James Of England

Because human nature hasn't changed as dramatically as one might think, and the exploration of that subject is helpful for understanding political, scientific, and business dynamics. We lack the time to evaluate all the claims we ought to take positions on through an independent and thorough exploration of that particular position, so we mostly go through life making judgments about the messengers.

To put it another way, if you believe that being on the left hand side of the autistic spectrum means lacking a theory of mind (a psychology doctrine I've never found completely satisfying), the role of classical literature is to make us less autistic. Does that make sense? · _{1 hour ago}

James Of England

Yes. That really is part of what good literature in schools is for; developing theory of mind. · _{12 minutes ago}

Dan Hanson

Who decides whether 'America' is saving enough?  By what objective standard? 

I happen to agree that there aren't enough private savings.  But I think the culprit for that is the expansive welfare state.  Savings have been historically set aside for three reasons:  In case of financial emergency,  to qualify for large loans like a car or home, and for retirement.  If the government is providing for your retirement and a social safety net is protecting you from emergencies,  why should you save?  If the government is guaranteeing home loans so you only need 5% down or less, why should you save for a home? If the government provides student loans, why save for college?

Severely Ltd.

It's true that she hit a nerve Joseph, but only because this is the vague objection that is raised every time really substantial curtailing of the state is discussed around here.

--below-- · _{8 hours ago}

FreeWifiDuringSermon

You've refuted nothing. Let's do another lap. You believe informational texts will better prepare students for the type of writing they'll need to do in the working world.  I believe reading and analyzing classics produces higher quality writers because they know what great writing looks like.  In raw utilitarian terms, reading and writing about Shakespeare and Homer made me a more productive participant in the economy.  It didn't matter that I wasn't trained in "business writing". In fact, it may have helped that I wasn't trained in it.  · _{3 hours ago}

ShellGamer:

But I don't see any basis for a presumption that domestic savings and investment must equal. At different points, one can be greater than the other. · _{3 hours ago}

Dan Hanson

I'd say that if those countries want to subsidize U.S. investment by flooding the country with cheap dollars, let them!   It's not distorting the market if the cost of money is a real factor of production.  In other words, if a long-term project is worth doing at 2% interest rates but not worth doing at 5% interest rates, and China comes along and essentially offers 2% loans, then that investment is worth making.   If the interest rate is artificially low and doesn't represent the real value of the money, then it's the Chinese that will take it on the chin - not Americans.  · _{3 hours ago}

Dan Hanson

Yes, but why is this a problem?  Why is it wrong to run a current account deficit?  I seem to recall a time when everyone was worried that Japan was going to 'buy up America' because it was collecting so much American money due to the constant trade deficit the U.S. faced against Japan.  What happened, was that Japan bought a whole lot of very expensive real estate in America, and then sold back much of it for pennies on the dollar when their economy turned sour.  America wound up benefiting greatly from that. 

Rachel Lu

Rejecting an argument because it sounds kind of like something the left would say is just reactionary. And I haven't proposed anything positive. I've only pointed out that Fred's suggestion about how human society works  is a little too simple. Let me add this, though: there have been many human societies that I wouldn't want to live in. Overregulation isn't the only route to awfulness. · _{22 minutes ago}

ShellGamer: Are you adopting Keynes's view that the appropriate level of savings is the residual domestic product after whatever level of consumption is needed to maintain near-term full employment? Regardless of long-term consequences?

You also ducked my point on autarky. I assume you would concede that a country need not produce all of its own raw materials for its industry--that importation of materials may be economical efficient. Where is it written that a country must be entirely self-sufficient in producing its own capital? Could not comparative advantages exist in savings, leading to some countries having capital inflows and others outflows? · _{11 minutes ago}