Macro Poll: The Dollar's Up: Is This Good Or Bad?

[Chet]

Especially in the senate they did not have a majority until 2006 because of special senators that were not elected by vote - giving the pro-Pinochet block a majority in the senate. With the reform in 2005 they got rid of those senators. But still the bi-nominal voting system results in very slim majorities making major reforms difficult.

A government that moves slowly and enacts few laws seems a good idea to me. I don't really much care for the 70k pages of IRS rules and so many laws added each year its impossible to really know when you are breaking a law or not.

 

[germano]

And look at the Argentine system - crisis-free during all that time!

You start to argument like your tea-party "friends" you like to discuss with about obamacare etc.!

The fact is that a neo-liberal reform lead to a major economic crisis in Chile starting in 1982. This has nothing to do with Argentina ... what is your point?

We might add that Chilean healthcare includes a public option.

Your are absolutely correct. Especially in the rural areas the public healthcare system seems to be even a better option than private clinics (at least from my experience in the south).

 

[Redpossum]

Red, I think you're being quick on the gun to accuse Bkfentfc of being "hoodwinked". Far be it from me to defend how economics is taught, but you are accusing him of parroting back ideas, when you are not really showing an understanding of what he is saying. I agree, there needs to be a down-to-earth way to describe The Dismal Science in laymans terms, but your blanket accusations do not seem to match anything he has said.

Furthermore, you claim that Friedman had "no idea WTF he was doing," which is a grave error. There is a difference between being an idiot and being a sell-out. The problem is Friedman was an excellent economist as most other economists from all political spectra will agree, but he was a total sell-out to certain power sectors (something not at all unusual in the profession), and this affected his conclusions.

In sum, instead of using inflammatory phrases, why don't we try to find positive ways to make these issues more accessible to everyone.

PS I want to get back to Chet's great questions, but its been a busy week.

Saying someone has been hoodwinked is not quite the same as saying he has been hoodwinked along with the rest of us. Note that I said "we" in the folllowing sentences. I went through it too. I'm not pretending to be any better than anyone else.

Ah, excellent observation about Friedman. There are three possible explanations for why the world economy is so messed up right now - indifference, incompetence, or malice. Either the economists don't care what they're doing, don't know what they're doing, or they're out to do us dirty. If you wish to rule out the middle one, fine, I won't argue. But either of the other two discredits Friedman's ideas with an equal degree of thoroughness.

Inflammatory is a judgement call. I offered no personal insult. If you are inflamed by attacking ideas, I don't know what to say, except that these ideas need to be challenged before they get us all killed.

 

[germano]

You are taking of old history of Senadores Vitalicios etc. The Concertacion has been en Power for more than 20 years, they could have reformed Education etc. Hope they do it Now!

Old history? It was until 2006 that they did not have a majority in the senate because of special senators! Also from 2010 to 2014 Piñera was president. So they only had one term (first Bachelet term) with a majority in both houses. And with slim majorities - especially with a ideological diverse coalition as the Concertación during her first term or Nueva Mayoría now - it is difficult to get a major reform on its way. And forget about an electoral reform where they would need votes from the opposition Alianza por Chile.

 

[Rich One]

Red, I think you're being quick on the gun to accuse Bkfentfc of being "hoodwinked". Far be it from me to defend how economics is taught, but you are accusing him of parroting back ideas, when you are not really showing an understanding of what he is saying. I agree, there needs to be a down-to-earth way to describe The Dismal Science in laymans terms, but your blanket accusations do not seem to match anything he has said.

Furthermore, you claim that Friedman had "no idea WTF he was doing," which is a grave error. There is a difference between being an idiot and being a sell-out. The problem is Friedman was an excellent economist as most other economists from all political spectra will agree, but he was a total sell-out to certain power sectors (something not at all unusual in the profession), and this affected his conclusions.

In sum, instead of using inflammatory phrases, why don't we try to find positive ways to make these issues more accessible to everyone.

PS I want to get back to Chet's great questions, but its been a busy week.

Milton was a Reagan favorite however a sell-out not really compared to Stiglitz

http://www.infobae.com/2011/01/05/555405-para-el-nobel-joseph-stiglitz-la-argentina-es-un-ejemplo-seguir-las-economias-crisis

 

[ajoknoblauch]

You start to argument like your tea-party "friends" you like to discuss with about obamacare etc.!

The fact is that a neo-liberal reform lead to a major economic crisis in Chile starting in 1982. This has nothing to do with Argentina ... what is your point?

Your are absolutely correct. Especially in the rural areas the public healthcare system seems to be even a better option than private clinics (at least from my experience in the south).

I would never create policies based on fairy tale fantasies. I am a realist and a pragmatist.

 

[germano]

I would never create policies based on fairy tale fantasies. I am a realist and a pragmatist.

That is good to hear eh read.