Poverty is due to moral lacking

[Snark]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

[lucy]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

[Thorne]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

[lucy]

But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

Not in this case. In this case, we tried to model reality according to the theories. Well, not we, since I didn't ....

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

Sorry, but in recent years it was the economists who dictated the rules, the politicians just followed them blindly. It really wasn't the other way round. At least that's the impression I got here.

[thir]

Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless. One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Anyway, it is not a science. It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.
The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.

[Thorne]

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless.

Well, I used the term loosely. It IS a science, but a "soft" science, like psychology. Rather than predicting definitive outcomes, it predicts trends. And yes, it is far from precise.

One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Actually, it's the incompetence of BANKERS that is the problem, and economic theory can take that into account. It's just not comfortable when you do, so many economists ignore that, preferring to blame the "volatility of the market."

It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.

In large part it's a combination of all of these. Which makes it very easy to misuse.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.

I disagree. Removing the controls of capitalism would work far better, I think. Tighten the controls on monopolies, of course, and strengthen consumer protections, but let the markets work. A competitive marketplace has always been beneficial to both industry and consumers. Adding regulations which make it impossible for innovators to break into the marketplace only makes things worse.

The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.

Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

[thir]

Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

[Thorne]

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

[DuncanONeil]

The Government has shut down a bunch of times. every time it has only been non-essential services. In simple terms the military do not get furloughed, though the civilians in Supply would likely.

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

[DuncanONeil]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

[lucy]

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[DuncanONeil]

All theories are subject to testing!

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[Thorne]

All theories are subject to testing!

Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[thir]

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

Well, reality - a world full of different and increasingly complicated and interrelated economies and wheather and natural disasters and politcal changes and wars and what not - is far too complicated for any theories.

A bigger problem is that economics are not science, a bunch of theories does not science make. Science means proving stuff, in ways that can be dublicated.

Further more, said theories are based on idelogies about what aught to happen if you do X Y and Z, sort of in a lab with no distraction from real life.

[DuncanONeil]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[DuncanONeil]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!

Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[thir]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Yes!

[DuncanONeil]

"I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else."

Government should not be doing this at all!

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

[denuseri]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

That's the best response yet imho!

[thir]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person.

Meaning the myth that if you really want a job there will always be one, and if you really want an education one is possible.
In other words, it is their own fault, the lazy good for nothing buggers.

Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it?

Why ideed? It is a real mystery.

The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work.

It did work for quite a while, in which ordinary people had food on the table for the first time. They had no freedom, but they hadn't had that before either, and anyway, like in China, food is more important. Until you have enough and some - then freedom starts to be important.

The larger the government, the less effective it will be.

This may be true to a certain extent. Unfortunately you can also say that the wilder the capitalism, the more mess!

Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results.

Well, it certainly hasn't in any of my countries! When health care is big business, they only do what is cost effective and not what is good for patients. Education same.

Banks -they have certainly shown that they are too greedy and incompetent to be able to hold that function in society. And when it goes wrong, as with the businesses, they come whining to the government, wanting interference!