty much nationalizes or heavily regulates the economy and as i mentioned above since everyone is going to war that leaves jobs on the home front. The war ends the market for tanks, guns, fighters declines rapidly. Companies now have to change their whole outlook and have to start creating new things and actually competing in a free market, but they don't know how b/c they have been led by the government for about 5 years, so they fail or barely make it. The soldiers come home and want their old jobs back so women and minorities face heavy layoffs. The economy goes into a recession, and you then you say sounds like the government did a great job.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

There has been a disturbing trend lately, which needs to be stopped all costs to ensure our economic and my mental well being. The middle/upper class "Libertarian" progressives have the arrogance to spew their nonsense and claim that they somehow know the answer to all our problems without knowing anything whatsoever on the subject they blabber on about. What the "libertarians" don't understand is that they really aren't enlightened hip tolerant people as much as they are just flat out, well, stupid.


Fixed

[Skooma Addict]

I haven't met very many upper class libertarians. In fact most of the libertarians I have met are lower class people who are tired of wealthy leftists telling them they are evil for polluting the environment or that they are evil because their job involves killing animals.

[Kléber]

well, i spent 2 years of high school in a very rich area in california, it was kind of like a weird bourgeois paradise, and overflowing with entitled libertarian kids. it was the perfect ideology for them, and it was hegemonic. i can't say i have anything personally against them, because they were always down for a good debate, but i got a feeling of "WTF are you doing in this place?" when i outed myself as a communist in discussions with them.

i was at a party once where i overheard a cheer session that went like the following-

Drunk girl: "I've always been like, 'fucking yuppies' when i talk about squares, but then I looked it up, and it means Young Urban Professional, what the fuck is wrong with that? That's what I want to be. Ballin' at a young age!"
Drunk guy: "Hahaha!! Fuck yeah! I'm hella down with that."
5 Other people in circle: (enthusiastic nods and shouts of "yeah!")

needless to say i walked my grumbling indignant self out of there and finished getting drunk at home. xD

[Nolan]

Instead of interfering, the government allowed the downturn to play its course, and it thus ended in one year, even though it started off worse (I believe the sharpest 1 year decline in Americas history) than the great depression.

In some ways it did start out worse. But saying it was only because the government did little is conjecture.


Yes, the recessions had different causes. I am aware of this. But the recession of 20/21 could have been very bad if the government decided to start interfering like they did in the GD. The FED didn't flood the markets with liquidity, no stimulus packages/work programs were created, and there were no bailouts. If the government would have done these things, the depression would have been worsened. Pointing out that the recessions had different causes misses the point. There were very bad policies followed in the 20's.

This also concerns the above - please tell me I don't have to explain why different causes warrant different solutions. The 20's were the biggest peak in laissez-faire thought among politicians until Reagan.

[gorillafuck]

I haven't met very many upper class libertarians. In fact most of the libertarians I have met are lower class people who are tired of wealthy leftists telling them they are evil for polluting the environment or that they are evil because their job involves killing animals.
I don't know anyone I would refer to as leftist who does that. I know people who I would refer to as irritating democrats who do that (though I do get how democrats are portrayed as left wing so I suppose it makes sense to say). And I don't know any libertarians in the ancap sense but I know them in the "libertarian republican" sense, so as far as what you said goes, I can't imagine why someone who's annoyed with obnoxiousness and self-righteousness in politics would be attracted to the title "libertarianism" since in the USA that means obnoxious people who will shout about baby-killers, welfare commies, and reagonomics (even though that's not what it actually means). It's hilarious that this thread turned to being about libertarianism because the first post made it clear this was meant to not be one.:laugh:

By the way, the new avatar is meant to be a joke right?

(for the actual topic, I have never heard of the WE Generation.)

[Skooma Addict]

In some ways it did start out worse. But saying it was only because the government did little is conjecture.

The 20/21 depresion? That was most definitely started by the government.



By the way, the new avatar is meant to be a joke right?


Yes. Just a reminder to us all concerning what motivates people to vote these days.

[gorillafuck]

Yes. Just a reminder to us all concerning what motivates people to vote these days.
Haha, I actually doubt that RTV motivates anyone to vote. People of voting age are generally more mature than to listen to what Fat Mike tells them politically.:laugh:

[Nolan]

The 20/21 depresion? That was most definitely started by the government.

Oops sorry, I was referring to the end of the 20/21 recession.

[LeftSideDown]

You do know there are countries in the world other than America right? Why don't you look at them to see how your "what ifs" play out. Britain pursued a far more "free market" policy during the depression and suffered considerably worse than America.

Look at the "What if we pursue central planning/Keynesian recovery ideas" by looking at japan for the past... two decades.


It can't have had anything to do with the economic jitters that always occur after major conflict as industry shifts from producing war goods to regular goods?

SO what happens if you try to enforce the old status quo by propping up companies that are no longer fulfilling consumer demand? The depression/recession continues. I'm glad that Warren G. Harding was president during this time and all he did was CUT TAXES and PAY OFF the national debt. Bye bye recession.