How do Conservatives explain the USA decline?

[Moonbeam]

shifrbv, are you a proponet of the steady sh!t theory, it was bad then and it's bad now? 😀

 

[jhu]

i think that if we slowly outlaw clothing, things will get a lot better

 

[Moonbeam]

jhu, that's a threadbare argument if I've ever seen one.

 

[Martin]

<< decline of racism and sexism

Oh really? If this were really so, why would we even need sexual harassment lawsuits or hate crime laws.? Or even have the prevalence of those types of lawsuits in our courts as we do have?

They talk about people looking at the past with rose colored glasses, I think people in the present ought to take them off as well. >>




You see these go up for a different reason. Back in the fifties, if somebody spilt some hot coffee on themselves, they put on some lotion of something and let it heal. Today they go to their lawyer and sue the company that made the coffee for millions of dollars, demanding punitive damages for physical and emotion pain. Gimme a break.

 

[cleek]

rampant socialism

 

[worth]

Republicans explain the USA decline to their dumb liberal friends on Anandtech by pointing out that the economic decline began 9 months before Bill Clinton went out of office.

Well, everything except Phillip Morris...

 

[Ornery]

How do Conservatives explain the USA decline?

Here's one reason:

Broken Homes, Broken Hearts

• One of the most significant factors contributing to the breakdown of the family has been the steady rise of unwed births. Since 1960, illegitimate births have increased more than 400 percent. In 1960, 5 percent of all births were out of wedlock. Thirty years later nearly 30 percent of all births were illegitimate. Among blacks two out of every three births are illegitimate.
  
  To put this astonishing increase in illegitimate births in perspective, compare 1961 with 1991. Roughly the same number of babies were born in both years (about 4 million). But in 1991, five times as many of these babies were born out of wedlock.

 

[Shantanu]

You dipsh|t. "Conservative" means that we want a strict constructionist government based on the Constitution, not that we "want to go back to the Dark Ages".

LMFAO. Stupid fscking Democrats!

 

[Amused]

<< You dipsh|t. "Conservative" means that we want a strict constructionist government based on the Constitution, not that we "want to go back to the Dark Ages".

LMFAO. Stupid fscking Democrats! >>



Actually, that would more closely resemble Libertarians. I've seen Republicans do some pretty scary stuff with history revisionism and Constitutional reinterpretations... though, not nearly as bad as Democrats, but still bad enough to keep me away from their party

 

[Helpless]

I teach undergrad Econ 102 and History of Economic Thought...sign-up for my class, and I will be glad to help you understand the boom and bust cycles 🙂

 

[Helpless]

Republicans explain the USA decline to their dumb liberal friends on Anandtech by pointing out that the economic decline began 9 months before Bill Clinton went out of office.


You get AP credit, sir.

 

[linuxboy]

I teach undergrad Econ 102 and History of Economic Thought...sign-up for my class, and I will be glad to help you understand the boom and bust cycles

Using economic assumptions to predict and explain human behavior is faulty because those assumptions are contradicted by real data from studies in sociology and psychology. Besides, I think the real emphasis here has been moral thought and ultimate questions of the Good rather than following economic theory. We do not ignore it, but for ones who prefer to contemplate the Real, the world of economics seems to be too detached from our own perceptions and understanding of reality.

But point taken, there is an economic phenomenon and it should also be examined. If you could elaborate or tie in some ideas from your field into our current discussion, I would appreciate it. 🙂

Cheers ! 🙂

 

[Spendthrift]

not being nearly as bright or eloquent as athanasius or linuxboy, my response will be short and simple.

calling upon science i invoke the principle that all systems move towards a state of lower energy and higher entropy. society is no different. rome would be the prime example. roman society was rather chaotic and in severe stages of decline before its final collapse. society continues towards a higher state of entropy until the system collapses. then a new system is built and rises from the ashes of the old.

athanasius hit the nail squarely on the head with his second post. i completely agree. society is inherently cyclical and therefore we can never preserve it, only postpone its demise.

i do want to give props to both athanasius and linuxboy for well thought out posts. great food for thought.

😉

 

[Helpless]

Using economic assumptions to predict and explain human behavior is faulty because those assumptions are contradicted by real data from studies in sociology and psychology


I agree with you, sir; thus, I am a macroeconomist 🙂 As for micro and human behavior, I must take the Keynesian position and write individual behavior off as mere "animal spirits." Moreover, I would also agree with what 'spendthrift' posted: society is inherently cyclical and therefore we can never preserve it, only postpone its demise. For the longest time, economists have considered the proverbial 'natural rate of unemployment' to be ~5-6% (the "sustainable" rate)...after the "tech-stock boom," that number had dipped to ~ 3% (we even dipped under 3% for a few months, I believe). Sadly, that level is far from sustainable...it is impossible to contain the inflationary pressures that arise when you are beyond full-employment (exacerbating prices, wages, interest rates, etc)...

I have read a million books (okay, not quite a million, but damn close) on the "boom and bust cycles" during the antebellum...our sudden economic slowdown is anything but a new phenomenon...Jefferson and Hamilton were debating this very thing [why we can't maintain the booms and avoid the busts] some 100+ years ago 🙂

 

[Helpless]

contradicted by real data from studies in sociology and psychology.


...only soc. I have had was an advanced stats class for sociology, which proved to be nothing more than a watered down version of econometrics 🙂 I think they are quacks, but do respect sociologists.

 

[Moonbeam]

"You dipsh|t. "Conservative" means that we want a strict constructionist government based on the Constitution, not that we "want to go back to the Dark Ages"."

Shantanu, that's very interesting, but I would like to know more. Why do Conservatives want a strict constructionist government based on the Constitution. It wouldn't be that there is the opinion that the values expressed in those lighter ages are better than the liberal interpretations of more modern times, would it?

Ornery, I see those statistics as troubeling, but my question is what was it about our society that allowed family values to go down hill so badly. "We take paradise and put up a parking lot."

If society is cyclical and we can't prevent its demise, why would there such outrage at people who point out flaws in the current progression toward decline implicating those flaws as a cause? Why shoot the messanger if the implications of the message are anticipated?

Why also is there such veneration of a system that has produced a boom bust cycle that's been argued for hundreds of years? Could it be that the cause is structural? I was never able to understand a system where somebody, Greenspan, would raise interest rates to keep people from getting jobs or raises. It hasn't been applied to executives who used to get maybe only 200 times or so the rate of the lowest paid people. It sounds like a sacrifice of a percent ot the population for the benefit of the rest.

Edit: Are a few taking advantage of the rest until they revolt?

 

[tcsenter]

<< Shantanu, that's very interesting, but I would like to know more. Why do Conservatives want a strict constructionist government based on the Constitution. It wouldn't be that there is the opinion that the values expressed in those lighter ages are better than the liberal interpretations of more modern times, would it? >>

Not at all, the "meaning" of the constitution is what the founders intended it to mean, not what some judge says it means 200 years later. The constitution was intended to be AMENDED if society no longer agreed with any of the provisions therein. By advancing the rather bizarre notion that one should be able to interpret the constitution any imaginative way one likes, it defeats the very purpose of having a constitution codified in writing at all.

If that were the case, then there would not be the one constitution which creates government and the law of the land, there would be a million constitutions according to the whimsical inklings of anyone who wishes to interpret it.

I'd like to do that with a few contracts I entered into. "Hey, you know that part where I agreed to pay you $50 a month? Yeah, well, that contract was in the past, we live in the now. So, I'm interpreting that part of the contract to mean that YOU now give ME $50 a month. Thanks!"

<< I was never able to understand a system where somebody, Greenspan, would raise interest rates to keep people from getting jobs or raises. It hasn't been applied to executives who used to get maybe only 200 times or so the rate of the lowest paid people. >>

It applies to everyone. Let's take a theoretical $20 million dollar bonus received by some "evil greedy" corporate officer. You'll not find such a large compensation package in a small business, you're talking about a company with 50,000 employees.

Let's take away his bonus and give it to the employees. It works out to be an additional $400 per year for each employee, before taxes, about $300 after. Woohoo! That's an extra $5.77 a week! What are they going to do with that, buy a house?

A prospective company CEO negotiates a favorable compensation package that is agreeable to both parties. If the company was only willing to entertain a compensation package worth no more than $3 million, what do you think they would say to a prospective CEO who would settle for no less than $5 million? NEXT! If the CEO wanted $5 million to stay aboard, but the company was only willing to go as high as $3, guess what the CEO would say? See-ya!

Wage earning employees have just as much right to negotiate their wage as anyone, unless a union comes along and forbids a company to. If either the company or employee do not find the wage to their liking, neither is forced to accept it. That is the fundamental tenet of a free society where two or more parties have a right to enter into a private contract, one that they negotiate to a mutually agreeable end without being compelled or coerced by the other or a disinterested third party to accept a condition they do not agree to.

If you were selling a car for $1000 into which you have at least $800 invested, how would you like it if the state came along and said "Nope, you'll sell that car for $500 and not a penny more"?

As for raising interest rates, if the last 7 years doesn't serve as a TEXT BOOK example of what happens when an economy grows too fast, then I will never be able to explain it to you. Its right in front of your face.

 

[flawedecision]

I don't really know how to appropriately respond to your questions.

The questions go beyond a label of conservative or liberal. Those terms hold very little meaning... as a conservative today would have been viewed as a liberal 200 years... liberal in a variety of senses... one being smith's classic liberal economy -- of all groups today, libertarians and conservatives appear to be the only groups actively pursuing policy in this direction..

Then you have today's liberal. What is a liberal by your standards? Is it the extreme left who go so far as supporting any group we are at odds with such as the Taliban? Or is it the moderate left to center represented by the Schumer's and Breaux's?

As you can see this issue goes way beyond labels.

 

[flawedecision]

Using economic assumptions to predict and explain human behavior is faulty because those assumptions are contradicted by real data from studies in sociology and psychology. Besides, I think the real emphasis here has been moral thought and ultimate questions of the Good rather than following economic theory. We do not ignore it, but for ones who prefer to contemplate the Real, the world of economics seems to be too detached from our own perceptions and understanding of reality.

I'm with helpless on this one... my knowledge of soc is far less than that of economic theory... The one soc class I took was taught by a feminazi type woman who turned me off from the subject entirely. I found the statistics intertwined with the study of human behavior to be grossly overstated and misinterpretated for the sake of making 50,000 excuses for just about every ill will this fine earth has ever entertained.

Memories like these are part of the reason I stereotype the far left as uneducated on the subjects of statistical analysis and economics.

As the great communicator put it so well...

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

 

[Bleepeep]

I can't believe you people. You think psychologists and psychiatrists are our friends?

The reason morals and values have been in a decline is because they are being undercut by someone.

That someone is the psychologists and psychiatrists in our schools, our businesses, our government, etc.

Why do you think every school shooting has involved ritalin or luvox or prozac or other anti-depressant. The drugs (and a few other things) are the cause of moral decline in America. They prevent people from making sane decisions about their actions. Besides that, you have programs like "values clarifications" that teach kids that they themselves are the only ones who can dictate what is right or wrong based on whether or not it makes them happy.

"It will make me happy if I shoot my schoolmates". That attitude, put into place by said evildoers, along with dangerous anti-depressants, make some people go berserk and shoot others. Schools have turned from being a place to learn to being a place where they are molded and shaped to do whatever the school says.

Another point:

In order for a conflict to exist, a third party must be present. (third party: meaning a person or group that incites conflict by giving false or slanderous information to two different people or groups about the other)

Example: clerk A has a wife that is sleeping with clerk B. Wife says bad things about both of each of them to the other and worker A and B start fighting. The wife, of course, has nothing to do with it, and worker A and B end up doing something they regret.

That is a simple example but think about psychiatrists and psychologists. They tell us that we are made of nothing but matter and atoms and molecules. They tell us that thought is nothing but chemicals reacting in the brain. Do you believe that? I don't for a second. They tell us that a person has no will of their own and have no more advanced thought processes than animals. They have infiltrated our schools with these "theories" and "solutions", but solutions for what problems. Kids run around to much. So what, that's childhood. So we drug them and subdue their ability to think. We give them nightmares and keep them from living healthy lives.

If one of those drugged up kids goes and shoots up their classroom, the government and other people get mad at the kids, but they don't realize that it's the psychiatrist and his false and harmful ideas and drugs that are causing the problems. They are the ones that need to be handled and jailed. Then all our troubles will disappear.

If you don't beliieve me, go here and click on the left where it says "online exposes". Check out some of it, it might prove interesting.

 

[Daedalus]

It might be useful to have some ideas as to how societies can preserve essencial values long term.
Just as I always thought Moonbeam, you're a member of the Moral Majority afterall.

 

[shifrbv]

Why also is there such veneration of a system that has produced a boom bust cycle that's been argued for hundreds of years? Could it be that the cause is structural? I was never able to understand a system where somebody, Greenspan, would raise interest rates to keep people from getting jobs or raises. It hasn't been applied to executives who used to get maybe only 200 times or so the rate of the lowest paid people. It sounds like a sacrifice of a percent ot the population for the benefit of the rest.

Are a few taking advantage of the rest until they revolt?

In the case of the US, I think this is exactly it. The cause is always structural. It's the same reason Stalin had some of his brightest economic theorists put into labor camps in Siberia at the height of communism. Of course, we're much more subtle and subersive about it nowadays.

Nonetheless, it's a dangerous experiment and no one knows how it will end up, but those at the helm don't seem to be too concerned about it right now it seems.

I think if there was anyway to keep the world in stability, to preserve ideas, whatever, it would have to be accomplished through the economic system which a society utilizes.

An economic system and it's utilization, stablize the flow and continuity of a society. If it fails, the society goes into decline, stagnates for awhile, and eventually disappears. If it succeeds, society can flourish for thousands of years. Laws can be written, vows can be taken, whatever, but in the end, it all really comes down to one thing.

Most western societies have gone by the wayside because of economics. I can't speak for other countries (with the exception of Egypt and the Mayans/later Azteks), but I suspect they all operate to some degree upon this principle. Rome, Egypt, Greece, Europe, Mayans/Azteks any one of them are not what they formerly were because of how they handled their finances.

This simple fact leads to all of the progress and decline throughout history. Wars, famine, and all the implications that entail (disease, poverty, etc.) It all comes down to money and how a society enables it's members to utilize it.

Capitalism is not a panacea, communism is not a panacea, socialism is not a panacea. But if people would continue working towards that goal, there could yet again be another revolution which could have far-reaching significance for humanity.

As for the US, at the very least, we should be looking at this information. Each system has things it does very well and things which are done very badly. Unforutnatley for us right now, the structural component in our society stifles even this meager exchange out of public dialogue or debate. They claim the "free market" mantra, yet continue on in their wayward fashion. Adam Smith is surely turning over in his grave.

 

[Moonbeam]

Daedalus, I don't have any problem with morals, but as for being in the majority, not a chance. 😀

Bleepeep, for some reason you bring to mind the baseball player who snapped and was straightjacketed on the field. Somebody commented that it was all the result of the pressure put on him by his father. He then behan to scream, "If it wasn't for my father, I wouldn't be where I am today." I can appreciate the possibility that we have become overeliant on drugs, but you broad brush critique of all psychologh from that fact seems rather extreme.

tcsenter, that was a pretty good diatribe, but it sort of sounded like you were sparring with your imaginary liberal playmate. My questions were doubtless posed according to my vision which is doubtless biased, but I was looking more for explanations justifying the rightness of what is, not for attacks on what you imagine I think. For example in regards to my Greenspan comment:

"It applies to everyone. Let's take a theoretical $20 million dollar bonus received by some "evil greedy" corporate officer. You'll not find such a large compensation package in a small business, you're talking about a company with 50,000 employees.

Let's take away his bonus and give it to the employees. It works out to be an additional $400 per year for each employee, before taxes, about $300 after. Woohoo! That's an extra $5.77 a week! What are they going to do with that, buy a house?"

I said nothing about "evil greedy" corporate officers. What I said was that I don't understand why higher wages for employees is inflationary and higher pay for executives isn't. And if you can't buy a house for 5.77, but the guy with 20 million buys one where are our children going to sleep. Your notion the 5.77 is unimportant but 20 million is is just plain goofy. According doubtless to your own economic theory the 5.77 will immediately recirculate in the economy.

My point was also about the sacrifice of the 5% which you didn't address and which, if I'm not mistakened in its anti-inflationary implication, is there precisely so that workers can't negociate higher wages as per your free contract idea. Wages are kept low enough so that 5% can't afford to work and anybody who wants more than that minimum risks exchanges places with the unimployed. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[ToBeMe]

Oh WTH.....I'm just going to go ahead and blame it all on Carter if that's OK with everyone........I'm not really a Conserv. or Lib. but probably more Conserv. if I had to choose and Carter was always a nice "fall guy" in my college years so.............😉 LOL!

 

[Ornery]

First of all, the USA generally has NOT declined. But the few sore spots are the result of government dependence instead of self reliance. Guess that's it in a nutshell. That explains the Conservative/Liberal rift. That would be more accurately stated as a GOP/Democrat rift, because Conservatives are virtually in lock step with Libertarians on the major issues.

Take a look at the people who have been adversely effected by the USA's "decline". They're the ones whose father is unknown and look to the government to pay their way. They're "entitled" to these resources, you know? Why are so many children born to single mothers now? It's a mindset 180 degrees away from a "conservative's" way of life.