I know this is a really broad topic so I'll try to narrow the scope a bit.

I would like to start by saying that I'm currently a registered Libertarian (since 1979) but am probably going to change my party affiliation to Democrat soon.

Admittedly, I was probably never a true Libertarian to begin with, it's just that I believe very, very strongly in civil liberties and when it comes to social-welfare programs and economics, I have absolutely no idea what to believe and the Libertarian arguments sounded good.

However, over a period of about 10 years, I've drifted gradually farther and farther to the left. I won't get into the details of what pushed me to the left unless somebody wants me to tell the story (I do enjoy telling it - but it's fairly long). Suffice it to say that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, many different conservative talk show hosts and the rhetoric of the Republican party finally convinced me that most Republicans are just mean people. They're bullies. Not, all of them obviously, but an awful lot of them seem to be. But it's been the Bush administration and the Republican congress in the last 6 years who have committed so many unbelievable civil rights atrocities and so badly bungled almost every aspect of government, that I am at least sure I'm very close to 100% not Republican. Starting in 2002, I've voted Democrat across the board, in every election, in a desperate attempt to get the Republicans out of office. Sorry, I voted Libertarian in the 2000 Presidential election and will probably regret it for the rest of my life (i.e. I should have voted for Gore).

During this period, I've also come to the conclusion that people who attack or insult or make authoritative absolutist statements have nothing of interest to say to me. Basically, I've come to the conclusion that these people are insecure in their beliefs, so the only way they can win an argument is to bully their opponents. I've also made a personal commitment to never resort to personal attacks or insults (though I'm far from perfect!).

Furthermore, I came to the conclusion that I won't believe in anything unless it's backed up by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific literature. I no longer think in terms of belief or disbelief, I think in terms of probabilities.

Ok, I know that was a lot to wade through, but I felt I needed to say it so that people don't get the idea that I'm a wacko Libertarian trying to start an argument. I'm not. I really genuinely don't know what to believe and I want information, not an argument.

So, my basic question is: How do I know whether the Libertarian stand on social and economic issues are more effective or if the Liberal viewpoints are better? Are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies out there that prove such things as the following?

1. "Trickle down" economics doesn't work.
2. The middle class is declining
3. Tariffs help, rather than hinder the economy

This is, of course just a tiny representative sample of the issues that I'm concerned about. There are obviously many, many more.

I don't generally like to read books about issues like these, because books usually present only one side of the story and I need to see both sides.

Can anybody point me in the right direction to start learning what science has to say about the Liberal vs Libertarian social-welfare and economic issues? I have no idea where to even begin. I've been listening to Thom Hartmann for about 3 months now and he really seems to know what he's talking about but I would like to find out what science knows about these issues.

Thanks,
Skydancer.

quote:

1. "Trickle down" economics doesn't work.

There is no branch of economics called "Trickle Down". You may want to pick the point as Supply Sider economics or another theory to hang your hat on.

quote:

2. The middle class is declining

Well you will have to define what is MC?

quote:

3. Tariffs help, rather than hinder the economy

Might be able to present something but not likely to hold to your point of view.

Welcome Skydancer.
I just wonder...

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

1. "Trickle down" economics doesn't work.

There is no branch of economics called "Trickle Down". You may want to pick the point as Supply Sider economics or another theory to hang your hat on.

quote:

2. The middle class is declining

Well you will have to define what is MC?

quote:

3. Tariffs help, rather than hinder the economy

Might be able to present something but not likely to hold to your point of view.

Welcome Skydancer.
I just wonder...

I'll tackle number 3 since that's the easiest. Please feel free to present whatever information you have because I don't have an opinion on that issue.

As for the others, they will take a while to formulate my response and I'm up waaaaay past my bedtime.

Bush tried tarrifs on Canadian timber to help a struggeling American timber industry a few years ago which set off a trade war resulting Canadian tarrifs on other raw materials. Bush got his ass handed to him, lumber prices spiked and eventually Bush had to relent and remove tarrifs.

Welcome Skydancer! Ron Paul is about the only Libertarian-Republican that I respect these days. I don't 100% agree with the Libertarian platform, but Ron Paul is honest, straight forward, and intelligent. I will read anything he writes and give it due consideration. I might as well tell you that I don't agree 100% with a Liberal Democrat platform or a Conservative Republican platform either. IMO, most people aren't going to agree 100% with any parties platform, so we're left to choose which one best represents most of our desires -OR- which one can reverse a current trend (as in the 2006 election results).

I wouldn't feel too badly about your 2000 presidential vote. It probably wouldn't have mattered. There's two schools of thought out there: 1) that the election results were rigged from the get go or 2) the elections were fair and the winner *should* have persuaded enough of the people to vote for him to earn the title of POTUS. I'm not going to get into the rigged election debate here, there's plenty of other threads on that already. However, unless the voting system is very corrupted, a person who has a huge majority, who has persuaded enough people that he's the best choice will be the winner. That is what any presidential hopeful should be aiming for, but in these divisive times it's hard to get a super majority. There are many people who think that you should "vote your conscience" and vote for the one you really want as POTUS, and then there are many who think that those kinds of votes only siphon away votes to someone who has a viable chance of getting elected to begin with. Until we change the way we elect people, and how they are allowed to finance their campaigns, it's going to be difficult for 3rd, 4th or more parties to get any kind of fair representation. Boiling it down, all politics are local, and it's those local and state decisions that matter the most, imo.

RE: Economics, start with this light hearted take on it: 10 Principles of Economics I like that guy, he's a riot, but he also knows his stuff. I don't know how much you already know about economics, but here is a good website that compares all the different schools of thought on economics: Economics - Schools of Thought The only thing I've become fairly sure about in regards to economics is that an unfettered free market is not the ideal, nor is excessive government intervention. So the best balance, I would think, lies somewhere in between and one of the main arguments between conservatives and liberals is not whether or not government should spend the money it collects in taxes, but what they should spend it on, how much it should collect and from whom, and how much deficit spending is appropriate. The current crop of neo-cons who've been running the country threw all the old notions out the window in regards to spending. Probably one of the reasons many conservatives are not happy with the republican party these days. There is such a thing as a conservative democrat too, and my best guess is that is someone who is conservative fiscally, provided there is an adequate social safety net and the commons are adequately protected? Most libertarians are strict free marketers, no income tax, and no government provided social programs... which is why I can't be 100% on board with their platform.

Well, that's a lot to start with huh? I don't really have any scientific studies to point you toward because you can't do true scientific studies on the economy as you cannot recreate every single input and it's not a closed system You can compare results, but you cannot control input. Does that make sense? All I've been able to do is read the different theories, compare results through out the past, test predictions about the future, and then rely on what my gut instinct tells me is the best way to operate.

Good luck and welcome!

Skydancer, Rutherford and Sawdust are pretty conservative and will tend to view things in that manner.

There is "tickle down" economics. It's called Monatarist economics. When the government introduces more money into the money supply, it tends to do so at the upper ends of society using the Monatarist economic theory. Much of the money introduced in this manner never reaches the lower economic classes. It tends to find it's way into financial investments.

The Key's economic theory tends to do it at the lower ends of society. Money introduced in this manner ultimately reaches the top, but in a slower manner. All layers of society benefit.

The money supply has to be kept in balance. Those are the two main means of doing this.

When reductions in money supply are called for, it's done through an increase in interest rates to discourage credit buying.

Conservatives don't like the term "trickle down". And that is what monatarist policy is.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Originally posted by polycarp:
Skydancer, Rutherford and Sawdust are pretty conservative and will tend to view things in that manner.

There is "tickle down" economics. It's called Monatarist economics. When the government introduces more money into the money supply, it tends to do so at the upper ends of society using the Monatarist economic theory. Much of the money introduced in this manner never reaches the lower economic classes. It tends to find it's way into financial investments.

The Key's economic theory tends to do it at the lower ends of society. Money introduced in this manner ultimately reaches the top, but in a slower manner. All layers of society benefit.

The money supply has to be kept in balance. Those are the two main means of doing this.

When reductions in money supply are called for, it's done through an increase in interest rates to discourage credit buying.

Conservatives don't like the term "trickle down". And that is what monatarist policy is.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Thanks for the information. I didn't know it was called Monatarist economics but your description of how it works seems to jive with my gut feelings at this point. Even as a full fledged Libertarian, I never felt that it could work very well. I think I tend to agree with you on all points but I want to be more certain.

I know I've heard Thom say that the "middle class" is declining, at least partially as a result of Bush's tax cuts for the ... shall we say ... well-to-do. As Ronald pointed out of course, that brings up the question of how you define the MC. Of course LisaP correctly pointed out that you can't really do scientific studies on the economy (or at least not replicable double blind studies) but there must be some hard numbers out there somewhere that give us at least a reasonably good idea of what it did to the economy. Two of my best friends are out of work and can't find jobs and while I see CEOs making billions of dollars so my gut tells me Thom is right. But I want more objective evidence.

Anybody know of anything?

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Bush tried tarrifs on Canadian timber to help a struggeling American timber industry a few years ago which set off a trade war resulting Canadian tarrifs on other raw materials. Bush got his ass handed to him, lumber prices spiked and eventually Bush had to relent and remove tarrifs.

Are there any more scientific analysises of the issue that you know of? Unfortunately I have been burned by believing in idiotic things enough that I no longer pay any attention at all to anecdotal evidence. Especially when I don't know the specific details of a particular anecdote.

Thanks for the welcome and info, LisaP.

I'll check out your links on economics. Unfortunately, I know very little about it. I've always avoided it like the plague, partly because it's boring I guess, but also because I have a mental block when it comes to money. When I was a kid, I had a paper route and I would collect just enough money to pay the bill and then quit

I agree with you on debt. Debt scares me so I have no debts and never had any (with a few very short exceptions) other than the mortgage which, of course, doesn't count as a debt. Our country's level of debt right now seems completely insane to me.

I actually voted for Ron Paul when he ran with the Libertarian Party (1996?? maybe? I don't remember). Anyway, he's also the only one I respect. I would be tempted to vote for him if he won the Republican party nomination but I'm too disgusted with the Republicans right now to allow the Republican party to have any power at all (at least for now).

Your welcome skydancer. I would be tempted to vote for Ron Paul, but not because I agree with his platform and not because I support anything Republican these day. Of course, he wouldn't be able to get an agenda passed unless he had a congress that was on board with his platform, and I don't see that happening on a very large scale around the country. But, it would be real fun to watch Paul shake things up in the other Washington.

Here is a link on middle class.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/middleclassoverview.html

Back when minimum wage was $1.25 an hour, I bought a 2 bedroom house, a sports car and furniture for the house all within a one year time frame. The house and car were bought on very reasonable payments. Middle class would have been considered a little over double minimum wage.

Double min. wage would buy a very nice house, be enough to raise a family, and have a fairly good car, and take a nice yearly vacation.

One hours work at minimum wage would buy either 25 cups of coffee in a restaurant, 25 candy bars, 10 loaves of bread, 6 watermelons, 12 pounds of oranges, 25 bottles of Pepsi or 15 packs of cigarettes.

Then we had the Vietnam war followed by conservative administrations.

Does this help?

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

lumber prices spiked and eventually Bush had to relent and remove tarrifs.

See, that's where he went wrong. He should have stuck with it. We would have had to pay more for all our stuff, Canadian workers would have gotten paid more. We would have gotten more for what we send to them and our workers would be paid more. I also know that more money in the system, to a certain degree, means we can buy more and feed the machinery.

Same thing with China except now, we are hearing that it's impossible now to impose tariffs on goods because that will hurt us. Now that we've followed the libertarian dream of no government anywhere, we have sold all our assets, even our natural resources have been sold to the highest bidder. And now, both workers here and slave workers in China are wondering why the managers of corporations can't seem to pay us anything any more.

Guess who now pays for executives not wanting to "make waves?" We do. The same reasons that the executives tell us we can't put tariffs on goods are the same executives that sold our jobs to the Chinese workers that have no ability to earn a livable wage. Libertarian / rightwinger economics have given us this fear that puts us in a constant state of immobility. We are now locked to the same authority that keeps workers in China from making a livable wage.

How long will it take them to start telling us that we not only need to work for less but that our young children need to leave school to work for the factory? As things keep spiraling down guess who pays the price? It never starts with corporations, and the executives; they always seem to swim on top of it all. And while all of our standards of living keep spiraling down and down and down, they keep telling us that in order to keep our jobs, we have to continually work for less in worse conditions. They have to make their profit, you know. Got to push those costs down, you know.

The primary goal of Libertarians and Right wingers is to push wages down. That's what you vote for when you vote right wing or libertarian. EVERYTHING feeds that goal. Fear, religion, wars, hunger...they all feed this goal. And as long as the Right wing can keep giving us these instability, corporations and their executives win.

Remember Child labor? There was a time when, in order to make it as a family here in the US, EVERYONE worked. Just like in China. A funny thing came into play, the government set a standard that said that NO CHILDREN WILL WORK. Did the economy die? NO! We prospered in spite of this. Because our middle class was emboldened, because we were payed more, we all won. Trickle up worked! How can this be? How can we prosper by setting higher standards?

And today, the libertarians and Repugs keep telling us that we have to accept less in order to compete even though the middle class experience of the last century proves them wrong. They still don't understand it. They will keep asking us to tighten our belts and accept lower standards until they have us right where they want us.

What they don't realize is that wealth is based on the ability for all people to make it and when you, as right wingers, give it all to the wealthy, in the form of money and laws that favor the wealthy, you end up with a system that drives ALL standards down. What they invariably realize too late is that the policies that they push for invariably undercut their own wealth. IN the end, even the wealthy cannibalize themselves. pay the price of their gluttony.

To me, the greed that drive republicans to think that unbridled control of wealth brings freedom is the same sort of greed that drives a dog or horse to eat until it kills them. Right now, we are riding a very bloated horse. Watch out! These right wing fantasies will drive us into the ground if you let them. To me, the balance better swing back in favor or workers or everything that we have accomplished will simply fade away.

quote:

1. "Trickle down" economics doesn't work

Ok, I am new, I can't read the whole discussion, so I'll just "attack" something which is absurd.
I came to this country during the Reagan era,
and I was stunned by this idiocy.
I have a question:
How one can believe this idiocy? Who can guarantee that rich bastards won't spend the money on some prostitutes on the Riviera, for example. Shouldn't one have some basic knowledge of history (when did anything trickle down?) or human nature (when did greedy bastards contribute to societies?)
Libertarianism is an Orwellian/lying description of militant egoism.

quote:

Originally posted by anna251:

quote:

1. "Trickle down" economics doesn't work

Ok, I am new, I can't read the whole discussion, so I'll just "attack" something which is absurd.
I came to this country during the Reagan era,
and I was stunned by this idiocy.
I have a question:
How one can believe this idiocy? Who can guarantee that rich bastards won't spend the money on some prostitutes on the Riviera, for example. Shouldn't one have some basic knowledge of history (when did anything trickle down?) or human nature (when did greedy bastards contribute to societies?)
Libertarianism is an Orwellian/lying description of militant egoism.

When you get fed this propoganda by the media and the politicians for thirty years...that only "unbrideled free markets" maintain prosperity, people become afraid to challenge it. Get afraid that things might get worse if they did. They are still waiting for everything to come into the promised "balance"...while they slide into serfdom.

As Thom pointed out, a middle class is not the norm in capitalism. It developed because laws were passed to enable it to expand and develop. Those laws have been slowly dismantled over the past 30 years. Recently, this has been speeded up. Outsourcing is a part of the process.

There have been cheaper wages in the world since the founding of our republic, yet we competed just fine without outsourcing. It's a scam. It's destructive to the nation and to the people who live within it.

Last week the conservative Supreme Court overturned the most salient point of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. A century of law reversed back to the 1800's. It won't be fun. Thank the Bush appointees and a go-along Senate.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Yes, Monk.
But, frankly, the present situation is embarrassing in addition to being unfair, dangerous etc. This level of apathy and ignorance
in a society where people have been free to travel and read (!) Unbelievable.
I have a friend (a genitals/civil liberties liberal) who often comments on various people in a “Pride before fall” manner then proceeds to pronounce “We, Americans, are the best and the brightest.”
Imperial arrogance was possibly the most damaging.
By the way, Monk, what monks do in retirement? Dance non-stop?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: anna251,

quote:

Originally posted by anna251:
Yes, Monk.
But, frankly, the present situation is embarrassing in addition to being unfair, dangerous etc. This level of apathy and ignorance
in a society where people have been free to travel and read (!) Unbelievable.
I have a friend (a genitals/civil liberties liberal) who often comments on various people in a “Pride before fall” manner then proceeds to pronounce “We, Americans, are the best and the brightest.”
Imperial arrogance was possibly the most damaging.
By the way, Monk, what monks do in retirement? Dance non-stop?

The present situation is dangerous and embarassing. It kills people emotionally; physically.

If we Americans were the brightest and the best, the world would be emulating us, not condemning us as it currently is. We've been booted out of Central and South America to a great extent. Europe looks upon us with disdain.

Some dictatorships still look upon us favorably. We get along with Communist China and Vietnam pretty well. China even makes some of the missile parts required for our national defense.

Monks in "retirement" do what monks do...and no longer on monastery grounds. Nothing really changes. I use the term "retired monk" because my neighbors refer to me in that manner.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

I hope this isn't a goofy analogy, but it's often how I visualize the trickle down theory.

If we were talking about watering the lawn, "trickle down" would be putting the sprinklers on top the ground and saturating regularly - as opposed to putting in regulated underground sprinklers and watering from the roots up. Both methods may keep your lawn alive, green and growing. One problem with the above ground sprinklers is that evaporation will take some of the water moisture and if you over water there will be run off that will cause cracks and divides. One problem with the underground method is that it takes some planning, and initial outlay to set up a system, and you might have to pay close attention to the weather and the automatic timers because... we don't need to water the lawn when it's raining! Pure free marketers would not water at all, leaving it 100% up to Mother Nature and if the lawn dies off, that's OK too because next season it will spring back to life when the rain comes.

quote:

Originally posted by anna251:

quote:

1. "Trickle down" economics doesn't work

Ok, I am new, I can't read the whole discussion, so I'll just "attack" something which is absurd.
I came to this country during the Reagan era,
and I was stunned by this idiocy.
I have a question:
How one can believe this idiocy? Who can guarantee that rich bastards won't spend the money on some prostitutes on the Riviera, for example. Shouldn't one have some basic knowledge of history (when did anything trickle down?) or human nature (when did greedy bastards contribute to societies?)
Libertarianism is an Orwellian/lying description of militant egoism.

Well, the argument, as I understand it, is that if you pay it to the investor class, then they will invest it in new development, whereas if you pay it to the people, they'll mostly waste it on unproductive things like entertainment. It's a seductive philosophy when you first hear it. I guess I've been one of those "idiots". Sorry for being an idiot but I'm learning :-)

However, I guess it's nowhere near that clear. If I understand it correctly, if you pay it to the investor class, they tend to invest it in money making schemes that just move money around and are even less productive. Actually, paying it to prostitutes who will then spend it on goods might end up being more productive than investing it in Hedge Funds (if I understand the arguments correctly and I'm definitely not sure I do).

In fact, most of the Libertarian philosophies are very seductive if you really listen to them with an open mind and regard freedom as the highest ideology. However, I think the thing that has finally convinced me to reject them is this: Even the Libertarians seem to be saying that if you get more and more conservative (in financial and social welfare issues), things will get worse and worse until you reach full Libertarianism, then everything will right itself and be what amounts to a virtual utopia. They will never admit this, but it's what I've read into it. The problem is, the people would never, ever, ever be willing to take the risk of fully implementing Libertarian principles, so even if they're correct, it won't happen. Furthermore, the Libertarian philosophies are almost purely theoretical and inflexibly idealogical, so there's no real proof that they'll work.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtJunky:

quote:

lumber prices spiked and eventually Bush had to relent and remove tarrifs.

Libertarian / rightwinger economics have given us this fear that puts us in a constant state of immobility.

Actually, Libertarian and right-wing/conservative/Republican ideologies are quite different. The Libertarian don't believe that we should drive down wages. They believe if we give complete freedom to everybody, and all business, then the free market will cause us all to get good wages.

As I mentioned in my previous post, that's beginning to look like an idealistic fantasy to me but I just want to point out that the Conservatives of today are actually Corporatists and are not the same thing as Libertarians.

Also, the Libertarian party has been badly infiltrated by what I call the "gun nuts". These are people who are really conservatives (and Corporatists) but have such radical views on gun ownership that even the Republicans want to put too many restrictions on gun ownership.

It's one of the more significant influences that have convinced me to leave the Libertarian party because I'm somewhat of a "peacenik" and don't own a gun and don't want one.

You probably were very young and naive.
Those who promoted this absolute nonsense
weren't idealistic, just manipulative bastards.
I don't believe in idealism for profit, idealism comes with personal sacrifices.