Ask a Tea Party Conservative Anything

Possibly, but in the time after the failure it would just be chaos. In the UK, many banks required a bailout, so if they were allowed to fail then firstly people's confidence in the banking sector would reduce. But also things like loans and savings could be affected.

But I don't think it should have been allowed to get that bad anyway.

 

Bailouts aren't solutions, they just postpone the problem and make it worse for the next time it comes around.

 

Without a bailout, in your eyes what do you think would have happened in the short and long term? Like how many banks would collapse etc

 

I am from the UK so am not really familiar with the Tea Party political group but wanted to propose a question anyways.

From what it appears to me, the Tea Party is much more of a hands off kind of party, letting things happen without intervention. They say you can judge a society on it's support for it's weakest members.

What does you party have in the form of policies of helping abolish/lower povertyand raising minimum wages and living standards.

Don't mean to sound either rude or forwards, just wondering what support your party provides for those who need it most.

 

This one thing I do really like about the UK.

The knowledge that if for what ever reason you fall on hard times or are in bad health, the government will help you (welfare benefits) and provide free medical treatment (NHS).

I know that they are open for abuse, but I think it is one thing that makes the Britain truly great...

 

This is not the case in NY IIRC. They put in a clause that protects the right of bigots to discriminate against gays. It was the only way it would pass.

There is no way to know that Cain would win. You can not predict the future.

Private corporations can CERTAINLY be monopolies in a free market. Any utility is a monopoly. Also, without patents enforcing temporary monopolies, innovation would grind to a halt. No one would do any research anymore because there would be no way to profit from it. Having a perfectly free market is simply asinine.

 

Wrong on all accounts.

Please tell me how in a proper unhampered free market, that a business can become a monopoly?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by utility, presumably, electricity, water, etc? Please tell me how a utility is a monolpoly.

As to your patent arguments.

Innovation would not grind to a halt: This claim is preposterous on the face of it. Patents were not around in the caveman era, yet clearly we have progressed since them. Obviously patents are not necessary for innovation then.

No one would do any research anymore: The same argument applies, research has been conducted for a long time without the existence of patents.

No way to profit from research: This claim is just ignorance about all economic principles. To truly get to what you are saying. When patents don't exist, all that means is that a business can now create x without having y come and say you can't create x. In order to create x ONE MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO CREATE X. When something is invented, not everyone automatically has knowledge of how x was created. It is likely that in some instances the knowledge of how to create x would be guarded in order to maximise profits. In other instances, some people would freely give out the knowledge of how to create x. Whatever the case, it takes time for the knowledge to create x to be assimilated in the production process. Human action is unpredictable, you think it is so rigid, so immutable, it's lunacy.

Imagine in a tightly controlled free market, there are so many providers for the same good or service that profits are minimal as consumers have ultimate power in the market. In order to gain large amounts of profit, a business must have a competitive edge. Innovation is one way to gain a competitive edge. Thus, it will be attractive for businesses to invest in research. Once a business as discovered something, they can produce it and make a lot of money due to lack of competition, or more specifically, they have a larger market share and consumers have little choice. It will take time for other business to gain knowledge of this, and then to create the goods or services.

Additionally, you neglect the existence of something in a fierce dog-eat-dog, greed run capitalist economy /sarcasm. Charity! With disposable income, many people are far more likely to donate, and lots of these donations may go to charity. Business too, will donate to charity. Research can be conducted from these funds. It already happens.


I would strongly recommend reading a book on economics. It is quite alright to lack the knowledge in a specific area, but to argue so vociferously, with so much vigor and passion, to masquerade yourself as knowledgeable in this field, to create such a disingenuous facade is highly toxic behaviour. You do not go to a law firm, equipped with no knowledge of the law, and start giving out legal advice, you do not charge into the operating theatre equipped with no experience on how to conduct a surgery, and start operating, so why would you enter into a debate on economics armed with no knowledge on economics and simultaneously call others ideas 'asinine'?

 

I am not incorrect. Please do not resort to ad hominem attacks to debate. Natural monopolies do exist. These occur when there are significant barriers to entry into a market. A common example is a utility provider. There is a massive cost to setting up any utility network and once a single utility is established, others will not build the infrastructure.

On to intellectual property: some things are not patented so that others can not copy them. One example is WD-40. It is nearly impossible to figure out the exact formula so they don't need patent protection. For other products, all you have to do is take them apart and copying them is child's play. Most technologies fall into the ladder portion in todays age and thus there would be no competitive edge to strive for through innovation.

On to charity: People's behavior will not change just because they have more money. If they already have a "what's mine is mine and fuck everyone else" attitude, extra money will not change that.

 

Mitt lost because he failed to grab votes from conservatives and Obama got the illegals voting for him.

Herman Cain was way way way ahead of Mitt in republican Primaries he had the conservative votes.

Conservative adults outnumber Democrats by a huge margin however they are left likely to vote as well most conservatives will not vote for moderate republicans.

Savings and loans did get affected by devaluing our currency due to the bailouts.


It got bad due to government interference and too much backing & also too big to fail bailouts create incentives to take bad risks its a moral hazard we created the problem by making it like this.

Should I give out extra risky loans

1) If it works I get money
2) If it fails I get bailed out

There is no downside its similar to the tragedy of commons.



Starts at :50 its 2 minutes long.

Tea Party Conservatives are pretty much a step behind the Libertarian Party.

Minimum wage hurts poor people & it helps big corporations it hurts small business. The free market is good at preventing poverty when you have low government interference you have bigger profit margins and more money & incentives to hire more workers.


If I run a mcdonalds and my employees earn me about 8 bucks an hour and minimum wage is 8.50 I have to fire them because they are a loss to the company but if I want o hire them for 8 dollars and they want to they are allowed so because i pay them less my prices get cheaper and I might get more customers so then I earn more money and if they are still working hard I should promote them or give them raise otherwise my competitors will see they are earning more money then I am paying so they should try to offer them a better job.

Most jobs pay over minimum wage those who pay minimum wage are small business and places like McDonalds if minimum wage were needed to protect us from the rich why do the rich companies like Microsoft/Google pay more then minimum wage?

 

I don't really know how much the US banking system was bailed out as im from the UK, but the UK's was pretty huge.

Are the banks in the US now partly state owned?

 

Wrong. Let's look at actual poll numbers: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Cain only surpassed Romney for a very, very short time. I would also like to point out that "illegals" can not vote and thus it is impossible for Obama to have "got them".

And to prove you wrong, once again, on your last point: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Democratic leaning people outnumber Republican leaning people by about 6 or 7 points.

 

There were various bailouts. Some were given money for large sums of stock. AIG was one like this and the treasury(?) has recently sold (at least some) of these stocks for a slight profit (I believe). Other parts of the bailouts were simply loans that have been widely paid back (if I remember my facts correctly).

 

This is for those who don't really understand the credit crunch, the main reasons banked struggled and the external shock of a global recession began to take shape.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx_LWm6_6tA

Firstly I would like to say as someone who is doing a degree in Economics, SuF is completely correct here.

Natural Monopolies exist when the barriers to entry are too high and markets have very low contestability. For example take a look at telecoms. The start up costs are extraordinary and with the supernormal profits the price maker receives it is able to cut it's prices down to a point where there is no chance of competition entering the market, forcing all competition out.

Furthermore there are many circumstances where government intervention is critical. This can be seen in certain transport provisions, such as rail. If the government was not to provide the infrastructure (in the rail tracks), no one would enter the market as there are extortionate costs in providing the provision for the transport. With transport links down the toilet, the national economy's Aggregate Supply would contract and productivity and efficiency would decrease, making the country less internationally competitive. Lack of international competitiveness has been a major problem in the UK and is one of the reasons we have still not staged a recovery from recession, and more and more people are calling for investment in infrastructure (boost the Investment component of Aggregate Demand) which in turn would increase competitiveness.
I have only followed this point so far as the Tea Party, as you have stated, looks to take minimal intervention and hope that the free market mechanism achieves economic efficiency. But when it doesn't and negative externalities occur, what does the government do if it opposes intervention?

You have concentrated on minimum wage a lot here, but even if people earn over the minimum wage (says $10/Hour), they still struggle to survive the day to day basics of putting food on the table and paying rent/mortgages. People need more than just financial support, what about child income allowances and help with healthcare, both things which many people depend on as these added costs/removed forms of income would make life almost impossible for many. In these examples I have tried to put the situation of the Tea Party into the UK government which would probably differ results slightly, but even if less tax was needed, if the government isn't there supporting those who need it most with extra policies and help, then who is? Who will pay to fix the potholes in roads which have a shadow cost in the UK of over £1BN each year, which is loss of output for an economy.


Everyone needs a strong government to help them, and ignoring greedy large firms and their supernormal profits, it's the people in society who need the help the most that governments should prioritise their efforts towards.

 

A single gallop poll does not show what I was talking about and I am not talking about political affiliation between republicans & democrats I am talking about liberals vs conservatives people may say they lean towards democrats yet they consistently vote for Conservatives (one reason why GOP controls the house).

People like Conservative values yet they do not like the republican party.


About illegals not voting are you seriously this ignorant did you not hear about the huge problem about the election where literally millions of illegals were registering to vote.

The GOP tries to respond to the matter with suggesting bills requiring you do have a photo ID to vote & to register to vote yet democrats claimed it was racist because democrats believed blacks are too stupid to get ID's.


I can prove it as well.




All you basically have to do is check a box saying I am a citizen. Not only are illegals voting but many people vote multiple times, for other people, and even for dead people.


There was even 2 Ohio counties that had more Obama votes then it had eligible voters total which mad big headlines for a while but then everyone stopped talking about it and claimed mistakes happen.


When the GOP was trying to stop voter fraud with voter ID laws and Democrats are trying to keep voter fraud its pretty clear the voter fraud is helping them.


108% of voter population endorses Obama
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports/

 

Sorry. You are wrong yet again. In 2012 Democrats won the majority of the votes for the house: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

The reason that the GOP has control of the house is due to gerrymandering, which is destroying our democracy because it is obvious that a majority of Americans voted Democratic in the last cycle. Also, that's a few dozen Gallup polls, not one.

Show me the proof that there were literally millions of illegals signing up to vote. Guess what? You won't be able to. There is none. The amount of voter fraud is much less than the amount of people disenfranchised by the GOPs attempts to require IDs to vote. And guess what.... The groups that are most likely to not have these IDs are groups that heavily favor Democrats.

Also: None of the "proof" that you gave in that post is proof of anything. The WND "article" is clearly just pandering to its audience with an attention grabbing story without mind for the facts.

 

First of all I disproved everything you said about illegals being unable to vote as shown in the video anyone can register anyone regardless of being an American citizen.

I need a ID to use my Grocery card (for the value rewards) at a Grocery store, I need my ID to use my gift cards at some stores, I need my ID to see a movie, I need my ID to buy beer/alcohol. Sorry if I believe that the fate of my country should be protected with as much integrity as seeing an R rated movie.

The votes the Dems get are all in one location its not so much gerrymandering as you make it seem its more lets say GOP wins in a place with 51% then in an all black neighborhood a Dem wins with 99%

And GOP has been winning popular vote for house for a while its just slightly slanting down due to how easy it is for illegals to vote.

Wait so you are against voter ID's which prevent voter fraud because you think its racist against Mexican/blacks? You are lowering standards due to blacks & Mexicans that is clearly racist. It affects everyone the same for you to claim its racist would just be the same as me claiming tax increases on rich are racist against White & Asian males because they earn more.

What its not proof when 100% or more people vote for someone in one area its clear there is fraud.


http://www.redstate.com/california_...80000-non-citizens-may-be-registered-to-vote/

180k illegals registered to vote in Florida alone (this is just what was found.)



Obama hates Texas voter ID law

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/12/us-usa-politics-texas-idUSBRE82B0XA20120312

 

So, in all utility markets around the world, you only have one option? There are more barriers to entry in any utility market in modern society. Yet, not all of them are monopolies. How can you explain that and reconcile it with the fact that in a free market the utilities market will be a monopoly, when right now, with greater barriers to entry, not all of them are monopolies?

Anyways, for a full exposition as to why this public utility argument is incorrect, read this: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3158751

Here is another: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

"Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. .. . During the latter part of the nineteenth century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in
this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City . . . competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry . . . Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pitts- burgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905"

What's your point? Knowledge of how to create it would eventually surface, it would just take a long time.

So then how did innovation occur before the existence of a patent office if there was no competitive edge to innovate?

Please, you are wrong. These views are wrong, and they are really destructive in themselves because they continue to prop up a false economic ideaology, that government intervention is necessary. It really, really isn't:


http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20090701006334&newsLang=en

"A new study published in The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review challenges the traditional view that patents foster innovation, suggesting instead that patents may harm new technology, economic activity, and societal wealth."

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.1.23

"Historical evidence suggests that in countries with patent laws, the majority
of innovations occur outside of the patent system"

"Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors may a discourage innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to encourage innovation"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5919/1335

"In a series of experiments, we used the knapsack problem (in which participants have to determine the most valuable subset of objects that can fit in a knapsack of fixed volume) as a typical representation of intellectual discovery problems. We found that our “markets system” performed better than the patent system."

People are giving billions and billions of dollars to charity. If someone that is already going to give to charity has more money to give, it is likely that they will give more money if they have more disposable income available to them. Not everyone has a mine is mine and fuck everyone else attitude, if that were true, charity would not exist. Clearly it exists because people don't have that attitude OR if they do, it doesn't affect them giving to charity, so an increase the income they have to give to charity will likely increase how much they give to charity.

 

I hate to be the one to follow up your example with an extreme, but imagine 200 years ago: The richest people south of the Appalachian mountains were the plantation owners, and they paid their employees nothing. Microsoft and Google only need skilled laborers, there is a barrier to entry for those jobs.

 

People get the skills for the jobs in lower end jobs they work their way up to bigger positions.

Contrary to popular belief there is huge income mobility in there world everyone drifts towards the upper middle.

 

The rest was TL;DR, but in relation to this bit he is talking about NATURAL monopolies, which differ from regular monopolies. There are no 'options', these occur naturally. On top of this some markets which are natural monopolies are currently not monopolies as government intervention has made the markets more contestable. This means that governments are trying to increase the competitiveness of a market by helping make it more contestable,but technically it is still a natural monopoly.