Krugman: Spend Now, Save Later

[richardhutnik]

badgenome said:

richardhutnik said:

badgenome said:

richardhutnik said:

Also, you can just manipulate tax rates and spending, and expect it to manage alone.  In a nation with uneducated people, and individuals with severe health issues and short life expectencies, don't expect that changing tax rates will fix anything.  In a society like Inner City America, deck out with bling shops, and teen pregnancy and STDs running rampant, along with crime, don't expect that you can just cut tax rates and having things go well.  No amount of money is going to fit these things.  And people handling freedom badly isn't addressed by giving more freedom to them.  A society can drive itself off a cliff, and saying freedom is the answer, or less government, won't fix it.

I agree, but subsidizing bad behavior (which is what the government currently does) won't fix those problems, either.

So, if a byproduct of not funding that is people dying, are you in favor of this?  These deaths can come from people who don't get money going off to increase crime that kills others, or end up dying through neglect and homelessness.

Like, how about the case of unemployment?  I am doing side project stuff, because I don't have money coming in (see the CADERS) website.  I used to get extended unemployment money.  Well, they money is gone, and I am still without paid employment.  I have a Masters in Information Systems and haven't worked in multiple years.  MAYBE I get lucky to land part-time office cleaning work for $10/hr or so.  What part of bad behavior is the government subsidizing here when they pay me unemployment money?

You know, you have the worst tendency to make the most ridiculous assumption possible about where a person is coming from and, without even asking for clarification, just start flailing away at it. Granted, this was not quite as bad as that "libertarians think they own your cadaver if you die on their property" bullshit.

I didn't say all government spending is going towards subsidizing bad behavior. Only that it does happen. A lot. (And if you deny this, I'll pull a richardhutnik on you and assume you think the government has the right to kill anyone who's pulling down an above average income and redistribute their wealth.) A big part of the reason inner cities are so incredibly fucked is because of this kind of paternalism on the part of the government. Well-intentioned as it might have been, it's no coincidence that biological fathers don't see the need to hang around when government is expect to fill what had traditionally been their role. This - and not whatever Ayn Rand/Andrew Ryan style fictional dystopian nonsense you're so terrified of - is the real threat to civil society.

So, what exactly does government do that prevents people from not being so messed up and their society?  Also, what makes you think that biological fathers would bother to give a damn if the government pulled out?  Even today, with court systems that hold fathers accountable, they still skip out and don't pay.  In regards to this, tell me what part of the government drives individuals who can't afford to have kids, to go and have sex and women get pregnant? 

On thing I would argue here, based on what was said, is that I SERIOUSLY believe Libertarians put the cart before the horse.  You get more freedom when people take responsibility.  You don't just give people more freedom, and make them suffer greater consequences, and then expect them to all of a sudden assume more responsibility.  What part of cutting support to those in needs is going to drive the individuals to be responsible and law abiding citizens, and NOT decide that they should engage in criminal activity?  What part of nor helping is going to make things better?

Also, let me bring in a videogame example here.  Exactly what kind of society thinks creating a game like Naughty Bear is a good idea?  Can a society that increasingly channels resources in that direction manage to be able to function long-term?