When have conservative economic policies ever worked?

[MooseNSquirrel]

All I see is that GDP tracked population growth, government spending, and dept levels.

 

[Atreus21]

If you walk into a supermarket and see tons of stock of everything, you can thank free market economics.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You can thank science quite a bit for that, but regardless, Capitalism is not an economic policy owned by conservatives.

 

[Atreus21]

You can thank science quite a bit for that, but regardless, Capitalism is not an economic policy owned by conservatives.

Science didn't put food on the shelves. The profit motive did. And between the two major parties, one is more pro-market than the other.

 

[Dannar26]

Since when has making sense ever worked!? Oh wait, I forgot who we're talking to...

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt.

 

[Matt1970]

All I see is that GDP tracked population growth, government spending, and dept levels.

LOL, you would see that.

 

[Matt1970]

Now, when has a higher tax rate on the upper class ever worked? Up untill the 80's we had a 70% upper tax rate and even as high as 90% yet we still ran deficits and had homeless and people living below the poverty line.

I think it is funny Liberal never like to touch that question. They think the end-all solution to all our problems is taxing the rich. Clearly we have done that on extreme levels and we still ran deficits and had problems. Hmmmmm

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Science didn't put food on the shelves The profit motive did.

Science made it possible to have the food available to stock those shelves

But I think you knew that already.

And between the two major parties, one is more pro-market than the other.

I disagree, but it would make for an interesting seperate thread.

Regardless, Democrats arent en masse advocating the end of the free-market system, and neither are Republicans, so well stick with judging it as a shared philosophy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I think it is funny Liberal never like to touch that question. They think the end-all solution to all our problems is taxing the rich. Clearly we have done that on extreme levels and we still ran deficits and had problems. Hmmmmm

I think its funny if I came up with data that proves your pet theory wrong, that would automatically make me a liberal.

Why dont you challenge yourself to go find real actual data that supports your theory?

Not sure how to approach that? Let me help.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+method

 

[QuantumPion]

When has socialism ever NOT resulted in either a world war, genocide, or mass starvation?

 

[fskimospy]

When has socialism ever NOT resulted in either a world war, genocide, or mass starvation?

By your likely definition, almost all of the industrialized world for the last 70 years. Why do you ask?

 

[Atreus21]

Science made it possible to have the food available to stock those shelves

But I think you knew that already.

Made it possible perhaps. It certainly didn't compel people to sell food. That is squarely to the credit of the profit-motive.

I disagree, but it would make for an interesting seperate thread.

Regardless, Democrats arent en masse advocating the end of the free-market system, and neither are Republicans, so well stick with judging it as a shared philosophy.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say that democrats favor a regulated market whereas republicans favor a deregulated market. One favors a freer market than the other. I didn't say one was communist.

 

[fskimospy]

Science didn't put food on the shelves. The profit motive did. And between the two major parties, one is more pro-market than the other.

Both parties are extremely supportive of the free market. You realize in the rest of the industrialized world the Democrats would be considered the conservative party, right?

 

[Matt1970]

I think its funny if I came up with data that proves your pet theory wrong, that would automatically make me a liberal.

Why dont you challenge yourself to go find real actual data that supports your theory?

Not sure how to approach that? Let me help.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+method

If you came up with data that proved me wrong you would be a magician.

Tax Rates:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Deficits:
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

 

[fskimospy]

I think it is funny Liberal never like to touch that question. They think the end-all solution to all our problems is taxing the rich. Clearly we have done that on extreme levels and we still ran deficits and had problems. Hmmmmm

Nobody wants to touch the question because it's nonsensical and childlike. Taxing rich people doesn't suddenly make all of society's problems go away, nobody but morons or people trying to deliberately twist the argument would say that. (you are likely both)

Fiscal policy is designed to bring about the greatest total amount of welfare possible to the largest number of people possible. Whether or not our country is running a deficit in one year or another or what the marginal tax rate on the rich is an entirely different question. If the US government raised marginal taxes on the rich it would bring in more revenue. This is something no credible economist is willing to argue. Whether or not that would happen in a year with a deficit or not depends on a whole lot of things not based on tax rates for the rich.

 

[Matt1970]

Taxing rich people doesn't suddenly make all of society's problems go away, nobody but morons or people trying to deliberately twist the argument would say that. (you are likely both)
.

This forum is full of people saying that.

 

[fskimospy]

This forum is full of people saying that.

Quote one.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Nobody wants to touch the question because it's nonsensical and childlike. Taxing rich people doesn't suddenly make all of society's problems go away, nobody but morons or people trying to deliberately twist the argument would say that. (you are likely both)

Fiscal policy is designed to bring about the greatest total amount of welfare possible to the largest number of people possible. Whether or not our country is running a deficit in one year or another or what the marginal tax rate on the rich is an entirely different question. If the US government raised marginal taxes on the rich it would bring in more revenue. This is something no credible economist is willing to argue. Whether or not that would happen in a year with a deficit or not depends on a whole lot of things not based on tax rates for the rich.

Ah ha! You admit the liberal agenda is to use fiscal policy to put as many people on welfare as possible!

 

[fskimospy]

Ah ha! You admit the liberal agenda is to use fiscal policy to put as many people on welfare as possible!

Damn, you caught us!

 

[Atreus21]

Both parties are extremely supportive of the free market. You realize in the rest of the industrialized world the Democrats would be considered the conservative party, right?

One is more supportive than the other. I can't believe how much resistance I'm getting to this notion.

To your second sentence, if this is true, then I'll happily remain an American. Considering the edge America has over the rest of industrialized world, I'd say the joke is on them.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Damn, you caught us!

I'm e-mailing the Romney campaign so they can put out a commercial immediately.

 

[Matt1970]

Quote one.

How about a thread.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2257323&highlight=raise+taxes

 

[fskimospy]

One is more supportive than the other. I can't believe how much resistance I'm getting to this notion.

To your second sentence, if this is true, then I'll happily remain an American.

I find the idea of what is 'more supportive' of the free market to be a pretty nebulous idea. What if we removed all pollution regulation and allowed companies to irradiate or destroy large swaths of land that other people would have otherwise put to productive purpose? Is that more or less supportive of the free market? What about monopoly protections? Is allowing monopolies more or less free market? I think a better description is that they are both free market neoliberal parties, one of which favors greater regulation and the other less regulation.

But yes, the Democrats in America are way to the right of even many European conservative parties. That's why it's so funny when American conservatives try to label them communists or whatever.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

NK is an autarky. A (neo) Mercantilist/Industrial policy is a 3rd way in between true free trade and an autarky country like NK. It's not a black and white world.



And? They promote less deficits, freer trade, and less state run industries. Things libertarians can cheer for.



Mercantilim isn't guaranteed to work, but it has a much better track record than free trade in getting countries out of poverty.

If you look at the poor countries that have successfully developed since WWII there is evidence that import substitution / planned industrial policy does help the country bootstrap itself in the early stages of development. A fascist type government that can get things done also seems to help.

However, once the country reaches a certain point freer markets and more liberal government become necessary to enable continued growth.

 

[fskimospy]

How about a thread.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2257323&highlight=raise+taxes

Nope, not seeing any posts in there that say taxing the rich will solve all of soceity's problems. I'm going to need specific quotes.

Take your time.