quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Sorry, but I was referring to an opinion I saw in a quote that dealt with price controls and other things with no actual proof, thus making the opinion not even a working hypothesis, which needs some evidence to support it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Are you trying to bait me?

Not at all. Just trying to examine some of your presumptions which seem to be rather sweeping.

quote:

quote:

Documentation for what? It's an opinion I was making based on what appears to be self-evident.

I asked you "What other reason could there be?" Since you didn't answer, does that mean that you don't know? And if you don't know, why are you going on like this?

Your position, as I understand it, is that govenment gives out free money to the non-working people but doesn't help the working class.

quote:


I think you are mistaken when you say the government does nothing for the working poor or middle class. Maybe not enough.

quote:


Two reasons outside your conspiratorial imagination

quote:


why government aids those who are not working and the working poor: it is the humane thing to do and the money circulates back out into the economy faster than when given to high income earners.

quote:

quote:

American corporations can sell their products in foreign markets all they want, but if they want to sell something in America, it should be manufactured here. Foreign manufacturers can have facilities here in America because it would benefit Americans.

Do you not see the explicit tyranny in laws that would require goods sold in our market to be manufactured here? Native manufacturers would have difficulty competing with foreign imports.

quote:


Would you then require the same of foreign manufacturers ~ that they must make goods in America if they want to sell here?

quote:


And the backlash from foreign nations who might then require the same in their markets?

quote:


Maybe I am just confused by your proposal. But, it seems unworkable imo. And, I am not sure it would meet a constitutional test. Does the Federal government really have that power?

quote:


ETA: One other thing. It would be helpful if the minimum wage were raised, as championed by the president.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First of all, an opinion without evidence to support it is worthless, it is not even a hypothesis.

As for your "opinion" of price controls and the duration of their use in US History, I suggest your read Price Controls

Sorry, but economists are usually against price controls.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First of all, an opinion without evidence to support it is worthless, it is not even a hypothesis.

As for your "opinion" of price controls and the duration of their use in US History, I suggest your read Price Controls

Sorry, but economists are usually against price controls.

Where did I say I favored price controls?

Did you not say that price controls got us out of the Depression, through WW2 and created the economy in post war America.

quote:

Part of a team charged with keeping inflation from crippling the war effort, Galbraith served as deputy head of the Office of Price Administration during World War II. Because wartime production needs mandated large budget deficits and an accommodative monetary policy, the outbreak of inflation and a runaway wage-price spiral was seen as a very real possibility. In 1942, Roosevelt issued a General Maximum Price Regulation, followed a year later by a "Hold the Line Order" which froze prices and gave the OPA power to keep prices in check. The OPA itself – through its Consumer Division – mobilized the public on behalf of these guidelines, reducing the likelihood of "cheating" by those who would seek higher wages or prices. The result was that wages and price increases were lower than in World War I, and the overall economy grew faster. Pressman says, "when the controls were removed there was only a small increase in prices, thereby demonstrating that inflationary pressures were actively managed and not just kept temporarily under control."[6]

Opposition came from conservatives in Congress and the business community against the OPA undercut Galbraith and he was forced out in May 1943, accused of "communistic tendencies".[7] He was promptly hired by Henry Luce, publisher of Time and Fortune magazines, a conservative Republican who dominated American journalism. Galbraith worked for Fortune for five years where he expounded Keynesianism to the American business leadership.[8] He saw his role as educating the entire nation in how the economy worked--especially giant corporations--combining his writing with numerous speeches to business groups and local Democratic party meetings, as well as testimony before Congress.[9]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I think the main reason our government gives away free money is for the purpose of political stability. It's easier and cheaper in the long run to just to give out money to the underclass rather than sit around and wait for them to riot and revolt.

Zonie, can you document this 'bread and circuses' governance in America? Or is this something you pulled out of the air?
Where do you draw the line between helping needy people and giving away "free money?" Or don't you favor helping the needy as a role of governance?

It seems pretty logical to me. What other reason could there be? Are they doing it just because the ruling class is nice and cares about people? I doubt it.
I favor the government helping the needy, but it's not something that people can necessarily count upon in the years to come. The government is broke, and they may not be able to do it even if they wanted to. I also think that it puts people in a position of dependence.
Besides, when is the government going to give consideration to people who actually work? What people need are decent paying jobs, not handouts. It's better for human dignity that people be able to find decent work with good pay, not mickey mouse dead-end jobs that pay next to nothing. To that end, there needs to be an end to free trade agreements and outsourcing.
Protecting American workers is a far more important role of governance which has been sorely neglected in recent decades.
Likewise, the government needs to make sure that prices are under control, so that we don't have to spend as much on public assistance and food stamps. Same for the healthcare issue. Price controls are the way to go, so that less money is spent to provide the same services to the needy.
There's more than one way to solve the problem and make sure that the needy are provided for, other than just giving out money. If we just bring rents and food prices under control, the government could spend far far less than what we're paying now.

Price controls won't work. Cap the price, and you'll limit the quality and/or availability. Price controls will cause supply/demand Market failures. That's what was behind the 1970's Oil Crisis. That's what was behind the 1990's S&L Crisis. If price controls were that simple of an answer, why does Congress continue to pass "Doc Fix" Bills?

Price controls worked just fine to get us out of the Great Depression, through World War II (as the world's leading industrial power), and led to two solid decades of unprecedented prosperity for America.

The oil crisis was the result of an Arab oil embargo because we were supplying arms to their enemy at the time, Israel. Price controls had absolutely nothing to do with that.

quote:

In October, 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that its member states would immediately cut oil production by 5 percent and continue to do so each and every month until Israel withdrew from the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. Days later, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait announced even more dramatic production cuts, and most Petroleum Exporting members likewise declared that they would stop selling oil to the United States until America abandoned support for the state of Israel.
Some people believe that the embargo was directly responsible for long gasoline lines and for service stations running dry. The shortages were, in fact, a byproduct of price controls imposed by President Nixon in August 1971, which prevented oil companies from passing on the full cost of imported crude oil to consumers at the pump (small oil companies, however, were exempted from the price control regime in 1973). In the face of increasing world oil prices, "Big Oil" did the only sensible thing: it cut back on imports and stopped selling oil to independent service stations to keep its own franchisees supplied. By May of 1973, five months before the embargo, 1,000 service stations had shut down for lack of fuel and many others had substantially curtailed operations. By June, companies in many parts of the country began limiting the amount of gasoline motorists could purchase per stop.
In response, Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act about a month before the embargo, which made matters worse. The Act mandated that supply reductions had to be shared equally between independent and branded gasoline stations. It also put a small percentage of gasoline going to each state under the governors' control, which they could then allocate as they wished if shortages occurred. And occur they did, largely because of the withdrawal of supplies from the market necessary to put together the governors' set aside.
Did the subsequent embargo stoke the crisis further? No - the embargo had no effect on imports. Once oil is in a tanker, no one can control where it goes. Oil that was exported to Europe during the embargo was simply resold to the United States or ended up displacing non-OPEC oil that was diverted to the U.S. market. Supply routes were shuffled but import volumes remained steady.
Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani conceded afterwards that the 1973 embargo "did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States ... the world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else." In his memoirs, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote that, looking back, "the structure of the oil market was so little understood that the embargo became the principle focus of concern. Lifting it turned almost into an obsession for the next five months. In fact, the Arab embargo was a symbolic gesture of limited practical importance."
While the embargo was an illusion, the production cutbacks were real. Arab oil production between October and December was cut by 340 million barrels. But that cutback was less than the inventory buildup that had occurred earlier in the year. There was still plenty of oil to go around, but few were willing to sell it given the fear of future scarcity.
Moreover, the Petroleum Exporting Countries' threat to gradually cut oil production to zero until Israel left the occupied territories lasted all of a month and a half. On Dec. 4, 1973, the Saudis cancelled their promised monthly 5 percent cutback and the rest of the Petroleum Exporting Countries followed. In January 1974, they ordered a 10 percent production increase. No more was heard of the threat.[2]

quote:

The S&L crisis was purely due to corruption and greed, and it couldn't be due to price controls anyway, because there weren't any price controls at that time.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

For one thing, the great depression was considered over by 1939 or 1940, the war created its own problems but depression was not part of it, more men and women were either working or in the military so unemployment was at an all time low.

And all the price controls instituted during the war, and not the depression, were done away with by '46.

quote:

Forgive me if I don't consider the words of economists to be gospel. As far as I can see, it's the economists who got us into this mess.

quote:

The reason why I might tend to reject this argument and your position that this is a role of government is because governments haven't always done this. None of the programs you've mentioned existed prior to the 1930s. Compared to the thousands of years human beings have lived under some form of government, these programs you mention are relatively new in the grand scheme of things.

It also stands to reason that, with a history of insurrections, riots, labor unrest, and even revolutions (in some countries) during the 19th and early 20th centuries, that would have been a very strong impetus for the government to favor reforms. Not because they're "humane," but because they're practical. There were also some sweeping labor reforms made as well, so I'm not saying that the government has always ignored the needs of working people, but in the past 30 years or so, they have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Yep, nothing at all. Unless...

quote:

quote:

The S&L crisis was purely due to corruption and greed, and it couldn't be due to price controls anyway, because there weren't any price controls at that time.

Unless you consider limiting the interest rates that are allowed to be offered by lending institutions. Since that is still a price cap, there were price controls. Read more Here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Forgive me if I don't consider the words of economists to be gospel. As far as I can see, it's the economists who got us into this mess.

I think not. Moreso the:

housing speculators/banks,

mortgage bundlers/banks, and

derivative traders/banks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Forgive me if I don't consider the words of economists to be gospel. As far as I can see, it's the economists who got us into this mess.

I think not. Moreso the:

housing speculators/banks,

mortgage bundlers/banks, and

derivative traders/banks.

So, you're saying it's the banks, but not the economists who work for the banks and advocate/lobby for policies which allow them to do these things? What about the government economists who are supposed to look out for the interests of the U.S. taxpayers? How did this slip past them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The reason why I might tend to reject this argument and your position that this is a role of government is because governments haven't always done this. None of the programs you've mentioned existed prior to the 1930s. Compared to the thousands of years human beings have lived under some form of government, these programs you mention are relatively new in the grand scheme of things.

It also stands to reason that, with a history of insurrections, riots, labor unrest, and even revolutions (in some countries) during the 19th and early 20th centuries, that would have been a very strong impetus for the government to favor reforms. Not because they're "humane," but because they're practical. There were also some sweeping labor reforms made as well, so I'm not saying that the government has always ignored the needs of working people, but in the past 30 years or so, they have.

Actually, the Progressive movement began with the first Roosevelt and reached its peak with Lyndon Johnson. since then it has been all down hill for Labor. So, I agree about the past 30 years or so. States have passed 'right to work' laws that have crippled the Union movement. That continues today with the reactionaries controlling so many state houses and governor seats. However, that is not solved by withdrawing aid to the unemployed and the working poor.

quote:


I do not agree with your correlation between "free money" or social welfare and the docility of the underclass. The urban riots of the 60s raged while welfare payments were most available. Quite a negative correlation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Forgive me if I don't consider the words of economists to be gospel. As far as I can see, it's the economists who got us into this mess.

I think not. Moreso the:

housing speculators/banks,

mortgage bundlers/banks, and

derivative traders/banks.

So, you're saying it's the banks, but not the economists who work for the banks and advocate/lobby for policies which allow them to do these things? What about the government economists who are supposed to look out for the interests of the U.S. taxpayers? How did this slip past them?

Economists are just functionaries. Tools. On the Banks side it is the CEOs and their subordinates who make the decisions. On the Government side decisions are made by elected folk, doncha know. Lawyers, mostly. Then, let us not forget the machinations of the Federal Reserve. The system is rigged. I think you will agree. But, rigging is an inherent flaw of human economic activity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Well, I'm the first to admit that this country is facing some serious problems, but it seems like the demise of America is already treated like a foregone conclusion - as if there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to forestall the inevitable. That seems to be the general direction that many of these threads take, so I wanted to explore that one particular point further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yep, nothing at all. Unless...

Interesting article. I never heard of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but the website says that it's the "world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." That doesn't sound like it would be an unbiased source of information on this topic.
The gas lines and shortages didn't really occur until after the oil embargo in late 1973, but your article says that price controls were implemented in 1971. It took a while for that to be felt at the consumer level, if that was the true cause of the gas lines.
I'm not saying that it should be implemented permanently, but there has to be some level of control. I wasn't really even thinking in terms of oil prices when I was writing about price controls earlier, but since you brought it up, I would also consider that rising energy costs have put a serious impediment on other businesses and their opportunities for growth.

quote:

Some people believe that the embargo was directly responsible for long gasoline lines and for service stations running dry. The shortages were, in fact, a byproduct of price controls imposed by President Nixon in August 1971, which prevented oil companies from passing on the full cost of imported crude oil to consumers at the pump (small oil companies, however, were exempted from the price control regime in 1973). In the face of increasing world oil prices, "Big Oil" did the only sensible thing: it cut back on imports and stopped selling oil to independent service stations to keep its own franchisees supplied. By May of 1973, five months before the embargo, 1,000 service stations had shut down for lack of fuel and many others had substantially curtailed operations. By June, companies in many parts of the country began limiting the amount of gasoline motorists could purchase per stop.

quote:

Although price controls on gasoline ended when the Arab embargo was lifted in 1974, the Federal Energy Agency (FEA) continued to maintain price controls on crude oil produced domestically. The price of old oil was controlled at about $5.25 per barrel. New oil from wells put into production after November 1975, plus output from old wells that exceeded the base period output levels, was controlled at a price of about $1 per barrel.
At these controlled prices, shortages emerged for domestically produced oil and refineries relied increasingly on imported oil. Those refiners who had access to old oil had an advantage over refiners forced to pay market prices. The FEA responded with an elaborate system of entitlements and allocations among crude oil refiners. Each refiner was given a certain number of entitlements to domestic oil at controlled prices based on the total purchases of crude oil at uncontrolled prices.
The entitlements program placed a tax on domestic production of crude oil and subsidized refinery purchases of imported oil. The United States, in effect, paid a subsidy of about $3 for every barrel of oil imported. Needless to say, this policy discouraged domestic production of petroleum. By holding petroleum prices below the market price, the entitlements program led to wasteful use of petroleum resources and discouraged the development of alternative energy sources. The market has not solved the energy crisis because the market has not been permitted to operate.[3]

quote:

Government price controls further exacerbated the crisis in the United States,[29] which limited the price of "old oil" (that already discovered) while allowing newly discovered oil to be sold at a higher price, resulting in a withdrawal of old oil from the market and the creation of artificial scarcity. The rule also discouraged alternative energies or more efficient fuels or technologies from being developed.[29] The rule had been intended to promote oil exploration.[32] This scarcity was dealt with by rationing of gasoline (which occurred in many countries), with motorists facing long lines at gas stations beginning in summer 1972 and increasing by summer 1973.[29]
In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon named William E. Simon as the first Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, or the "Energy Czar".[33] Simon allocated states the same amount of domestic oil for 1974 that each consumed in 1972, which worked well for states whose populations were not increasing.[34] In states with increased populations, lines at gasoline stations were common.[34] The American Automobile Association reported that in the last week of February 1974, 20% of American gasoline stations had no fuel at all.[34]

quote:

quote:

The S&L crisis was purely due to corruption and greed, and it couldn't be due to price controls anyway, because there weren't any price controls at that time.

Unless you consider limiting the interest rates that are allowed to be offered by lending institutions. Since that is still a price cap, there were price controls. Read more Here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

For one thing, the great depression was considered over by 1939 or 1940, the war created its own problems but depression was not part of it, more men and women were either working or in the military so unemployment was at an all time low.

And all the price controls instituted during the war, and not the depression, were done away with by '46.

Unemployment was still pretty high by 1939 (17.2%) and 1940 (14.6%). Things were getting better, but it was not "over" yet. The price controls were instituted during the war, and that's what helped to catapult our industries into full production. If we waited for the "unseen hand" to kick in, we might have been waiting for a long time, just as we're waiting now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Well, I'm the first to admit that this country is facing some serious problems, but it seems like the demise of America is already treated like a foregone conclusion - as if there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to forestall the inevitable. That seems to be the general direction that many of these threads take, so I wanted to explore that one particular point further.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion at all. Our government has sold us out. In point of fact, it's unclear whether it's even "our" government anymore and equally unclear whether it is a legitimate government. The bankers are running the US with their second in command, the transnational corporations. But all of that isn't "the end" necessarily.

The way I see it the sheeple still don't get this. But if I'm right then pressure will continue to mount. The rich will continue to get richer... faster... the poor will continue to get poorer... faster. In other words, the trends over the last few decades will continue. But as people get hungrier and they watch their friends and family die they may yet decide that something needs to be done. They may yet realize that this whole "red/blue" thing is just smoke to distract us. They may yet unite and vote in a different government. That vote may even be allowed to continue and we might get a new government.

It isn't a foregone conclusion. It's a question of how desperate must things become before people decide to act and whether it'll be "too late" by then. "Too late" is defined as the moment at which the military will side with the government rather than the populace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
This is part of what's hurting America, in my view. People just want to stick to an ideological status quo just for its own sake.