Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 May '10 13:03
    "If we acknowledge economics as a science, this immediately implies less power for government or the political structure, since both lose responsibility for making such decisions."

    - Alvaro Bardon, Pinochet's undersecretary of the economy.

    Social democracy has faced down, fought off, and vanquished, Communism, Fascism and unbridled Capitalism.

    Should all proponents of genuine democracy resist - with every fibre of their political beings - the kind of new/techified/protected "democracy" that the likes of Bardon envisage and work towards?
  2. 02 May '10 13:06 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    "If we acknowledge economics as a science, this immediately implies less power for government or the political structure, since both lose responsibility for making such decisions."

    - Alvaro Bardon, Pinochet's undersecretary of the economy.

    Social democracy has faced down, fought off, and vanquished, Communism, Fascism and unbridled Capitalism.

    Shou ...[text shortened]... of new/techified/protected "democracy" that the likes of Bardon envisage and work towards?
    Why don't we begin by asking what a "genuine democracy" is? For example, is a "genuine democracy" voting for one of two candidates hand picked from the two major parties and then trying to vote for the lesser of two evils? In addition, is a genuine democracy where you then plead with them while they are in office as they turn a deaf ear to your cry?


    As far as the quote it appears he was right. Our political leaders certainly have lost the responsibility for making such economic decisions.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 May '10 13:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why don't we begin by asking what a "genuine democracy" is?
    Ok, for the purposes of this discussion, 'genuine democracy' is where economics is not immune from the aspirations and needs of the people as articulated through democratically elected government and the political structure attendant to it, and therefore social democratic institutions retain their responsibility for making decisions about a society's economic objectives.
  4. 02 May '10 13:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Ok, for the purposes of this discussion, 'genuine democracy' is where economics is not immune from the aspirations and needs of the people as articulated through democratically elected government and the political structure attendant to it, and therefore social democratic institutions retain their responsibility for making decisions about a society's economic objectives.
    Not to hijack your thread, but doesn't Iran have "democratic" elections?

    My guess is that those who have opposed the current regime are just a bunch of radical tea partiers. My guess is they have the support of the majority of the populace since they continue to elect the same leaders.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 May '10 13:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    Not to hijack your thread, but doesn't Iran have "democratic" elections?
    Please. Please don't hijack this thread, whodey. I was seeking to tee up a broad discussion about the 'economics is a science' and the purpose of social democracy thing, and not just have you sift through the same severely restricted list of things you sift through over and over and over and over again, regardless of the OP. Please.
  6. 02 May '10 13:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Please. Please don't hijack this thread, whodey. I was seeking to tee up a broad discussion about the 'economics is a science' and the purpose of social democracy thing, and not just have you sift through the same severely restricted list of things you sift through over and over and over and over again, regardless of the OP. Please.
    My only point here is to say that not all regimes that have elections are representative of the masses. Some are more representative than others even though they may have "democratic elections". Therefore, this would skew any attempt at recognizing "democracies" in relation to their economic policies.

    Now I've said my peace, so back to your thread.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 May '10 13:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    Now I've said my peace, so back to your thread.
    Thanks. Please start your own thread about whatever it was you were saying here. I'd appreciate it.
  8. 02 May '10 13:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Not to hijack your thread, but doesn't Iran have "democratic" elections?

    My guess is that those who have opposed the current regime are just a bunch of radical tea partiers. My guess is they have the support of the majority of the populace since they continue to elect the same leaders.
    Many Iranians have been slaughtered protesting against the actual tyrannical government of Iran. The (taxation WITH representation) tea parties whine about "tyranny" when they don't even have a clue what real tyranny is, and they do so completely unopposed. Comparing the protesters in Iran to the weak sauce tea parties in the US is, frankly, insulting to the Iranians.

    Your guess about having the support is based on the presumption that Iran's elections aren't rigged. I've met quite a few Iranian immigrants. Literally none of them support Ahmadinejad, and they all insist that most people don't.
  9. 02 May '10 13:32
    Originally posted by FMF
    Ok, for the purposes of this discussion, 'genuine democracy' is where economics is not immune from the aspirations and needs of the people as articulated through democratically elected government and the political structure attendant to it, and therefore social democratic institutions retain their responsibility for making decisions about a society's economic objectives.
    Well, I suppose it depends on how you define economics. Is economics just about GDP, growth and figures? Or is it about the well-being, needs and desires of people? I say the latter.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 May '10 13:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, I suppose it depends on how you define economics. Is economics just about GDP, growth and figures? Or is it about the well-being, needs and desires of people? I say the latter.
    Alvaro Bardon's definition would be pretty much one in the same as the Chicago School. He claims it is a "science" that transcends democractic tampering.
  11. 02 May '10 13:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    "If we acknowledge economics as a science, this immediately implies less power for government or the political structure, since both lose responsibility for making such decisions."
    I can't say that I agree with this. Side-stepping the question of whether economics is a science (and I don't think it is)...even if it was an exact science, and the effect of every policy and action could be well predicted in advance, it still wouldn't running the economy out of the realm of politics. Because the science wouldn't answer the question of what the policies were trying to achieve.

    Should a government be trying to:
    - maximise the average standard of living?
    - maximise the minimum standard of living?
    - maximise GDP?
    - minimise inequality?
    - have the most sustainable long-term economy?
    - something else?
    - a balance of some or all of the above?

    Scientific economics can't answer that question, it can only (at best) tell you how best to achieve your aims once you've decided what they are.
  12. 02 May '10 13:37
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Many Iranians have been slaughtered protesting against the actual tyrannical government of Iran. The (taxation WITH representation) tea parties whine about "tyranny" when they don't even have a clue what real tyranny is, and they do so completely unopposed. Comparing the protesters in Iran to the weak sauce tea parties in the US is, frankly, ...[text shortened]... . Literally none of them support Ahmadinejad, and they all insist that most people don't.
    Well lets just say that those on the left continued to whine about "W" stealing the election. Do you think this?

    What I can tell you is that I do think that the US has better representation. However, not like they used to. As government becomes ever increasingly centralized and distant the people have less and less of a voice. What those in the Tea Pary are trying to prevent is a move towards regimes like those in Iran. One man or group of men should not be making decisions for us all. Why should the president of the US micromanage my life from everything from how my kid is educated in kindergarten to which doctor I will see? We are simply voices in the wilderness crying out as our freedoms slowly erode.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 May '10 13:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well lets just say that those on the left continued to whine about "W" stealing the election. Do you think this?

    What I can tell you is that I do think that the US has better representation. However, not like they used to. As government becomes ever increasingly centralized and distant the people have less and less of a voice. What those in the Tea Par ...[text shortened]... r I will see? We are simply voices in the wilderness crying out as our freedoms slowly erode.
    whodey. I implore you. Please do not hijack/spam this thread. I have raised a specific topic with the OP. Please. Please start your own thread.
  14. 02 May '10 13:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    Alvaro Bardon's definition would be pretty much one in the same as the Chicago School. He claims it is a "science" that transcends democractic tampering.
    Well, this is rather paradoxal, I guess. If you look at in from an economic view, there would be an "ideal" policy that maximizes the well-being of people, regardless of the decision-making process. But any system without a well-functioning democratic decision-making process is unstable to moving to tyranny and oppression, which clearly does not make sense, economically or otherwise.
  15. 02 May '10 13:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well lets just say that those on the left continued to whine about "W" stealing the election. Do you think this?

    What I can tell you is that I do think that the US has better representation. However, not like they used to. As government becomes ever increasingly centralized and distant the people have less and less of a voice. What those in the Tea Par ...[text shortened]... r I will see? We are simply voices in the wilderness crying out as our freedoms slowly erode.
    You're making a bunch of generalizations that aren't grounded in reality.

    We all have House Representatives and Senators that represent our districts. Those representatives all periodically come up for reelection. What exactly has changed to give you less representation?