Would Jefferson's economic policies crash America?

[Anarchist420]

Like Dr. Paul, he favored low taxes, low public spending, and free market money.

I think his economic policies would be good, but some think they know better than Jefferson so that's why I'm asking.

 

[berzerker60]

Yep, they're completely inappropriate for America today. He'd happily admit as much.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[K1052]

Jefferson was highly flexible in favor of what worked in the nation's interest. His original policies are not in the nation's interest.

The Louisiana Purchase is a pretty good example. A philosophically questionable use of government money/power aided and abetted by (arguably) his biggest rival.

 

[Incorruptible]

Absolutely not. His policies would save America because right now stimulus and big government isn't working. Jefferson was much smarter than obama and most of the other politicians we have now.

Ron Paul even knew about the financial crash and he was ignored and mocked but he was right then and he is right now.

 

[Agent11]

Hard to have low spending while being the world police.

 

[Brainonska511]

Ron Paul even knew about the financial crash and he was ignored and mocked but he was right then and he is right now.

You know what they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

As for the original premise: I'm sorry to say, but it's not 1800 anymore. Things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Stop romanticizing ancient history and try living in the present.

 

[NTMBK]

Nah. Good job you guys had Hamilton to set you straight.

 

[Abwx]

Like Dr. Paul, he favored low taxes, low public spending, and free market money.

I think his economic policies would be good, but some think they know better than Jefferson so that's why I'm asking.

Yes , thanks to slavery legalization no doubt that the federal
budget and any possible deficit would be promptly relegated
as , well , a thing of an archaic era when labor wasnt
freely available.....

 

[nextJin]

You know what they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

As for the original premise: I'm sorry to say, but it's not 1800 anymore. Things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Stop romanticizing ancient history and try living in the present.

Yep he was wrong about the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the war on minorities as well. 3 decades of spouting ignorance.

 

[FaaR]

I think his economic policies would be good

Yeah, because they knew fking everything about economics in the late 1700s...

Jesus.

 

[Jhhnn]

Absolutely not. His policies would save America because right now stimulus and big government isn't working. Jefferson was much smarter than obama and most of the other politicians we have now.

Ron Paul even knew about the financial crash and he was ignored and mocked but he was right then and he is right now.

Stimulus, small as it has been, and the flywheel effect of govt spending & employment are what prevented a re-run of 1930, along with action by the FRB. To say that "it isn't working" is to ignore the obvious, & delve into the far reaches of Truthiness.

That's your usual schtick, anyway.

Jefferson & his contemporaries would be utterly overwhelmed & baffled by our world. It would appear to be magic.

 

[Incorruptible]

Stimulus, small as it has been, and the flywheel effect of govt spending & employment are what prevented a re-run of 1930, along with action by the FRB. To say that "it isn't working" is to ignore the obvious, & delve into the far reaches of Truthiness.

That's your usual schtick, anyway.

Jefferson & his contemporaries would be utterly overwhelmed & baffled by our world. It would appear to be magic.

Wrong again but it's you so I'm not surprised. To blame the banks when the government was responsible for what happened is to ignore the obvious, & delve into the far reaches of Truthiness.

That's your usual schtick, anyway.

Jefferson would absolutely school human garbage like you.

 

[irishScott]

I think any 200 year old economic policy would crash modern America.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong again but it's you so I'm not surprised. To blame the banks when the government was responsible for what happened is to ignore the obvious, & delve into the far reaches of Truthiness.

That's your usual schtick, anyway.

Jefferson would absolutely school human garbage like you.

You have a remarkable ability to believe that mere repetition makes what you believe into reality.

De Gubmint overheated & crashed the economy? How'd they do that, other than the Bush Admin being complicit with the Banks? Voodoo?

I happen to be an admirer of Jefferson, a man of rather free thinking intellect for his times. Berzerker60's quote, above, shows just how profound his thinking really was. Perhaps you'd care to address what Jefferson actually wrote. Probably not.

Jefferson was also deeply flawed. He was a notorious deadbeat whose estate was sold to cover his debts. He also held slaves as a matter of convenience, as was the custom in Virginia at the time, even though he knew it was wrong.

Obviously, a man who couldn't keep his own financial affairs in order is the guy we want to listen to when determining the direction of our country's fiscal & financial affairs, huh?

 

[sm625]

You have too many people who are brainwashed into believing that its not just a priviliged few who benefit from the current print-and-spend paradigm. These idiots actually believe that debauching the currency to line the pockets of a few individuals at the expense of everyone else is a good economic policy. And they will continue to believe that right up until the ripped-off rape-weary mob places their head on a spike. Right now the mob doesnt know what to believe, because the people getting rich off this corrupt system own most of the media and thus are able to trick the masses into believing this is acceptable economic policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have too many people who are brainwashed into believing that its not just a priviliged few who benefit from the current print-and-spend paradigm. These idiots actually believe that debauching the currency to line the pockets of a few individuals at the expense of everyone else is a good economic policy. And they will continue to believe that right up until the ripped-off rape-weary mob places their head on a spike. Right now the mob doesnt know what to believe, because the people getting rich off this corrupt system own most of the media and thus are able to trick the masses into believing this is acceptable economic policy.

Gawd. What you fail to comprehend is that the shadow banking system was allowed to create more debt during the Bush years than the money supply could possibly support. It was all based on the existence of imaginary money. When that imaginary money disappeared, real debt remained & must either be destroyed or serviced. Destroying the debt would destroy the economy, so money has been created to service the debt instead.

 

[Incorruptible]

You have a remarkable ability to believe that mere repetition makes what you believe into reality.

De Gubmint overheated & crashed the economy? How'd they do that, other than the Bush Admin being complicit with the Banks? Voodoo?

I happen to be an admirer of Jefferson, a man of rather free thinking intellect for his times. Berzerker60's quote, above, shows just how profound his thinking really was. Perhaps you'd care to address what Jefferson actually wrote. Probably not.

Jefferson was also deeply flawed. He was a notorious deadbeat whose estate was sold to cover his debts. He also held slaves as a matter of convenience, as was the custom in Virginia at the time, even though he knew it was wrong.

Obviously, a man who couldn't keep his own financial affairs in order is the guy we want to listen to when determining the direction of our country's fiscal & financial affairs, huh?

Government forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford it you moron. To say there was no government involvelment is just sheer stupidity. I get that you hate the rich and want to kick them out but you're nothing but a loser who needs to grow up and stop blaming his problems on others.

 

[Jhhnn]

Government forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford it you moron. To say there was no government involvelment is just sheer stupidity. I get that you hate the rich and want to kick them out but you're nothing but a loser who needs to grow up and stop blaming his problems on others.

There was no "forcing", but rather enabling. Bush era regulators were instructed not to bother, so they didn't. Lenders went wild, offering a plethora of "innovative financial products" to buyers & investors, stamped AAA by complicit ratings agencies.

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

It was cheered on from the bully pulpit & every right wing pundit-

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html

None of which you'll even bother to read, knowing that knowledge is the enemy of Faith. In some respects, it's really too bad that the FRB & the Treasury stepped in with the bailout- denialists like yourself would have had no wiggle room, no way to avoid an epiphany like the one experienced by America in the early years of the Great Depression.

 

[Incorruptible]

There was no "forcing", but rather enabling. Bush era regulators were instructed not to bother, so they didn't. Lenders went wild, offering a plethora of "innovative financial products" to buyers & investors, stamped AAA by complicit ratings agencies.

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

It was cheered on from the bully pulpit & every right wing pundit-

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html

None of which you'll even bother to read, knowing that knowledge is the enemy of Faith. In some respects, it's really too bad that the FRB & the Treasury stepped in with the bailout- denialists like yourself would have had no wiggle room, no way to avoid an epiphany like the one experienced by America in the early years of the Great Depression.

You can keep spouting your BS but you're still wrong. The government did force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them.

Where is the blame for the people who took the loans? People who can't afford these loans should never have taken them.

 

[Brainonska511]

You can keep spouting your BS but you're still wrong. The government did force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them.

Please post evidence. I don't remember the part in the story where the government is holding a gun to the banks' heads and said: give shittastic loans to people with poor credit and be sure to stretch their budgets to the breaking point when the interest rate rises.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

You can keep spouting your BS but you're still wrong. The government did force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them.

Please post evidence. I don't remember the part in the story where the government is holding a gun to the banks' heads and said: give shittastic loans to people with poor credit and be sure to stretch their budgets to the breaking point when the interest rate rises.

He doesn't have facts to support it. If he did, it'd already be posted.

 

[Jhhnn]

He doesn't have facts to support it. If he did, it'd already be posted.

Well, yeh, but he knows what he wants to believe, so he does, & nobody can convince him otherwise.

Facts have a well known liberal bias, after all.

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2012/12/cra-and-the-housing-bubble.html

 

[Born2bwire]

Are we just doing his high school social studies homework or something?

 

[colonel]

he was in favor of the states instead of the big powerful federal goverment