Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics in Axis and Allies

However, I agree with the rest of what you said. I’d like to add that rich people/corporations are able to bribe polititions, and thus we have a plutocracy instead of a democracy

@calvinhobbesliker:

I think reps are only chosen by the party in parliamentary systems

That’s true (agreed as well about the bribing and the plutocracy)

I think the only way of changing the things is voting any party that is not one of the mayors and better voting one that wants change the electoral system to a more democratic one. That would mean voting any party different to Dems and Reps in USA, any different to PSOE and PP in Spain, any different to laborists and conservatives in UK, etc. That’s the only non-futile vote, and we saw a bit of that in UK (there, a third party won enough representatives to force the conservatives a minor change in the electoral system. Its a small step, but we need start walking as soon as we can)

@Funcioneta:

I think the only way of changing the things is voting any party that is not one of the mayors and better voting one that wants change the electoral system to a more democratic one. That would mean voting any party different to Dems and Reps in USA, any different to PSOE and PP in Spain, any different to laborists and conservatives in UK, etc. That’s the only non-futile vote, and we saw a bit of that in UK (there, a third party won enough representatives to force the conservatives a minor change in the electoral system. Its a small step, but we need start walking as soon as we can)

What’s PSOE and PP stand for(and English translations, please)

Yeah, the Lib Dems were key in the UK. However, what’s to prevent a 3rd party from taking bribes?

Thaught you guys might like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

@Cromwell_Dude:

Imagine the look on the face of the Axis player when the US builds a navy with 4 battleships, 3AC, 5 destroyers, 10 subs, and 20 transports, on EACH coast on move 1!  The war is not in doubt now.

Great economic parody. I hate to be a spoil sport but the US would run into factory build limits in any game but A&A Classic.

@Funcioneta:

but we need able politicians first or any solution we try is damned to fail utterly.

Ah, the classic argument - we need better people!

Funcioneta, I agree with many of your points, but you tend to draw the wrong conclusions. Government is corrupt – I agree. Your solution is better politicians, mine is less government. Power corrupts, and the more power granted to one entity the more corruption possible. The beauty of economics is that individual forces acting for themselves bring about that which you want.

Does government have a role? Of course! We need government for basic services, such as courts, roads, police and fire, etc, and also a limited framework to eliminate monopolies and cartels in business.

One other point about your “more democracy” comment – I agree we need more “educated democracy.” The problem is a large percentage of voters are apathetic and vote for whatever name they remember best. Also, few people have any idea of economic principles and tend to vote for nice sounding ideas with disastrous consequences.

I’ll give two examples: Minimum wage and welfare. Minimum wage is a great idea in principle (workers should be paid a “living” wage, sufficient to provide for a family). In practice, however, it leads to massive under-employment. Why? The prime beneficiary of minimum wage jobs is teenagers and college students (over 50% in the US). At a minimum wage job, you learn vital skills and build experience for a “real” job further down the road (historical equivalent – apprentice). When you institute a minimum wage, you condemn many of these youths to no job whatsoever, with disastrous results for the future.

Welfare is similar – it is a “give a fish” instead of “teach to fish” idea. If all unemployed people are given welfare sufficient to cover their expenses, what incentive is there to work (or build job skills?). Sadly, many people here in the US in their 20’s and 30’s are on welfare, doing nothing and collecting checks from the Government. While this is sustainable in the short term, they are really harming themselves in the long run, as they are supposed to be earning wages and saving during those years so as to pay for their retirement in the future. Such a scheme eventually collapses, with dire results for all (Greece). I draw the parallel of a wild and a captive tiger. A captive tiger, once born and reared in a zoo, can never be released to the wild, as he does not have the requisite skills to survive. The captive tiger is the modern day welfare recipient – would you set them free?

For welfare, the incentive to work is to earn more, since unemployment benefits are less I think than MW.

For MW, I’m not sure that’s empirically true, and I think different studies conflict with each other.

Less government is all well and good, but of course, we need a gov’t for the military, infrastructure, ans, as some argue, health care, economic crises, and a social saftey net

Not if welfare is set at too high a point - it is a catch-22.

For many parts of the country, the standard of living is low enough that welfare is a comparable substitute. Think about it - Welfare pays $1500 a month, while a job pays $2300 (both examples).

After taxes, transportation costs, time involved in commuting, AND time spent working is factored in - which would you rather do?

In many cases, welfare pays MORE than a comparable job that welfare recipients could earn. I am speaking from personal experience, by the way… I have met several people who have turned down job offers to remain on welfare.

We agree on the basics of Government - Military, Infrastructure. The rest is a pure power grab.

I see. But on the other hand, since there is a natural unempoyment of 5-6%, if you remove too much, people will stay poor. The challenge is finding the correct amount, and this is subject to change over time.

There will always be temporary unemployment - people changing jobs, getting more education, temporary layoffs. The key is to minimize permanent unemployment, which is devastating to an economy.

Feel free to message me at any point if you have any questions about any economic issue - the subject is extremely important and affects each one of us, every day of our lives.

I think we agree that we need some government and some welfare, we just disagree on how much. It’s interesting that many people whose beliefs seem very different(e.g. conservatives and liberals) agree on things, but disagree on the degree.

I disagree. ANY government welfare is just doing what private individuals should be doing. It is charity. But when government does it means bigger bureaucracy and more wasted money, plus the government is less involved in deciding who really needs help (if they are more involved, it just means MORE money spent on desk workers and such) since it is so large scale. Plus when charity is run by the government, it gets viewed as a right, rather than a gift. People no longer see a need to fix their situation and just depend on the government. Also, welfare violates the rights of citizens. It forces people to “donate” to “charity” whether they like it or not in the same way the Social security violates people’s property rights by forcing them to pay for other people’s retirements.
Welfare is essentially the ends of a path of selfishness. People no longer want to help others by giving to charity or other ways, so they depend on the government to do it. The people that need help then demand it from the government rather than working to solve their problems.

The government is there to administer the money so that donations made in California can get to Louisiana.

Some people can’t fix the situation; i.e. they can’t get a job no matter how hard they try. They don’t just sit around doing nothing.

Let me ask you: how does a poor person solve his illness if he can’t afford health care?

Also, you say private individuals SHOULD be giving help. I completely agree with that. Unfortunately, they don’t and thus we have to force them to do so.

@calvinhobbesliker:

The government is there to administer the money so that donations made in California can get to Louisiana.

Or rather into a bureaucrat’s pocket.
@calvinhobbesliker:

Some people can’t fix the situation; i.e. they can’t get a job no matter how hard they try. They don’t just sit around doing nothing.

As much as I think they should find something better to do, even the people that beg at street corners are doing something. And they seem to be getting by. Many people say can’t when they are really just too proud to take a minimum-wage job. I have worked one - it is not fun, but you got to do what you got to do.
@calvinhobbesliker:

Let me ask you: how does a poor person solve his illness if he can’t afford health care?

There are people that have diseases that they cannot get cured, not because there is no cure, but because the procedure costs ridiculously too much. If the government were to pay to get everyone out of their wheelchairs everyone would go broke (or more accurately, the government would collapse from debt) I think there are expensive treatments to spinal issues that the average person cannot afford. Where do we draw the line? Right at the start. People can get inexpensive drugs at places like Wal-mart and Costco. Even if they couldn’t get everything they needed, it still wouldn’t help for the government to get into health care. History (and Europe) has shown us that the more the government gives away health care, the less the people get. Take England for example. Even for time-urgent procedures, people often have to wait in 6 month waiting lists (or even waiting lists to get on the waiting list - yes, I’m serious). This can result in loss of limb use, extended severe pain, and even possibly death. Why does this happen? Because the people demanded that the government pay for their health care so the doctors are all busy with people that do not really need to go to the doctor.
@calvinhobbesliker:

Also, you say private individuals SHOULD be giving help. I completely agree with that. Unfortunately, they don’t and thus we have to force them to do so.

Who are you to determine that it should be someone else’s money to solve poverty rather than your own? Even were welfare a good thing, supporting it is a waste of time and money. You would do better to rally people to donate to help the poor than to rally people to vote to get the government to take from others to give to the poor. Your one voice and your actions giving and working to help the poor will do more than your one voice supporting welfare. When it comes down to it, supporting welfare is not all that compassionate as is portrayed. It is really just another form of selfishness. If the over 50% of people that support welfare were instead to actually do something to help the poor, we would have no “need” for welfare. However, they would rather force others to “help” the poor and use the government as their excuse for not doing anything much like Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol” -

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” replied Scrooge.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas, and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. … It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

Welfare is just an excuse for people not to help the poor. It is merely a way to ease people’s conscience so they won’t feel bad about the people starving around them. Your signature says, “while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving.” But I say to you, while you prate about welfare being the answer, men and women are starving. What are you doing to help them?

Wel, when I get a job(I’m 16), I’ll be paying taxes for the welfare.

And the waiting list thing. No they don’t. They can prioritize. More urgent procedures are done 1st. In the UK, I think 93% like their health care.

Apparently, 50% support welfare, but I’m the only one on AA.org that will defend it? Something is wrong in this picture.

I have a question, wilson. Are you an anarchist?

Also, about the gov’t collapsing from debt if they provide HC,

it might work if we scale down are military spending which is larger than the next 14 nations’ combined.
Our gov’t is 13 trillion of dollars in debt, it hasn’t collapsed yet(probably due to Keynesian influences which allow it to defecit spend).

@calvinhobbesliker:

Also, about the gov’t collapsing from debt if they provide HC,

it might work if we scale down are military spending which is larger than the next 14 nations’ combined.
Our gov’t is 13 trillion of dollars in debt, it hasn’t collapsed yet(probably due to Keynesian influences which allow it to defecit spend).

Hasn’t collapsed yet

They thought the Titanic was unsinkable - they thought the Hindenburg was a great idea - they thought the Internet boom was going to lead to unlimited growth.

Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. By the way, your second comment is meaningless. Rephrased, it reads:

The drunk driver hasn’t hit anyone on the road yet. This is probably due to his alcoholic tendencies which allow him to drink.

What?

Questions to ponder:

1. What is the ultimate goal of welfare?

2. How do you prevent people from becoming addicted to welfare?

3. How do you prevent politicians from using welfare to buy votes?

4. How do you transform people accustomed to welfare to a working, productive job?