It did it to me again didn't paste my. article, anyway who wants to be the first sheep to pay your Global Warming Taxes say bahahahahhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/032108_great_depression.htm
Global Warming Bill Would Cause Depression
by read good books 9 Replies latest social current
-
-
SixofNine
But a global war, like say, WWII, can bring a country out of a many years long depression, right?
I think I'm starting to figure out how the many stupids among us think.
Hey Stupids, whatever you do, DON'T shoot yourself in the head! I repeat, DON'T take a loaded gun and press it to your temple and pull the trigger. Don't do this, it WILL kill you.
-
besty
and the cause of the current economic situation is what, read good books?
you can probably paste the answer from somewhere if you don't know yourself.
-
read good books
Well it did six of nine, not that I like Wars, it's just that when the private sector gets stimulated like under WWII or programs by Kennedy and Clinton the prosperity seems to last longer. Thanks for the kind words.
And Beasty the current economic situation is caused by I would say Globalism, Foreign Bankers run by the Fed. getting all our dough. There I did that without cheating and going to PrisonPlanet.com aren't you proud of me?
Nobody as of yet has said they want to pay carbon taxes, that's a good sign.
-
beksbks
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet
Friday, March 21, 2008Maybe someone needs to read more good books.
-
besty
I'd be happy to pay carbon tax instead of income tax - that way if I can generate wealth with a low environmental impact I come out ahead financially and do some good for the planet.
Same for property development - encouraging environmentally sound construction techniques which promote efficiency should be incentivised and regulated for.
-
llbh
RGB it is what you say is so not true, wars do not generate wealth at all, they destroy it , where do you get your idea from? We in the UK have only just finished paying for WW2 how is that good financial management.?
David
-
BurnTheShips
But a global war, like say, WWII, can bring a country out of a many years long depression, right?
Wrong, 6o9,
LLBH is correct on this, RGB.
We have to look at the entire picture. WWII did far more economic damage than good overall. It is just that certain players (US) benefited from wealth transfers from and increased exports to others (allies) under the particular circumstances of that war. The US became the superpower of the West after the rest of the West destroyed its economy in a senseless conflict.
Google Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy"
War is like a huge broken window. That it produces real economic growth is an illusion. I am afraid that those that want to impose a heavy regimen with carbon emissions may be falling prey to the same thinking. Moreover, if there is indeed damage being done, framing it in the name of some nebulous undefinable thing people call the "environment" seems to be the wrong way to go about it.
BTS
-
BurnTheShips
Googled here, I will excerpt it from Wikipedia:
The parable of the broken window was created by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illuminate the notion of hidden costs.
Bastiat uses this story to introduce a concept he calls the broken window fallacy, which is related to the law of unintended consequences, in that both involve an incomplete accounting for the consequences of an action. Economists of the Austrian School frequently cite this fallacy, and Henry Hazlitt devoted a chapter to it in his book Economics in One Lesson.
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered only the benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper might have preferred to spend the money on bread and shoes for himself, but now cannot so enrich the baker and cobbler because he must fix his window.
Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more. His actions benefited the glazier, but at the expense not only of the shopkeeper, but the baker and cobbler as well.
Some claim that war is a benefactor, since historically it often has focused the use of resources and triggered advances in technology and other areas. The increased production and employment associated with war often leads some to claim that "war is good for the economy." Others claim that this is an example of the broken window fallacy. The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct—but hidden—cost to other sectors.
More importantly, war destroys property and lives. The economic stimulus to the defense sector is offset not only by immediate opportunity costs, but also by the costs of the damage and devastation of war. This forms the basis of a second application of the broken window fallacy: rebuilding what war destroys stimulates the economy, particularly the construction sector. However, immense resources are spent merely to restore pre-war conditions. After a war, there is only a rebuilt city. Without a war, there are opportunities for the same resources to be applied to more fruitful purposes. Instead of rebuilding a destroyed city, the resources could have been used to build a second city or add improvements.
An example of the costs of war is the many projects postponed or not started until after the end of World War II in the United States. The pent-up demand for roads, bridges, houses, cars, and even radios led to massive inflation in the late 1940s. The war delayed the commercial introduction of television, among other things, and the resources sent overseas to rebuild the rest of the world after the war were not available to directly benefit the American people.
-
read good books
BTS-Some of my views on the Second World War's impact on the Economy came from a question Six of Nine was asking that I thought came from comments I made about the Great Depression on a different thread (this post was about Global Warming Taxes). I was referring mainly to people who say Roosevelt's programs helped end the high unemployment of the Great Depression, i.e. that economy-individuals/jobs. Well one of Roosevelt's own cabinet memebers said it didn't and we just created alot of debt. There was still high unempoyment, all through the thirties but then when the War started and there were lots of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. I was told by people who were adults my Dad's friends (remember Rosie the Riveter? women got better jobs too ), people at home lived better in terms of salaries and employment, maybe it didn't help the economy of other Western nations but even after the War the parents of the baby boomers of the fifties found work and we had the rise of a strong Middle Class, more so than the Thirties anyways so my point was it wasn't the New Deal that did that. (Obama has been pictured on a magazine cover as the new Roosevelt. )
I was a kid but I remember the Sixties and the Vietnam War, I remember there were jobs, the job market was good at that time, Kennedy gets credit for tax cuts that helped too. Yes there are economic repercussions that hit after Wars, but that's not what I was talking about, it was Roosevelt's New Deal. There are some writers out there that credit the New Deal for bringing down unemployment, that just not so.
There are better ways to stimulate the economy for individuals, Clinton seemed to be able to take Senior Bush'es recession and turn it around quicly with the Internet and Broadband Revolution, I am not going by economists I lived through the Nineties as an adult and remember the good times. If I ran the world I would go down that road, okay Six of Nine.
Besty-but who said anything about getting rid of income taxes? That's on top of income taxes, and it creates great Goverment intrusion into your life with little environmental improvement according to the article and Global Warming is not an established fact in the minds of many scientists.