|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 23, 2010 12:23 AM |
|
|
The Great Depression had aggravating factors, too, like the move towards protectionism (Smoot-Hawley Tariff and its equivalents in Europe). But overinvestment cannot by itself create anything as big as the Great Depression, only a minor recession at most. And the Federal Reserve was supposed to stop it, but it didn't.
The reason the money supply fell is not difficult to explain. When prices are decreasing, there is an incentive to hoard cash, because it is expected that it will be worth more. Of course, this further aggravates the problem, creating a loop. This is exactly what happened during the Great Depression. All that was necessary was to cut interest rates aggressively, but that wasn't done.
Friedman's claims are accepted by most economists today, even the left-wingers. No one adheres to your crude Keynesianism and for good reason.
As for the current crisis, it's a result of government intervention. The Federal Reseve set interest rates too low, and the government subsidised loans too much - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 09:17 AM |
|
|
You are stalling. Because we talked about what CAUSED the depression, not what was done against it.
Moreover, Friedman's claims are not accepted - they are silly. They are silly, because they are pure speculation. There is no way to check. There is nothing worse than AFTERWARDS claiming, this or that would have worked. The example of Germany shows that New Deal simply was too tentative: it's uncontested - accepted -, that the US economy didn't recover well under the New Deal - only in the war, when the government massively increased spending. THAT is a FACT. Fact is also, that Friedman started as a fanatic Keynesian as well.
Let me add, Mvass, that calling something sketched within a post "crude X" is just ignorant - what would you expect here? A 300 page essay, nailing everything down? I could do the same: what's coming from you, isn't even crude liberalissm or libertarianism, it's just yelling some lines from some books like a catechism.
You see, Mvass, the people are not to serve the economics or any principle - it's the other way round. Unchecked growth is never ever good anywhere, and economics is no purpose in itself, especially not, when the fundamental system is based on greed.
No matter any theory, the hub of all economics is the rate of employment/unemployment. The reason for this is simply that a society has to care for their unemployed one way or another. Because if it doesn't it will create, social unrest, rising crime rates, and even civil-war-like situations, when the number of "beggars" is too high. So no matter the theory, society must in some way care for their unemployed.
The second hub is that the government will always cash in some taxes to be able to operate and that there are field the government must operate - otherwise you wouldn't need one.
That means, that the government will always spend part of the money of its people. It IS true that basically everything could be done by private corporations - policing, education, public transportation, road building, even warring - however, for some it's impractical, for others it's not advisable and for some it wouldn't make a change.
Moreover, SPENDING tax money doesn't mean it is spended for government institutions. For example, the avionic corporations the US buy their fighter planes from are private corps; a lot of governmental demands are supllied BY private corps and paid by the tax payer.
Moreover, the people - the whole of a society - don't want to have a soaring economy with high unemployment rates, that is: available work has to be justly distributed. It won't do to have half of the population work hard for good money, but have to pay high taxes because they have to supply for the other half.
From the viewpoint of the employer this is uneconomical. It is cheaper to have TWO workers doing 12-hour shifts than 3 doing 8-hour shifts or even 4 doing 6-hour shifts, because each additional worker creates additional costs with unchanged production.
But it's UNJUST for a society, when employers have 2 workers with 12-hour-shifts, with them having to pay a crapload of taxes to supply the other two - who are unsatisfied because they would want to work but don't get any.
So a society - and its economy - just FAIL when unemployment
rates rise above a certain margin, beecause a most important goal isn't reached, economy or not.
This means, if an economy is basically working, with part of society being unemployed while others are working overtime, there is something WRONG. The first thing that is probably wrong is... education. Oh, yes. People need qualifications for jobs and people need to keep learning - society is progressing fast and so are jobs. Today,chances are a job isn't for life, the job you learn when you are young, that is.
Part of unemployment is due to the fact that available - unemployed - workers don't have the qualifications needed.
Another is that work isn't distrbuted fairly. We've had a persistant sshortage of wworking times within the last century and there is no reason why that shouldn't continue, when there is a persistant level of unemployment.
However, that is all a sidetrack.
Remember, the main point was this: if the government has to deal with unemployed anyway, HOW should it deal with them?
And here I said, by handing out welfare, the government creates the job "doing nothing" - since people get paid for doing nothing -, and this job competes with every low-wage job: if you can pick between an 8-hour job netting you 1000 bucks and a 0-hour job netting you 700, you'll take the 0-hour job, since the job is simply better - it leaves you a lot of time to earn something on the side: selling stuff on the internet, do jobs wwithin the neighborhood, whatever.
My opinion is, that this is detrimental to society and economy: it would be better to let those people work for (serious) money, since there is no shortage of jobs within a society that ARE beneficial, but not immediately so.
I gave examples for that.
I'll give a very simple one for you - or anyone - to understand.
What is better:
a) handing out welfare to people without job and income.
b) hiring people without job and income, letting them carve up a monument somewhere, that says "This was built in honor of all the victims of the Civil War 1861-1865", and pay them for that work.
Result of a and b is the same; moreover, what those people do in b, is no competetion for "economy", since the work isn't serving the economy (there is no demand for it either, but there IS work, that is uneconomical, for which there IS a demand).
You can set wages for that kind of work slightly below standard, so that workers would switch to "real" business, as soon as there was a demand for them.
Take another example: cleaning subways and walls from spraying or simple dirt. This is something you don't HAVE to do. It costs money, and when money is short, you can't afford that. However, government is handing out a lot of money to people for doing nothing. So why shouldn't they be doing something useful for it? Like cleaning walls?
Do you - or anyone else - have a serious argument against that?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 09:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me add, Mvass, that calling something sketched within a post "crude X" is just ignorant
I agree.
Quote:
Lol.
Complete nonsense.
Quote:
For the rest, I suggest, instead of reading silly theory books about liberalism and falling for that nonsense that has been proven wrong a thounsand times over by history, just get a grip on history and check what has happened already in our long history and what has worked what what not.
But...
Quote:
Sincerely, you see things WRONG.
Oh, boy...
I'll stop now...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 10:06 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:10, 23 Jun 2010.
|
It's simple really. So far the 'proof' has been other peoples opinion given as absolute fact. It is impossible to prove or disprove an opinion. I am willing to PROVE my case, even tried once, but of course it was waved aside.
It is simple really. Anybody can try to accept the challenge that will prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. I'll even make sure that no reasonable person can call it a 'insult'.
Prove that you don't think that an the moon is made of cheese. Remember, however. We can't just take your word for it, or the word of any of your 'friends'. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Which is absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt.. impossible. Simply because there is never any proof that somebody believes or thinks something, and there is no way to disprove it either. A lot of ASSUMPTION, absolutely. Peoples opinions are not facts.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 10:16 AM |
|
|
In case all that is directed to me:
Quote:
What is better:
a) handing out welfare to people without job and income.
b) hiring people without job and income, letting them carve up a monument somewhere, that says "This was built in honor of all the victims of the Civil War 1861-1865", and pay them for that work.
Result of a and b is the same; moreover, what those people do in b, is no competetion for "economy", since the work isn't serving the economy (there is no demand for it either, but there IS work, that is uneconomical, for which there IS a demand).
You can set wages for that kind of work slightly below standard, so that workers would switch to "real" business, as soon as there was a demand for them.
Take another example: cleaning subways and walls from spraying or simple dirt. This is something you don't HAVE to do. It costs money, and when money is short, you can't afford that. However, government is handing out a lot of money to people for doing nothing. So why shouldn't they be doing something useful for it? Like cleaning walls?
Do you - or anyone else - have a serious argument against that?
I direct your attention to the marked passage; what was quoted has been the gist of what I'm saying, and I've heard nothing except thatthe government should be there for a couple of things, but still vanih into thin air for all other purposes.
@ DG
You are just wise-assing.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 10:30 AM |
|
|
Well, I thought the thread was dedicated to Obama's supposed marxism, so my comments are directed to that end.
However, Jolly..I actually agree to you that the government has a very important role to play in many places. I am no fan of 'welfare', but they do provide very needed jobs and provide very needed services. Like road repair, etc. It could do the jobs much more efficiently, and without so much red tape..but not all government is BAD.
Heck even 'interfering' in peoples' lives is not all bad. Or should we let all the killers, rapist, etc out of prison? I mean, how dare the government interfere with their right to kill and rape people? Isn't that interfering with their rights?! I had better stop before I go into fratching... .
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 11:09 AM |
|
|
I think, your immediate comments to the Obama thread are quite correct, but as I seem to remember, your example, claiming Elodin being a mole dedicated to destroy the religious grouping he's a member of, wasn't well-received, although it was essentially the same thing Elodin is doing.
I feel with you, since even though this thread is completely absurd, and we shouldn't tak part, since we've said our prt already, what is expressed in some of the post is so beyond anything reasonable that we can't help to think there must hve been some kind of error or misunderstanding leadng to this, people just can't be so... well, you know what I mean.
Of course, we are wrong, since people ARE... well, so, it's just wasted breath.
As a sidenote, don't you love it, when pupils are explaining to you, how everyone is doing everything wrong and how things should be. I wonder - is Mvass working in his spare time? Has he ever earned a dollar? Did he ever have to worry about where to get the next meal... And IF he'll get a job offer one day - will he decline, when it's an offer from the government?
When we talk about this e talk about humans and their fates and lives, not about theories, numbers, balance sheets, bottom lines or market mechanisms.
We shouldn't forget that.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 11:39 AM |
|
|
We also should not forget that we should not make disparaging remarks against fellow members. My challenge was put off as a insult, so I deleted it for the most part, however..I can not see how this particular example of my challenge could possibly be taken as an insult. Heck, something else that you don't believe can easily be exchanged for my example.
As for the government, no form of government is perfect.
Capitalism is highly corruptable
Socialism provides less incentive to produce
etc
Every example of government in history has people who believe they are entitled to more then somebody else. Due to birth (ie royalty), wealth, etc. The 'rulers' (be they elected or otherwise) loose touch with what it means to not have anything. To worry about where your next meal is coming from, to not be able to take a day off..even if sick because you can not afford to.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 11:54 AM |
|
|
|
Sure, but what are your conclusions from that realization? Life sucks?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 11:59 AM |
|
|
Not at all. It's unfair, it's biased, and it is rigged..but it only sucks if you let it. Our life here on this mudball is short. Make the most of what you have, and strive to improve things every day. I guess you can say.. Live life to the fullest, do what you can to improve for the next generation, and never let anybody keep you down.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 12:14 PM |
|
|
That's the individual part.
However, since you don't live isolated, but in a sciety, what's your societal conclusions?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 12:25 PM |
|
|
Hmm that requires much more thought on the matter. Personally I say that currently, the human race is kinda Sore out of Luck (SoL). Everybody is pretty much just looking out for themselves and what THEY can get. Even the so called 'socialist', because the leaders of those societies still tend to lead better lives then the 'common' person. More food, better accommodations, etc.
Yet if we gave everybody equal everything, then it would loose meaning, and that would be bad for people also. I am not sure there IS a solution. Because we are flawed people, and we can not make a society that is perfect. So..what does it mean for society and people in general? Things are going to get worse before they get better. People WILL have to scrape and fight for everything, and the strong will tend to do better. *shrugs*
Currently no government in our history has been the answer, we need to look for solutions instead of blaming each other and hating each other. Not going to happen, but that is the only hope for humanity.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 12:49 PM |
|
|
Meaning, you have no idea (in the sense of the word) and therefore no opinion on how to proceed, what to change, what to try out, what to make better, what to better let be or give up and so on?
But you sure know what is definitely not right, don't you? I've read enough posts of yours to know thaat there are some things you definitely don't think right.
Note: "Perfection" is just a word - an idea. Isn't it wrong to have something in mind that is imaginary? Do we know anyhing "perfect"? Is perfection even possible? I mean, something perfect can't change, except if something perfect doesn't change, is it still perfect? So something perfect would have to be perfect and allow change as well which seems, well...
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 12:55 PM |
|
|
Meaning, so far NOBODY has an idea how to proceed. Sure, they have ideas how to change things, for THEIR benefit, but not societies as a whole's benefit. As for what I don't think is right..the list is long..and would require at LEAST another thread. Minimum. I am a very opinionated person. Mostly it would fall into the following though. To not derail this further I would be more then willing to start a thread called "What is wrong with the world" (and others could of course put what they thought was wrong with this world there also ) however.
____________
Message received.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 23, 2010 11:49 PM |
|
|
...........
I think OSM needs a rule on that derailing should be encouraged, when it fruits a good debate.
And so far, it looks like mvass lost on the topic of economy, quite the fun. So the derailing had something.
There is likely already also a "what is wrong with humanity"-thread stored somewhere, alas who will in the end care?
So in the end, the conclusions fruits is that Elodin was wrong?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2010 12:27 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Friedman's claims are not accepted
Friedman's claims are accepted by all major macroeconomic models and all orthodox economists. Even the modern-day New Keynesians accept it. The reason I called your views crude was not as an insult - it is simply a fact. They are the views held by economists roughly between 1948 and the 60s. Friedman, Lucas, and the 1970s stagflation destroyed them. No one adheres to their views any more, and for good reason.
Quote:
There is no way to check.
That's the problem with economics in general (and, to a lesser extent, all science). The only real way to check would be to have multiple alternate universes that are identical until at a certain point, a different policy is pursued. Then, there can be objective comparison. Short of that, we can only reason and compare it to other situations. This problem is not unique to Friedman.
Quote:
Unchecked growth is never ever good anywhere, and economics is no purpose in itself, especially not, when the fundamental system is based on greed.
There's nothing bad about greed. The point of "political economy" (not quite economics) is to create a system in which people can act in their own self-interest while not harming anybody else. If people exchange voluntarily, they benefit each other, so their motivations don't matter anyway.
Quote:
No matter any theory, the hub of all economics is the rate of employment/unemployment. The reason for this is simply that a society has to care for their unemployed one way or another. Because if it doesn't it will create, social unrest, rising crime rates, and even civil-war-like situations, when the number of "beggars" is too high.
No, this is the goal of politics. The goal of economics is... well, even that's an incorrect way of thinking about it. The goal of economics is the same as the goal of any science - to find out how the world works. Economics is, like all sciences, value-free - it can be used for good or evil. All economics can do is come up in relation to unemployment is to describe its causes and economic effects, and to make policy proposals based on that. Bribing the unemployed to keep them from rioting has nothing to do with economics.
Unemployment itself is largely a result of government intervention - the minimum wage, occupation licensing, etc. Doctors come to the US and work as cab drivers because the government prevents them from being able to practice medicine. Or they just become unemployed. And part of it is people having their expectations too high. If I'm looking to be a janitor who's getting $100 an hour, I will never find a job. So should I be able to collect unemployment?
In the US, helping people find jobs has been more helpful than any other counter-unemployment measure.
Mytical
I'd like to think that my ideas are for everyone's benefit.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2010 08:33 AM |
|
|
Mvass, your post makes it clear that you don't seem to grasp a couple of fundamental facts.
A living, existing society is no theory, but practise. The economy of it - no, we are not speaking about economic theories, but about the real existing economic workings in that living society - is no purpose in itself: society does not have to bend this way or that to allow the economy to become what theorists would like it to be.
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Quote:
No matter any theory, the hub of all economics is the rate of employment/unemployment. The reason for this is simply that a society has to care for their unemployed one way or another. Because if it doesn't it will create, social unrest, rising crime rates, and even civil-war-like situations, when the number of "beggars" is too high.
No, this is the goal of politics. The goal of economics is... well, even that's an incorrect way of thinking about it. The goal of economics is the same as the goal of any science - to find out how the world works. Economics is, like all sciences, value-free - it can be used for good or evil. All economics can do is come up in relation to unemployment is to describe its causes and economic effects, and to make policy proposals based on that. Bribing the unemployed to keep them from rioting has nothing to do with economics.
Unemployment itself is largely a result of government intervention - the minimum wage, occupation licensing, etc. Doctors come to the US and work as cab drivers because the government prevents them from being able to practice medicine. .
Maybe you should read your Friedman again.  Natural Rate of Unemployment, remember? A certain amount of Unemployment is a natural part of the ECONOMIC system, even when in full gear, even when 100% liberal and uncontrolled.
Which means, society has to handle it - you can't let the unemployed starve. This isn't up to discussion - you wouldn't want to live in a society where the National Guard would suppress the unemployed or unable-to-work with their weapons, where they had to fight for survival. Even if it was ECONOMICALLY feasible - society has goals that may not allow the course best for the economy - and remember we are talking about PRACTICAL economy, not theoretical.
If the NRU is surpassed, then it's a atructural problem, and even Friedman accepts, that in this case measures of the government may be necessary.
Which means, that the government has to act, if and when unemployment exceeds the NRU (albeit not necessarily by [deficit] spending), but all this notwithstanding there is still the problem, how to deal with the NATURALLY unemployed, that is, the detritus of the system.
That cannot be too difficult to grasp, or can it?
Which brings us back agaain to the question what to do with them, welfare or work, which you seem to avoid.
A last comment on Friedman - there is a lot of criticism concerning his theories, and valid ciriticism as well, as far as I'm concerned. Economy in practise is no "clean" system and contains a lot of variables that surpass eeconomy as such, for example the goals of society in general and so on. For one aspect, see below.
Quote:
Quote:
Unchecked growth is never ever good anywhere, and economics is no purpose in itself, especially not, when the fundamental system is based on greed.
There's nothing bad about greed. The point of "political economy" (not quite economics) is to create a system in which people can act in their own self-interest while not harming anybody else. If people exchange voluntarily, they benefit each other, so their motivations don't matter anyway.
And the problem is, that this might not be possible. Of course there IS something bad about greed. You see, "following self-interest, while not harming others", are two DIFFERENT demands, with "not harming others" being a restriction or limitation of the first one, which means that the restriction must be somewhat stronger than the self-interest.
The problem is, since the whole system is based on it, it's the self-interest or greed that's dominantly in the forefront, not the restriction.
Which practise supports: "not harming others" isn't that high on the list of priorities in our society, especially when "harming others" is (since we are talking about economy) expanded to encompass economical damage (ruination) as well.
Capitalism is RUTHLESS, and that is because it centres around something inherently bad for society (in which self-interest has to be checked oftentimes).
Now, don't misunderstand me - contrary to what some might think, I'm not anti-capitalist.
HOWEVER, capitalism is a DANGEROUS system - it can work in a SOCIALLY acceptable way only, when the restrictional part - the ethics - is kept HIGH. Which is of course not the case.
Humans are bound to HAVE a society, and basing their economic life on the power of greed or, more neutrally spoken, self-interest, is playing with matches on a gas station.
Additionally, the more economic power is concentrated in any individual, the bigger the actual chances and opportunities to IGNORE all restrictions and get away with it.
The problem is, greed doesn't stop anywhere, even if every goal has been reached...
So it is of UTMOST importance to impose an ethical counterweight to the SOCIALLY (not individually) bad motive of greed. COMPASSION would be a valid example. If the same stress was put on compassion and helpfulness than on greed in the course of the educational process, the greed motive might be counterbalanced in a socially satisfactory way, simply leading to a better society.
As it is, though, if you encounter individual compassion or if your compassion is aroused - you smell a rat, if you are wise: chances are, this is the start of a move to cheat you out of money. Which is a massive snag here: if people voluntarily exchange with other, the mutual benefit may simply not be there: one of the two may be cheated out of their benefit.
Which is the bottom line: greed will cheat, if not checked. And systems tend to fail as soon as cheating comes in. Just ask the gamblers.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 24, 2010 01:25 PM |
|
|
Theory hardly ever lives up to reality. In theory if you flip a coin ten times you should get 5 heads and 5 tails, every time. We all know that this is not the case.
@Mvass - So would the people who want to ship everybody not of their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc out of some nation. The pro-lifers want to get rid of the pro-choice people, and vice versa. So on and so on. Everybody wants to think "My ideas and ways are what is best for people." it's just not true. What is good for some people are not good for others. Even health wise.
Which is why there will never be a perfect government. I mean, say that 90% (which is extremely high) of the world LIKES a certain government and follows it. That would mean that 700 million (ish) DON'T like that same government. Even if 99% approve, that is 70 million (ish) that hate it. Think about that.
TRUE democracy comes closest (not the money decides everything 'democracy' here). Despite the fact that people tend to be unable to make up their mind. Then the majority decides, and the minority have to put up with it or revolt.
It's just impossible to make a government that is perfect. Can't be done..yet. I think one of the main problems is, every style of government we use currently was created a long time ago when there were much fewer people. Then those governments were .. somewhat successful at least. As population grew however, they got to big to sustain..and they failed. We are still using governments that were made hundreds or thousands of years ago and expecting them to work. That would be like carting out a personal computer from say 1950 and expecting it to keep up with even my laptop let alone a supercomputer.
What is needed is a adaptable WORLD government that has power over all nations. Think the Federation from Star Trek, only you know no aliens, and one that would actually work. No I don't think the UN would be a good example either. One that actually has authority, and people listen to  .
Ditch the nationalism, the racism, the fear mongering, the hatred, and the fear (fear mongering and fear are two separate things) and MAYBE just MAYBE we could get close. Maybe.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2010 01:28 PM |
|
|
A real world government would certainly be a step into the right direction.
Perfection isn't an option anyway.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2010 02:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A living, existing society is no theory, but practise. The economy of it - no, we are not speaking about economic theories, but about the real existing economic workings in that living society - is no purpose in itself: society does not have to bend this way or that to allow the economy to become what theorists would like it to be.
And history has proven that the free market economy runs circles around economies based on the ignorant and unethical principles set forth by Marx.
Quote:
The problem is, greed doesn't stop anywhere, even if every goal has been reached...
You are right. Those who have the immoral idea that they have a right to steal from others, whether with a gun or using a politician, will never be satisified with what they steal. If stealing through welfare they will always want those welfare payments to increase. In their greed they want more and more of teh money that the people who work produce. Socialism is immoral, cheats people out of what they work for, and is a drain on the national prosperity.
Oh, and Friedman said there is nothing that the government can do about the "natural unemployment" No amount of socialist programs can change it. There will always be bums who want work. There will always be some people in transition from one job to another. The government should not steal from the working to pay the bums. Unemployment insurance will pay those in transition from one job to the next.
@Mytical
Quote:
What is needed is a adaptable WORLD government that has power over all nations. Think the Federation from Star Trek, only you know no aliens, and one that would actually work. No I don't think the UN would be a good example either. One that actually has authority, and people listen to .
The bigger a government is the less responsive it is to the will of the people and the less connectecd it is to the people. A world government is a terrible idea.
Governments are dangerous to the rights of the people. Governments must be kept small and severely limited in power.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
