Why do conservatives try to over-simplify economics?

E

Elvis

New member
Why do conservatives act like cutting taxes is the solution to all economic problems? Why do they state economic theory as if it were laws of physics? Why do 38% of them consider nobel laureate economists to be idiots just because those laureates don't agree with them that cutting taxes is the solution to economic problems? (38% stat comes from this survey: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar.ENcd9EfdAZq6rGSr6XRHty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20091112120512AAif52U ). Why is there no acknowledgment among conservatives that the economy is a complex system with many variables that are hard to model in detail, and what works at one time may not work at another? And why do conservatives always cherry pick their data in terms of what actually works?

Conservatives try to make everyone believe that one can run the economy without actually looking at what is happening. They say cut taxes and reduce government spending and the economy will take care of itself. We had 7 years of that attitude with G.W.Bush. When gas prices sky-rocketed, Bush refused to do anything about it, insisting that the market would heal itself. When the housing market started to tumble, Bush stood back and hoped that it would fix itself. Bush continued this blind-sided economic strategy until the banks started to fall, at which time he finally accepted that it was not working:
"I was in the Roosevelt Room and Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson, after a month of every weekend where they're calling, saying, we got to do this for AIG, or this for Fannie and Freddie, came in and said, the financial markets are completely frozen and if we don't do something about it, it is conceivable we will see a depression greater than the Great Depression.
"So I analyzed that and decided I didn't want to be the President during a depression greater than the Great Depression, or the beginning of a depression greater than the Great Depression."

And now conservative naysayers continue to push this nonsense on us, telling us that we need more strategy that can be described as exactly what Bush did prior to Bush pushing aside his "free market instincts". Why can't conservatives acknowledge that the economy is just not as simple as their ideology represents it?
phil, there are many times, the most prominent being how FDR got us out of the great depression. Time to read up on history, boy.

High Plains Drifter: You're proving my point. Stating an economic theory as if it were a law of physics. Maybe next time you ought to read the post before you reply to it.
Matthew, do you realize you are contradicting yourself when you say "Most conservatives DO realize that the economy is extremely complicated, which is why most conservatives believe in free market principles and taking government OUT of the economy"? Again you are trying to state it like a basic law of physics: "government can do no good for the economy". This is an absurd over-simplification. Please, try to look at what you're writing objectively and next time put a little more thought into you reply. PLEASE.
Dcntamcn: You are also proving my point, trying to state an economic philosophy as if it is a law of physics. In reply to your simplistic question, "Why do liberals think that government spending stimulates ANYTHING !? ", I'll first point out that Republicans and Conservatives were very supportive of Bush's first two economic stimulus plans (the first one after Sept 11, the second one in 2005). And I'll second point out the success of FDR getting us out of the Great Depression. Seriously, don't take offense to this, but I'm looking for replies at a higher level than this. I'm tired of people who think their point is right just because they are unaware of a counter-example to their theory, which the rest of us are well aware of. And I'm tired of people who don't realize that they supported the same type of argument several years ago that they are fighting against now.
Sublime: Your first paragraph has nothing to do with the point I am making and the question I am asking. And your second paragraph is just illustrating that you support the position that I claimed you support. Right away you state an economic theory as if it is a law of physics: "government interference in free market ALWAYS causes problems in the market, making it near impossible to correct itself. ". By the way, what planet have you been living on? Are you not aware of what happened over the 8 years of Bush rule? Wake up!
Sublime: PS, in reply to your question about liberals being for the poor guy, I'd say it is time for you to turn off Fox News. Liberals will tell you what they believe in, Fox News will twist it to misrepresent us because their clients depend upon this misrepresentation. We are not about the poor guy. We're about doing what is best for the country in general, and part of that formula is a strong middle class. Do not confuse "safety nets" with only caring about the poor guy. Safety nets are there for everybody.
 
The economy IS simple. Just because people want to try and control the economy and are given a Nobel prize (Most Nobel winners are Libs!)
fact, the less gov't is involved inthe economy the better it works. Every time!
People win Nobel prizes trying to prove gov't should be in control but history shows less gov't means a better economy. Fact!!

PS- Alfred Nobel was a death merchant and any award in his name is simply Blood Money! Read up on it! Dynamite anyone?
 
talk about pot calling kettle black,name one time that an overspending government actually improved economy? consumers spending money is what makes economy grow. less government is best
 
First off, the government grew under Bush, remember the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Gas skyrocketed because of what? The wars, OPEC and the turbulence over whether or not oil would be sold in dollars anymore, the unrest in Venezuela because of Chavez where we get a significant amount of fuel, the increase in power of India and China! PAY ATTENTION to the real facts!

Secondly, government interference in free market ALWAYS causes problems in the market, making it near impossible to correct itself. When your advisors are telling you there are companies too big to fail (Freddie and Fannie) who also happen to be backed by the government, then they NEED TO FAIL and let the market adjust, not prop them up with taxpayer money and have the government become a business entity. Enron, Leaman Brothers, AIG, Citigroup, etc--ALL should NOT have had ANY taxpayer money going to them. If the market had been left alone, it would have made up for these losses without the government having to create the basis for inflation by printing more money or borrowing more money from other countries.

Then comes along Obama who wants more entitlements, taxing more on the people who create jobs to give to those too lazy to get jobs, and paying them to stay home and care for them, creating more class warfare and class welfare. He continued the bailouts and the illegal monetization of debt by the Federal Reserve without disclosure to the people through legislative process.

The only thing I can agree with you about is that the economy is complex, but only because one thing is constant...supply and demand constantly change. The forces exerted upon the market always change, but some principles hold true. The more money a consumer has, the more they spend. Tax them too much and they won't have a lot of money. Government run businesses are always less efficient and more costly. The bigger the government, the more money from taxpayers is needed to feed it, which means less money in the pockets of the consumers.--That is a simple concept.

Let me ask you a simple question: If liberals are always about the poor guy...why are people more poor today? Liberals had control for over 60 years of the last centennial...
 
THe economy IS that simple. The problem with democratic economics is that they believe from taking away from the rich to give to the poor. The poor never learn to make their own money and so are a constant drain. Big government is also a constant drain. If we keep government small, and reduce taxes, working people have more money to spend which creates jobs and savings accounts, etc etc. None of those ill-run companies should have received bail-out money, that whole thing was a complete joke. And now your democratic leaders have bankrupted this country.
 
Funny how you answer your own question. Most conservatives DO realize that the economy is extremely complicated, which is why most conservatives believe in free market principles and taking government OUT of the economy. It's the liberals that have this crazy notion they can control the economy - stimulus bills, regulations, etc (for the record, most conservatives opposed Bush's financial policies, including his stimulus plans). Private business is the only thing that can create wealth, all the government can do is curtail the economy. The conservative isn't all about cutting taxes - but rather getting government out of the economy. The most obtrusive thing the government does is taxes, so the fastest way to get them out is to cut taxes.

And the banks failed not because of the free market, but because of stupid government politicians. People like Barny Frank (head of the house financial services committee) that told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. So lets see an example - poor person X wanted to buy a house. The bank said, "no, you don't have enough money." But good ol' Barney and his political hack friends said "no banks, you should give them the money, we'll have our quasi-private, quasi-government bank over here called Freddie Mac back you if they don't pay." At which point the banks said OK. Person X (along with like a million other X's) couldn't pay, Fannie and Freddie went bankrupt based on the implicit guarantee of stupid politicians, and the rest as we say is history. Maybe you should stop listening to your liberal socialist ant-capitalist BS and start looking into how the economy actually works!
 
Back
Top