# No government in the US. What is going on?



## Chouan

No government in the US. What is going on? Are the Republicans deliberately targetting Public Sector workers in their political game, or do they not care?


----------



## Howard

It's a partial shutdown.


----------



## gaseousclay

Chouan said:


> No government in the US. What is going on? Are the Republicans deliberately targetting Public Sector workers in their political game, or do they not care?


they don't care. the Teahadist movement has slowly taken over the Republican Party and are hell bent on bringing the entire world economy onto the brink of disaster. The sad part is, it's grandstanding and nothing more. They lost the election and are still butt-hurt about it so they'll do whatever they can do to hurt President Obama.


----------



## eagle2250

Given the collection of charlatans, fools and thieves we have elected to populate our present day Congress (both Republican and Democrats), what other outcome would you expect? However, your OP contains an erroneous assumption that there is "no government in the US." In actuality only 'non-essential' personnel have been sent home. The essential, constitutionally prescribed functions, will continue to be carried out. Perhaps there is a positive lesson to be learned here? If a governmental function is considered non-essential, why-oh-why are we spending taxpayer money to perform such? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan

So National Parks, museums, the consulate system, the issuing of passports, the civil service, public education, the Post Office, anything that isn't Air Traffic Control and the armed forces, which we are told are all that is operating, are non-essential?


----------



## Tilton

Well, you started off on the right track, but the federal government has little to do with paying public educators in the US so they stay, civil servants working in banking (OCC, FDIC, FR, etc. because they are all independently funded) will continue working, as will almost all state department consulates for visas and passports (these are mostly funded by fees anyway), the postal service will not send anyone home (self-funded), etc. Agencies most hit by the shutdown are places like HUD, where only employees who work in mortgages or homelessness issues will stay, or the Census Bureau, where everyone will probably be sent home. 

This is a partial shutdown - ie. non-essential people. Are you an electrical engineer at NASA working on some far-off project that will never see the light of day, or do you do ground-water testing for the DOD in Northern Arizona? If the answer is yes, you are non-essential, you go home. 

Humorously, I am not furloughed because my contract is paid as a grant in lump-sum, however, many of the people I work with at HHS are being sent home at 12:30 today, so while I'm sitting at work getting paid, I can't do a lot of things because my counterparts at other agencies are non-essential.


----------



## Dmontez

It can not be said any better than this!



eagle2250 said:


> positive lesson to be learned here? If a governmental function is considered non-essential, why-oh-why are we spending taxpayer money to perform such? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan

Sorry, my mistake in relying on the BBC, and not realising that most US government functions are State based, not Federal.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan, lots of state-based functions are backed in various ways by federal functions. State-level government services often begin to erode when the related federal systems go down.

What we've got is the result of re-districting strategies that have created a disproportionate number of *very* conservative districts. There is no chance of a Democrat winning those, and the only competition for a member from those districts comes in the primaries. And the challenges will only come from the far right. So members from those districts fear only the right-wing. The right-wing's hatred of government knows few, if any, bounds. So shutting down government sounds affirmatively *good* to them.

And remember that their fundamental sales pitch to voters is that "government is bad." If that's the sales pitch, anything that makes government perform poorly will drive future sales!

Now, I don't know why one would turn over the wheel to a group of people who just do not believe in the institution as a whole. It's like getting into a car with a rabid anti-car activist who is perfectly willing to crash the car in order to demonstrate how dangerous cars are! But about 45% of the populace here wants to do exactly that, and through gerrymandering, they've managed to get control of about 55% of house seats.

In the long run, this gambit is yet another strategic misstep by the GOP. They really are working VERY hard to kill themselves as a viable national party. I'm hoping a 3rd party - perhaps the Libertarians - will manage to completely replace them in the next 2 decades.


----------



## Tilton

CuffDaddy said:


> Chouan, lots of state-based functions are backed in various ways by federal functions. State-level government services often begin to erode when the related federal systems go down.


This will be resolved before that really comes into play, so I don't think it is too much of a concern. Local governments will be almost entirely spared unless this drags on for months. States can all survive a full week of federal shutdown, even for any program that isn't forward-paid. Non-forward-paid programs will start feeling the impact after a week, depending on the budget of the state. Most states will probably fund these programs with the hopes of being reimbursed for the work once the federal gov gets back up and running. States with smaller coffers will probably partially shutdown those programs after a week or two of federal shutdown. It is also worth noting that in most states, most of the major programs are forward-paid and wouldn't really be hit until 1/1/14 since most programs are already authorized to use the remainder of their FY2013 budget through the end of the calendar year or until their new budget and or RFP proposal has been authorized (which ever comes first).

With regard to gerrymandering, it isn't just one party that does it - the both do it, and successfully. This go-round, republicans certainly got the upper hand, gerrymandering in approximately 6 seats, but that is far from the results of every election: democrats gerrymander as many seats in the long-term as republicans do, of course, just at different times.


----------



## Joseph Peter

This is just a preliminary battle in the lunacy that passes for the federal government...the main event is later this month over the debt ceiling.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Tilton, I agree. The effects on state government take time to really be felt, and I'm hopeful this farce will be concluded before then.

You are also correct that gerrymandering is not unique to the GOP. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats really ceded the moral high ground on this one a long time ago when they embraced using the Voting Rights Act to justify egregious gerrymandering to produce majority-minority districts (districts with 50+% African-America voters, which generally elect African-American representatives). Perversely, this worked as a form of packing gerrymandering in favor of the *GOP*. You're quite correct that neither party has behaved in a very trustworthy or above-board way when it comes to re-districting. But, at the moment, the entire country - including, if one takes a view that extends beyond the next election, the GOP itself - is being hurt primarily by GOP gerrymandering.

FWIW, I would favor going to something along these lines to make districting a non-political activity:


----------



## Tilton

Exploiting the VRA was a seriously short-sighted and somewhat humorous move on the left. While the were able to isolate left-voting minorities into one district and all but guarantee a win, the also isolated most of the left-leaning voters to one district, leaving the other district modified by the changes to be a right-leaning district. I hope the irony wasn't lost on either party later down the road.

But, anyway, lots of great government lockout happy hour specials up here in DC, and I've gotten several calls from gov friends wanting to use my deer hunting lease this week (this is the last week of early-season firearms in Loudoun County [the county in which Dulles is located], and "bountiful" does not come close to describing the season thus far). Alas, I'd wager the guy asking to use it on Friday will probably find himself back at his desk by that time - though I could certainly be wrong.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mmmm... venison.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed, fresh venison from a deer taken in the wild is so much more tasty and may I go so far as to say fulfilling, than all that 'socialized' pork that so routinely flows from D.C. into the coffers of all those members of the "what's-in-it-for-me" generation that constitute such an overwhelming percentage of our present day electorate! The best part is that to put venison on the plate, someone had to get off their butt, go the the woods and, perhaps even, break a sweat in the effort to harvest the game. What a novel concept...working for one's supper!


----------



## CuffDaddy

I'm with you there, eagle'. The best meal I've had in the last month was a plateful of dove breasts (grilled, with a dab of cream cheese and a slice of jalapeno, all wrapped in a slice of bacon) that was hot, itchy, sweaty fun to obtain!


----------



## eagle2250

^^My friend, your description of those dove breasts has me salivating on my keyboard, much like one of Pavlov's dogs! Sounds absolutely delicious.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Yep, one of my buddies made them out of birds we shot. First time I'd had them that way, and they were indeed delicious.


----------



## Tilton

I routinely cook mallard breasts that way, Cuff. They are similarly delicious, especially when cooked low and slow on the smoker.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> No government in the US. What is going on? Are the Republicans deliberately targetting Public Sector workers in their political game, or do they not care?


Public Sector workers??? oh I get it now.


----------



## gaseousclay

> If a governmental function is considered non-essential, why-oh-why are we spending taxpayer money to perform such? :icon_scratch:


I think most would argue that quite a few federal jobs are essential, like the EPA or the USDA. I don't know about you but I dislike the idea of buying vegetable produce or meat product that hasn't been inspected. There are numerous federal positions that do effect everyone and in their absence there will be consequences

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I hear what you are saying, gaseousclay. However, as was pointed out on the evening news on Tuesday, 81% of previously authorized spending by the Federal government is not affected by the shutdown. None of the agencies shutdown are totally shutdown. The percentages of employees sent home ranges from 91% down to as little as 9%. Also it seems instructive to note that even when agencies such as the EPA, FDA, USDA are fully up and operating, as little as !0% or far less of the meat, vegetables, and medicines we consume are actually inspected. In the light of day, what have we actually lost? Indeed, the federal salaries that are delayed (not lost) during the course of the shutdown are going to have a pronounced impact on local, affected vendors, but those salaries will eventually be made whole and those monies spent!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Well, most of FEMA is shut down. Hope we don't have any emergencies to manage in the next few days (weeks?).

Most/all scientific research is shut down. Hope we didn't need to expand human knowledge or understanding during this time period. 

VA benefit appeals processes are shut down. Hope no veterans were wrongfully denied the benefits they earned by risking their lives.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Not to sound overly harsh, but I would not count FEMA as such a big loss, given their past performance. Having been deployed on a number of their past missions, I am unable to recall any that were well managed, purchases wisely or properly made or expended funds adequately accounted for.

Why is our scientific research so catastrophically dependent on public funding? Where have all the private investors gone? Have we become so quick to allocate taxpayer dollars that we have killed off any private initiative in this regard?

While I am, without reservation, a fan of those dedicated, hardworking VA workers, the Agency has been so underfunded and understaffed throughout it's history that they have been failing to uphold the compact made with Americas fighting men and women for as long as any of us can remember. When have they not featured a stunningly overwhelming backlog of claims and appeals. Have you ever gone for treatment at a VA facility; appointments set four to eight months or more out, all day waits as many show up on the date of their appointments, and (get this) when a vet suffering with acute PTSD shows up for a mental health counseling visit, they spend a whole 15 minutes with the counselor. Again, big loss, huh?


----------



## CuffDaddy

FEMA had a bad track record for a period of time. It has done pretty well recently. And if you think their planning and coordination efforts don't make any difference on the ground, that just suggests that you don't know half of what actually goes on. 

And that's entirely normal. A modern government (not just in the U.S. - in any civilized country) is so large and complex that it is essentially impossible for anyone to fully comprehend even a small fraction of all the direct and indirect effects of its operations. That may counsel, ultimately, for moderation and restraint in policy choices, but it's just plain ignorance to claim that the government doesn't do anything, or doesn't do anything important or beneficial. It's like a layperson opening up a computer, seeing a bunch of wires and chips that don't appear to move, and concluding that the only really essential part must be the exhaust/cooling fan, since we can see its movement. 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't ASK what all the wires and chips do, nor that we should be satisfied with any old answer. But assuming that, just because we can't easily see the importance or efficacy, there isn't any... well, that's just folly.

Full disclosure: Though I'm 100% private sector, I'm the son of a career civil servant, and the brother of another. They both work (well, worked, since my father is now semi-retired) as hard as any private enterprise owner or employee. If you talked to them about their work, the importance became apparent, but only once you spent a decent amount of time understanding the complexity of the issues that they were/are dealing with. Either one of them could have made more money in the private sector, but chose to stay in civil service because they believed it was important, and that they were/are helping people and the world. I'm not so naive as to think their mindset and approach are universal, but they're not unique, either. That all informs my views on government; you can call it bias if you like.

BTW, the VA had been getting their backlog down over recent months, thanks to mandatory overtime. That's shut down now, though, so the backlog will build again. And the VA system is also something I know a bit about, and not just because my grandfather (a WWII Army Air Corp vet) spent a lot of time in/around it. For a time, my wife worked as a congressional staffer, essentially helping vets navigate the VA system, pressuring VA personnel to provide treatment or benefits, etc. I certainly agree the VA has generally been a disgrace, and a breach of the contract with our servicemen and servicewomen. But making it function worse doesn't seem like the answer. Maybe that's just me, though.


----------



## Tilton

Let's be a bit less alarmist here.

SOME scientific research has shutdown - like all of NASA, most of CDC and NIH. Certainly ALL major scientific research has not entirely shutdown as much of it is done by universities. Further, most major breakthroughs take years, so a few days (or ever a couple weeks) will not be horrifically detrimental to the world of science. Labs that have on-going projects that will requirement maintenance in the mean time still have furloughed employees tending to the research/experiments. 

W/r/t the VA backlog - we may as well use their own language here: because of the recent mandatory overtime, the VA THINKS that the backlog is shrinking. However, because they didn't really know how big it was to begin with (with file upon file stacked in basements and storage closets around the country for years - maybe decades), they really don't know if they are making a significant impact given the rate at which new claims are filed. 

I, too, had a father who spent his entire 46 year career as a civil servant - indeed, his entire career was spent with a single federal agency - and I am a federal contractor myself. Living in DC and having many friends who work directly and indirectly for the federal government, I really think it is probably at least somewhat overblown outside of this region. The unreported numbers of federal workers are those of contractors, who comprise probably >50% of all job duties, at least in the DC-area. Those jobs are no furloughed and contractors still go to work - their employers (BAH, GD, and the like) are all forward-pay contracts. My folks were telling me that the news where they live was reporting that DC was "eerily empty" for rush hour traffic. Let me tell you - that is not the case. Just as much traffic as usual.


----------



## Tilton

I will also add that I've been seeing all sorts of ridiculous news from around the country on the WWII memorial closing. Even before the shutdown actually happened, NPS stated that monuments and the national mall would remain available for first amendment right activities, specifically noting that the Honor Rides qualify as a first amendment right activity. So, not that I'm saying anyone is, but in case you were thinking about it: don't get your feathers too ruffled over a non-issue that has been turned into a political hit-scoring circus by politicians who absolutely know better.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Tilton, when I said "research," I of course meant research that actual Federal-employee scientists were doing. There's obviously a huge amount of research that is not directly done by the feds, and that will go on. If the shutdown lingers for too long, that will be impacted, too.

If your point is that a few days of shutdown is not immediate armagedon, I agree.


----------



## Tilton

The biggest impact for me with the government shutdown is 1) there is no urgency for me to submit my usual weekly program analytics report because everyone to whom I submit it is not in the office and 2) the striper are just starting to show themselves in sizes larger than the little 12" schoolies and my favorite two spots for pre-work striper on the fly rod are shut down because they are part of the NPS. 

Needless to say, I lead a hard life during government shutdown.

In all seriousness, I'm very thankful that a paycheck will hit my bank account tomorrow morning at 9AM and my heart goes out to those who will not - especially those who spent this week in the office all the same.


----------



## eagle2250

CuffDaddy said:


> FEMA had a bad track record for a period of time. It has done pretty well recently. And if you think their planning and coordination efforts don't make any difference on the ground, that just suggests that you don't know half of what actually goes on.
> 
> And that's entirely normal. A modern government (not just in the U.S. - in any civilized country) is so large and complex that it is essentially impossible for anyone to fully comprehend even a small fraction of all the direct and indirect effects of its operations. That may counsel, ultimately, for moderation and restraint in policy choices, but it's just plain ignorance to claim that the government doesn't do anything, or doesn't do anything important or beneficial.....
> .......................
> 
> Full disclosure: Though I'm 100% private sector, I'm the son of a career civil servant, and the brother of another. They both work (well, worked, since my father is now semi-retired) as hard as any private enterprise owner or employee. If you talked to them about their work, the importance became apparent, but only once you spent a decent amount of time understanding the complexity of the issues that they were/are dealing with. Either one of them could have made more money in the private sector, but chose to stay in civil service because they believed it was important, and that they were/are helping people and the world. I'm not so naive as to think their mindset and approach are universal, but they're not unique, either. That all informs my views on government; you can call it bias if you like.
> ..............................
> ....


CuffDaddy: Please do not misunderstand me. I harbor no animus towards civil servants, but alas, I actually do know what goes on and I am firmly convinced that just as in the military, where the NCO corps are the one's that make it all work; in the civil service it is also the journey grade workers, the boots on the ground, that truly make our government work as well as it does. During my time as a civil servant, I functioned in positions graded from GS-11 to SES pay grades and I will tell you without reservation, the problems we face are not a result of the efforts of the boots on the ground, but rather they are the result of the leadership they receive! Patronage leadership appointments within the various government agencies are frequently a travesty and seriously hamper the best efforts of the agencies they are appointed to lead, regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat made the appointment!

I hope this clarifies the intent of my earlier post.


----------



## fishertw

Sort of like "jet jocks". You don't need them till you need them! Nobody calls a park ranger till the bears are in their tents.


----------



## Tilton

fishertw said:


> Sort of like "jet jocks". You don't need them till you need them! Nobody calls a park ranger till the bears are in their tents.


Thankfully, THOSE park rangers are generally still working. It is the NPS employees who clean bathroom, collect trash, maintain facilities, etc. that are furloughed.


----------



## L-feld

eagle2250 said:


> Given the collection of charlatans, fools and thieves we have elected to populate our present day Congress (both Republican and Democrats), what other outcome would you expect? However, your OP contains an erroneous assumption that there is "no government in the US." In actuality only 'non-essential' personnel have been sent home. The essential, constitutionally prescribed functions, will continue to be carried out. Perhaps there is a positive lesson to be learned here? If a governmental function is considered non-essential, why-oh-why are we spending taxpayer money to perform such? :icon_scratch:


I can only speak for myself, but just because my job was deemed "non-essential" doesn't mean my job is unimportant. My job exists because the 5th and 14th Amendments require due process before any taking of property. A long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence has determined that disability insurance benefits are a form of property and thus require due process. Additionally, the Administrative Procedures Act guarantees administrative appeal rights.

We have a disability insurance program set up in this country and whenever someone is denied benefits, they have the right to appeal their case. That right is constitutionally guaranteed and codified in law. Don't like it? Sorry, that's the law. Start a petition to repeal the due process clauses, see how that goes.

If I don't do my job, the government can't deny benefits to persons who do not qualify for them. Without an administrative appeals system every failed disability claimant would have to sue the government in Federal Court. Litigating every claim in court would not only clog up the court system, but the agency's legal costs would skyrocket.

I could be out in the private sector chasing ambulances or foreclosing on underwater mortgages. But instead, I'm saving the taxpayers money by effecting one of the most important provisions of the constitution. Maybe I'm not "essential," but I think i still deserve a little respect.


----------



## Bjorn

L-feld said:


> I can only speak for myself, but just because my job was deemed "non-essential" doesn't mean my job is unimportant. My job exists because the 5th and 14th Amendments require due process before any taking of property. A long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence has determined that disability insurance benefits are a form of property and thus require due process. Additionally, the Administrative Procedures Act guarantees administrative appeal rights.
> 
> We have a disability insurance program set up in this country and whenever someone is denied benefits, they have the right to appeal their case. That right is constitutionally guaranteed and codified in law. Don't like it? Sorry, that's the law. Start a petition to repeal the due process clauses, see how that goes.
> 
> If I don't do my job, the government can't deny benefits to persons who do not qualify for them. Without an administrative appeals system every failed disability claimant would have to sue the government in Federal Court. Litigating every claim in court would not only clog up the court system, but the agency's legal costs would skyrocket.
> 
> I could be out in the private sector chasing ambulances or foreclosing on underwater mortgages. But instead, I'm saving the taxpayers money by effecting one of the most important provisions of the constitution. Maybe I'm not "essential," but I think i still deserve a little respect.


Good point.


----------



## Bjorn

eagle2250 said:


> CuffDaddy: Please do not misunderstand me. I harbor no animus towards civil servants, but alas, I actually do know what goes on and I am firmly convinced that just as in the military, where the NCO corps are the one's that make it all work; in the civil service it is also the journey grade workers, the boots on the ground, that truly make our government work as well as it does. During my time as a civil servant, I functioned in positions graded from GS-11 to SES pay grades and I will tell you without reservation, the problems we face are not a result of the efforts of the boots on the ground, but rather they are the result of the leadership they receive! Patronage leadership appointments within the various government agencies are frequently a travesty and seriously hamper the best efforts of the agencies they are appointed to lead, regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat made the appointment!
> 
> I hope this clarifies the intent of my earlier post.


Being mid level myself, I'd have say I disagree. Nobody likes the boss, and management isn't easy...

The boots on the ground are not always the great harbingers of results and efficiency you're making them out to be, especially not when they have a distinct opinion on the goals of the operations that differ from what's been decided. 

I think you are selling management a little short. They, as most people, want to do a good job.

Granted, the NCO corps is important, but without officers there's no real command & control. Of course, if something doesn't work, it's their problem to fix it...

As for essential and non essential, that's a very hard thing to calculate. I would not want to decide if someone is "essential" or not, all through government. I'm surprised there is no legislative protection for state employee salary payments. Seems an odd employment agreement, where one can agree to be employed but can be sent home without pay, without the employment effectively terminating. I'm not sure but I don't think ceasing to pay government salaries would be legally possible over here...


----------



## Tilton

Boots on the ground type employees are often complacent and highly inefficient. Because it is so difficult, in many agencies, to get fired from the federal government, and because the annual pay increase is generally automatic, there is little urgency in most agencies - and that goes from the top to the bottom. I have yet to know of any agency where the lower employees are raring to go and are being held back by upper management. That is pretty far from the federal government I know.


----------



## eagle2250

L-feld said:


> I can only speak for myself, but just because my job was deemed "non-essential" doesn't mean my job is unimportant. My job exists because the 5th and 14th Amendments require due process before any taking of property. A long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence has determined that disability insurance benefits are a form of property and thus require due process. Additionally, the Administrative Procedures Act guarantees administrative appeal rights.
> ............
> I could be out in the private sector chasing ambulances or foreclosing on underwater mortgages. But instead, I'm saving the taxpayers money by effecting one of the most important provisions of the constitution. Maybe I'm not "essential," but I think i still deserve a little respect.


It was not and certainly is not my intent to disrespect you, L-feld, or anyone else. I am simply saying that our federal reach has seemingly expanded into areas and to such a degree that such activities might have been better left to be handled at the more local or (gasp!) even the individual level. The founding fathers never intended for our federal government to provide cradle to grave care and nurturing for each one of us! However. keep the faith...this partial shutdown will end and all those furloughed workers will get the salary payments that would have been earned, just like the hours had actually been worked. And we wonder why we are drowning in debt? :crazy:


----------



## Bjorn

eagle2250 said:


> It was and certainly is not my intent to disrespect you, L-feld, or anyone else. I am simply saying that our federal reach has seemingly expanded into ares and to such a degree that such activities might have been better left to be handled at the more local or (gasp!) individual level. The founding fathers never intended for our federal government to provide cradle to grave care and nurturing for each one of us!


Is the general idea that you are forever bound to whatever you can interpret as being their original intentions?


----------



## Yodan731

Tilton said:


> Boots on the ground type employees are often complacent and highly inefficient. Because it is so difficult, in many agencies, to get fired from the federal government, and because the annual pay increase is generally automatic, there is little urgency in most agencies - and that goes from the top to the bottom. I have yet to know of any agency where the lower employees are raring to go and are being held back by upper management. That is pretty far from the federal government I know.


If the lower level employees are unmotivated and poorly performing, look no further than their management to find out the reason why. Unmotivated and poorly performing employees (when they represent the norm rather than the exception) are caused by poor management.

I'm a furloughed federal employee. I am the Financial Officer (mid level management position) for a local field office of a federal law enforcement organization that will remain nameless. Our law enforcement officers are considered essential and are still on the job. The support employees, like me, are not.

What does that mean? Purchases aren't being made (there isn't any money anyway), worker's comp claims aren't being processed, maintenance functions have ceased, and there are many other tasks not being accomplished. You think that law enforcement functions will continue because the employees are deemed essential, but just wait until their vehicles run out of fuel. We aren't paying our bills right now either, wait until verizon shuts down our phones for non-payment (cell and land line), or computer problems can't be resolved because the IT guys are all furloughed.

This can't go on for too long, or even the "essential employees" won't be able to do their jobs.

Fortunately, I have enough savings to see my family through a period of furlough, but some of our employees are supporting families on incomes of 30-40k, it is going to be much tougher for them to get through this if it goes on for a month or two, especially if they don't receive back pay, which seems increasingly likely.


----------



## eagle2250

Bjorn said:


> Is the general idea that you are forever bound to whatever you can interpret as being their original intentions?


That is not what I am saying. Rather, my point is that when we get too quick with the governmental handouts, we destroy private sector and individual incentive to "do it themselves!' Individual incentive is the catalyst that makes a capitalistic economy work. When that is gone, we will fail and future generations will be left holding the bag.


----------



## Yodan731

Most people recognize that the founders lived in entirely different times and try to interpret how the constitution applies to our times. It's hard to imagine what the founders would think of modern medicine, as they couldn't imagine almost any of our current technology. I find it humorous when people say that the founders wouldn't want socialized medicine. How do we know what an 18th century man would think about 21st century technology? They may view medicine in the same way they viewed national defense, a public good to be provided by the government.

Hell, they probably couldn't imagine municipal garbage removal services or public water utilities, as it was so far outside their experience.



Bjorn said:


> Is the general idea that you are forever bound to whatever you can interpret as being their original intentions?


----------



## eagle2250

Tilton said:


> Boots on the ground type employees are often complacent and highly inefficient. Because it is so difficult, in many agencies, to get fired from the federal government, and because the annual pay increase is generally automatic, there is little urgency in most agencies - and that goes from the top to the bottom. I have yet to know of any agency where the lower employees are raring to go and are being held back by upper management. That is pretty far from the federal government I know.


I most strongly disagree with your characterization of journey grade civil servants as a group. Perhaps selected individuals perform as you describe, but my observations as a former mid and senior level manager in the federal civil service stand in direct contradiction to the opinion expressed above. As for the performance of management, I did not say "the lower employees are being held back by upper management," but rather that the political hacks, appointed by elected officials to senior leadership positions in each agency are the villains who are responsible for much of the inefficiency and with whom the career managers must struggle to limit the damage they may cause.

Consider a current example of such chicanery. Just in the past two weeks our President, met with his cabinet officials and directed that each come up with ways to make the effects of any shutdown of governmental functions seem as extreme as was possible and garner the greatest public reaction. One of our relatively new Defense Secretary's recommendations was to cancel upcoming football games for our military service academies. When the ref (in this instance public reaction) called BS, the Secretary and DOD back off and the games are back on.Really, Secretary Hagel, is that the best you can do(!)?


----------



## L-feld

eagle2250 said:


> It was not and certainly is not my intent to disrespect you, L-feld, or anyone else. I am simply saying that our federal reach has seemingly expanded into areas and to such a degree that such activities might have been better left to be handled at the more local or (gasp!) even the individual level. The founding fathers never intended for our federal government to provide cradle to grave care and nurturing for each one of us! However. keep the faith...this partial shutdown will end and all those furloughed workers will get the salary payments that would have been earned, just like the hours had actually been worked. And we wonder why we are drowning in debt? :crazy:


Once again, I can't speak for other parts of the government, but as far as the disability insurance program goes, the people who receive those benefits can't do it themselves. They are people who literally cannot work. It is ultimately cheaper for the taxpayer to give them a small stipend and provide medicare than to wait until they encounter catastrophic losses and present to an ER. Unless yiu want to take away tax breaks and federal funding for private hospitals (which I am all for).

And the program is primarily administered at the state level. It's only the appeals process that is administered by the fed.

I'm not going to claim that there aren't hustlers who try to game the system, but we do a pretty good job of weeding them out. And at any rate, Social Security consistently runs on a surplus and is funded primarily by FICA taxes (the ones paid by the 47% of the country who "don't pay any income taxes"). Those surpluses go into the SSA trust fund, which buys up federal government bonds. It currently hold about $6 trillion wortg, which means that over a third of our "debt" is just on paper. It's debt that the government owes to itself.

So the reality is that we're not as deep in debt as you think and the government is a lot more efficient and decentralized than you think. At least not when it comes to Social Security.

As far as other components go I can't speak to that. But SSA is a large part of the government, so it's best not to make those kind of generalizations.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mrkleen

After years of battle - the GOP lost the argument and the Affordable Care Act passed
Unhappy, the GOP tried to declare it unconstitutional and take it to the Supreme Court = They Lost.
Unhappy with that, they tried 43 times to defund the law, and each time = They Lost.
They ran a candidate in 2012 who said his very first act if elected president would be to repeal the ACA = He Lost.

Now, being the sore losers they are - the GOP is willing to risk throwing the whole economy off track - by shutting down the government and in 2 weeks, refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

The bottom line is this: Republicans are terrified that Americans who will have greater access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act will realize that the new law is actually not going to destroy the country - that, in fact, it is going to improve life for tens of millions of Americans, including many who are poor red-state Republicans who are currently devout supporters of the Republican Party. If ACA is a disaster, republicans will win the next 5 elections in landslides. *But if it works and helps people, they are up sh!t creek, and they know it.*


----------



## Tilton

Except that this is how the government works - don't like a piece of legislation?: try to get it repealed one way or another. It isn't like they're cheating, they're just using the last (probably) weapon left in their arsenal.


----------



## L-feld

eagle2250 said:


> I most strongly disagree with your characterization of journey grade civil servants as a group. Perhaps selected individuals perform as you describe, but my observations as a former mid and senior level manager in the federal civil service stand in direct contradiction to the opinion expressed above. As for the performance of management, I did not say "the lower employees are being held back by upper management," but rather that the political hacks, appointed by elected officials to senior leadership positions in each agency are the villains who are responsible for much of the inefficiency and with whom the career managers must struggle to limit the damage they may cause.
> 
> Consider a current example of such chicanery. Just in the past two weeks our President, met with his cabinet officials and directed that each come up with ways to make the effects of any shutdown of governmental functions seem as extreme as was possible and garner the greatest public reaction. One of our relatively new Defense Secretary's recommendations was to cancel upcoming football games for our military service academies. When the ref (in this instance public reaction) called BS, the Secretary and DOD back off and the games are back on.Really, Secretary Hagel, is that the best you can do(!)?


Public reaction to the shut down is a funny thing. The public has gotten so angry about such meaningless things. The fact that the biggest protests have related to a football game, a war memorial and the f-ing panda cam is just insulting.

There are 800,000 workers (plus another 100,000 small business owners and employees who depend on government customers) who are out of work. There are another 1.5 million who are working for free right now. A good majority of them are living paycheck to paycheck.

And all people care about is a football game? Some of my co-workers are going to default on mortgage payments because of the tea party's little tantrum.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## L-feld

As for government workers, I only worked in one private firm before joining the government. The paralegals at my old firn were paid very poorly and treated very poorly by management. Turnover was very high (sometimes people lasted for only a few weeks), and I spent as much time training paralegals as I did anything else. The morale was low and the work product was generally poor. The support staff actively tried to do as little work as possible, partially out of spite. Most od the attorneys worked hard, but that was mainly because we were fresh out of law school and had little to no job prospects and wanyed to make a name for ourselves any way we could.

I wouldn't necessarily say the support staff at SSA are the most voraciously motivated bunch in the world, but most people feel that they are doing important work and getting paid fairly, even if the work is a bit dull at times. As a result, the morale is substantially higher than my old firm. Everyone is friendlier, nobody actively tries to sabotage the workplace, nobody spends half the day complaining about how much they hate their job.

In my experience, the treatment of federal workers actually makes them better, not worse.

As for the attorneys, the positions are extremely competitive. When I applied, I had to fight tooth and nail against about 1000 other applicants to get the job, becauae (1) jobs for lawyers are scarce and (2) government jobs are (in the long run) stable.

At any rate, federal employees (present cirumstances excluded) are treated fairly well and, in my experience, that makes the government run more smoothly.

In the past year, however, federal workers have taken so much abuse, it's killing the emvironment. I wouldn't be shocked if some of my co-workers get bitter and lose their efficiency as a result.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## eagle2250

mrkleen said:


> .....
> ...........
> If ACA is a disaster, republicans will win the next 5 elections in landslides. *But if it works and helps people, they are up sh!t creek, and they know it.*


If your predictions are accurate and the first week of the sign-ups is any indication of the future for the ACA, the Republicans are going to be doing a whole lot of celebrating over the course of the next five elections! However in any future elections, if one of these self-serving career elected officials are running (Republican or Democrat), "we the people" should bounce them out on their respective a**es and elect real elective representatives to serve our public interests..


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> If your predictions are accurate and *the first week of the sign-ups is any indication of the future for the ACA*, the Republicans are going to be doing a whole lot of celebrating over the course of the next five elections! However in any future elections, if one of these self-serving career elected officials are running (Republican or Democrat), "we the people" should bounce them out on their respective a**es and elect real elective representatives to serve our public interests..


Huh? 3 million people tried to sign up on Tuesday alone. The fact that the website could not handle that volume of traffic refutes your point completely.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> Is the general idea that you are forever bound to whatever you can interpret as being their original intentions?


The United States Constitution defines the structure of the general (federal) government, protects individual liberties, and contains some fundamental law. One need not resort to "interpretation" to realize that the general government created was indeed a limited one; even the most ardent "nationalists" conceded that point during the ratification debates in the states (and the text of the document supports this). What became problematic - and was presciently pointed out by the Anti-Federalists - was that the centralizers, nationalists, quasi-autocrats would distort certain constitutional clauses to achieve their own ends.

They still do, unfortunately, as the vast majority of actions performed by all three branches of the federal government violate the Constitution in letter as well as spirit. To deny this is to not understand the history of the document, as well as the salient antecedents.


----------



## Tiger

And of course, if the Constitution needs to be changed, Article V provides for amendments. Otherwise, the powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states - there is undoubtedly ample power at the state level to achieve whatever it is that the people of the states wish to achieve...as long as they obey their state constitutions!


----------



## L-feld

Tiger said:


> And of course, if the Constitution needs to be changed, Article V provides for amendments. Otherwise, the powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states - there is undoubtedly ample power at the state level to achieve whatever it is that the people of the states wish to achieve...as long as they obey their state constitutions!


Except when it comes to interstate commerce. And in today's world, nearly all commerce is interstate commerce. Thus the necessity of commercial regulation at the federal level.

Federal regulation was always necessary to solve commons, anti-commons and various free rider issues. Back in the days of the framers, it was necessary to ensure that each state levied the same tariff on imports or charged the same excise tax on whiskey, so that one state would not gain unfair advantage for its merchants. Today, it is the necessity to ensure that each state complies with nationwide healthcare programs or environmental regulations, etc.

And the framers understood that the constitution would be adapted over time by the Supreme Court in order to meet the contemporary needs of the country. Why? Because they modeled the courts after the English courts with they were already familiar. The original intent was to have a common law system that continually evolved with the country. If they wanted to define the role in a more elaborate code, they could have. Civil Law systems were well established at the time and the framers could have taken their cues from close allies like the French. But they didn't.

And when John Marshall consolidated the Supreme Court's power to "say what the law is" most of the framers were alive and still active in politics. Was Marbury v. Madison a controversial decision? No. The idea that the constitution was a loose framework to be interpreted by the court was well accepted. Strict constructionism was itself a 20th century invention courtesy of New Deal liberals seeking to shift court scrutiny from economic regulation to civil liberties. Boy was there blowback. I'm sure Hugo Black is rolling over in his grave.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Shaver

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." 

Thomas Paine*

*one of England's greatest gifts to the Americas. You're very welcome. :icon_smile:


----------



## Tiger

L-feld, you distort much to make your points. The "interstate commerce clause" could not possibly mean what you say it means, for it would have given incredible power to the federal government re: economic matters, and no state would have ratified such a centralizing, autocratic document so soon after breaking away from British hegemony.

The notion that the Supreme Court has these special powers of adaptation and interpretation is also false. First, no such power exists in Article III. Second, the Constitution is a creation of the states; why would they cede power to a handful of federal magistrates? Lastly, the notion that the federal government (via court decisions as well as executive and congressional ones) gets to decide its own power is the epitome of autocracy. Do you really wish to make the argument that the founding generation consisted of autocrats?

You are also wrong about John Marshall; he was a nationalist and centralizer whose arguments during the 1780s were soundly rejected by many. In fact, he lobbied for Virginia's ratification of the Constitution based on the limited nature of federal power. Of course, when he became Chief Justice, his tune changed. He's a dishonorable character in the eyes of many...

"Loose framework"? Is that what Jefferson thought? Mason? Wilson? Sherman? Dickinson? Even Madison? The preponderance of historical evidence says the exact opposite - the Constitution was a document of definite powers and prohibitions; it was not an amorphous work to be placed in the hands of the judiciary. You're making an unsustainable argument based on nothing but your political opinions and lawyer's perspective.

If you really believe that "strict constructionism" began with the New Deal, you have distorted actual history into an unrecognizable mess. The New Deal Court (after the post-Court packing nonsense and subsequent jurisprudential "shift in philosophy") helped destroy whatever was left of the original Constitution! 

Your post, L-feld, and the Court rulings and justices you cite, prove my point - the federal government led by its centralizers and power-hungry adherents have distorted the Constitution for its own power and political aggrandizement. Just about everything you wrote, and the subsequent history of what passes for "constitutional law" would have shocked - and nauseated - the founding generation.


----------



## eagle2250

mrkleen said:


> Huh? 3 million people tried to sign up on Tuesday alone. The fact that the website could not handle that volume of traffic refutes your point completely.


The numbers you report are misleading. The vast majority of the 3 million hits you claim were a much smaller number of potential applicants/citizens, unable to gain access to the sites, angrily and repeatedly punching the enter keys on their respective keyboards. The network news reports were all over the map with their actual numbers of potential applicants, but they all were were reporting numbers, at worst in the hundreds and at best in the thousands...far less than the millions you reference! Also how about those 26 (as I recall) states opting out of the Obamacare scheme/fiasco and choosing instead to come up with their own versions of a better mousetrap? It just dosen't sound to many of us that Obamacare is the rousing success you claim it to be. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
> 
> Thomas Paine*
> 
> *one of England's greatest gifts to the Americas. You're very welcome. :icon_smile:


As powerful a thought that exists in _Common Sense_. Thank you, Shaver, for reminding us of our indebtedness to Paine (and grudgingly), England!


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> The numbers you report are misleading. The vast majority of the 3 million hits you claim were a much smaller number of potential applicants/citizens, unable to gain access to the sites, angrily and repeatedly punching the enter keys on their respective keyboards. The network news reports were all over the map with their actual numbers of potential applicants, but they all were were reporting numbers, at worst in the hundreds and at best in the thousands...far less than the millions you reference! Also how about those 26 (as I recall) states opting out of the Obamacare scheme/fiasco and choosing instead to come up with their own versions of a better mousetrap? It just dosen't sound to many of us that Obamacare is the rousing success you claim it to be. :icon_scratch:


You can keep your head in the sand on this, but while the name Obamacare has been poised by the republican echo chamber - if you dig beneath the surface most Americans already like the guts of the ACA and will like it even more as it continues its roll out.

I does a bunch of things that the vast majority of Americans agree with -this is why Republicans are in such a desperate rush to try and defund ObamaCare even if it means holding our economy hostage and even if most voters, including Republicans, oppose the wasteful, repeated defunding attempts. 
After all, the law is already popular when it's not fully in effect and most people haven't felt its benefits. We all know what will happen when ObamaCare takes effect - and works!

Republicans who are throwing temper tantrums over sour grapes need to grow up. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed it into law and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

The cost of doing nothing on health care reform was too great and the cost of repeatedly refighting the political battles of the past is obscene.

But then again, it makes perfect sense why Republicans refuse to just give up and shut up - because the minute they do, there will be no more distractions from all the good things about ObamaCare.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/201...e-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> As powerful a thought that exists in _Common Sense_. Thank you, Shaver, for reminding us of our indebtedness to Paine (and grudgingly), England!


I suspect that you may already be aware of this essay Tiger, but if not (and for the benefit of others) the text which can be found at the link is a rather lovely manifesto. And to my mind the second greatest component of the Wildean oeuvre.

"Autrefois, j'etais poete et tyran. Maintenant je suis artiste et anarchiste" 
 - O. Wilde


----------



## Joseph Peter

Dear Mr. Shaver:

Well that about sums it up doenst it? Thanks a million, perfidious Albion!

P.S. Just a literary joke. I've the highest regard for our British friends and their contributions over the centuries to the planet.


----------



## Tilton

Back to the shutdown: new article out regarding the questions of "how big is it?" states, confirmed by Senate aide, that 83% of the government is operational and 17% is on shutdown, in terms of spending.


----------



## bernoulli

Believe it or not but most R&D in the US (and everywhere else in the world) is publicly funded. The reason is that basic science is a public good and thus most private initiatives would not fund public goods, as they could no reap private benefits. The National Science Foundation, the DoD etc are the main drivers (but no the only drivers of course, as there is quite a number of private R&D going around) of scientific research. Most Universities rely on grants from the NSF for a lot of their research. There is a lot of private R&D, but public R&D is essential to expanding our knowledge of the world.



eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> Why is our scientific research so catastrophically dependent on public funding? Where have all the private investors gone? Have we become so quick to allocate taxpayer dollars that we have killed off any private initiative in this regard?


----------



## eagle2250

^^For the most part, I agree with pretty much every point you made, sir. However, That's the problem. I fear we as individuals and our institutions have grown far too dependent/reliant upon our government for so many of the things we should more properly be doing for ourselves. Hence we must serve witness to all these excessive and incessant trips to quaff our thirst for funds/services at the public trough. Socialism has in substantial and practical ways become our reality and all all that remains to be done at this point is to acknowledge such and declare individual and private sector initiative to be dead on arrival!

Jeez Louise, I do so hope that such is not the case! If Obamacare does catch on and is fully implemented, the public monies spent on funding it are going to absolutely dwarf the taxpayer dollar amounts needed to fund medicare and virtually insuring this nation's future financial insolvency.


----------



## bernoulli

There is absolutely no risk of insolvency, regardless of the outcome of Obamacare. No country can be insolvent on internal debt, only on external debt, for instance (as long as it prints its own currency). But more than that, insolvency would be prevented by the interelationship between monetary and fiscal policy, and the fact that the debt trajectory can be easily adjusted in the long run. Even Japan can live with over 200% of Net Public Debt/GDP. The only way for a worst case scenario to happen would be for the economy to collapse in terms of generating income, which would be the cause of anything resembling insolvency. As long as growth is not going down by 20%, the US is fine, Obamacare or not. I am sorry, but most of what the american media put forward as information regarding Economics is patently wrong. It is hard to watch, really.

One may have problems with deficits and debts, but there is no way that it can cause insolvency. National accounts do not work on the same level as personal accounts.

I am not arguing for Obamacare, but there is no possible link between Obamacare and fiscal insolvency. Unfortunately, you need to go further than Econ 101 for proving that, and most journalists cannot even muster Econ 101. Eagle, you can rest easy...



eagle2250 said:


> Jeez Louise, I do so hope that such is not the case! If Obamacare does catch on and is fully implemented, the public monies spent on funding it are going to absolutely dwarf the taxpayer dollar amounts needed to fund medicare and virtually insuring this nation's future financial insolvency.


----------



## mrkleen

Tilton said:


> Back to the shutdown: new article out regarding the questions of "how big is it?" states, confirmed by Senate aide, that 83% of the government is operational and 17% is on shutdown, in terms of spending.


And what parts that are "operational" are operating with employees who are not getting paid? And who is deciding what is essential?

-The Food and Drug Administration will *suspend routine food safety inspections*
-About half of the Defense Department's civilian employees will be furloughed and *all active military will have their checks delayed*.
-Visa and Passport applications on hold.
-CDC will be distributing *NO FLU SHOTS *as they have been furloughed
-No federal loans will be available.
-No Gun Permits will be issued.
-Federal courts will continue operating normally for about 10 business days after the start of a shutdown, If the shutdown continues, the judiciary will have to begin furloughs of employees 
-The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, *will stop providing assistance and food a week after any shut down*
-Federal occupational safety and health *inspectors will stop workplace inspections* except in cases of imminent danger.

But yeah, why worry, according to a senate aide, it isnt really a big deal


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> I am sorry, but most of what the american media put forward as information regarding Economics is patently wrong. It is hard to watch, really. One may have problems with deficits and debts, but there is no way that it can cause insolvency. National accounts do not work on the same level as personal accounts...Eagle, you can rest easy.


But we should not discount those deficits and debt, correct? Nearly a trillion dollars a year added to the national debt each year for the past few years, with total debt now at $17,000,000,000,000. If we include unfunded mandates, that number explodes to over $75 trillion - maybe far more.

None of us should rest easy - the United States is in fiscal peril, regardless of whether people are Keynesians or Austrians...


----------



## bernoulli

You are right that we cannot discount it entirely. We just don't need to wave the insolvency flag around.
BTW, deficit is down and so is debt/gdp. The trajectory of both is in the right direction - right now. The US is still far away from being in a comfortable fiscal position but it is far away from the fiscal collapse we see on the news.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013...of-gdp-as-debt-ceiling-no-vote-risks-all.html

But if you fancy being a Keynesian, then you need to have one eye open, but you can sleep easy. The unfunded part can be financed by future growth, but that is a bigger issue than current deficit and debt. However, I disagree with you, I don't think the US is in peril, and I am no hardcore Keynesian. I just look at the data. I also look at historical data and trends.



Tiger said:


> But we should not discount those deficits and debt, correct? Nearly a trillion dollars a year added to the national debt each year for the past few years, with total debt now at $17,000,000,000,000. If we include unfunded mandates, that number explodes to over $75 trillion - maybe far more.
> 
> None of us should rest easy - the United States is in fiscal peril, regardless of whether people are Keynesians or Austrians...


----------



## eagle2250

Bernoulli: My friend, your assessments are certainly less disturbing and, at our present juncture, perhaps even more comforting than those of the evening newscasters. At least you offer some degree of promise for a more positive fiscal future! A voice of reason in the midst of all this chaos and confusion is a good thing. Thank-you for that.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> BTW, deficit is down and so is debt/gdp. The trajectory of both is in the right direction - right now. The US is still far away from being in a comfortable fiscal position but it is far away from the fiscal collapse we see on the news...The unfunded part can be financed by future growth, but that is a bigger issue than current deficit and debt. However, I disagree with you, I don't think the US is in peril, and I am no hardcore Keynesian. I just look at the data. I also look at historical data and trends.


_FYI: I'm an economics dilettante and my main influence is Henry Hazlitt.
_
Actually, the long term projections (based on data, of course!) are staggeringly bad. The demographics are so skewed that we'll never have sufficient growth to offset the enormous costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Trends are helpful, but we're wading into unchartered waters. Looking at past trends won't matter in an entirely unprecedented economic environment.

I am more pessimistic than most; the outlook is incredibly bleak. Without radical changes to government spending (and tax policy) in a variety of spheres, we will collapse...


----------



## bernoulli

Tiger, I hold a PhD in Economics and although not a macroeconomist researcher I do teach the subject (my research is on IO, Corporate Finance and CG). If we are talking really long-term, than I can offer no predictions and you are right that demographics come into play and anything is possible. Also possible: innovation, flexibility, advancing age for retirement etc. Yes, there is reason to be bleak long-term, but also some movements that can counter it. I prefer the grounding of short-term dynamics. Maybe I am more Keynesian than I thought... Collapse is too strong a word, and I would not use it lightly. Any economy is a complex system and thus there are many possible outcomes and just too many variables in the long run. I am no fiscal hawk, and I do think fiscal reforms are necessary (tax hikes more than government spending though), but I don't equate no reforms with collapse. 

Eagle: I don't know why people wave around words like fiscal cliff, impending doom etc. The nature of the media beast, I guess. Things are neither too bleak nor rosy (not even if the economy starts growing at 3.5% again). The US economy is too strong for it. Look at the financial crisis. Any other economy would suffer much more than the US - you had a fever while the rest of the world would catch pneumonia.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> Collapse is too strong a word, and I would not use it lightly. Any economy is a complex system and thus there are many possible outcomes and just too many variables in the long run. I am no fiscal hawk, and I do think fiscal reforms are necessary (tax hikes more than government spending though), but I don't equate no reforms with collapse.


What level of debt would constitute "collapse"? One hundred trillion? Two hundred trillion? Our politicians not only fail to have answers to the problems they have caused, but most don't seem to recognize that we have the problems in the first place!

If you believe that tax hikes are the preferred fiscal reforms rather than reduced government spending, I'd like to know how significant tax increases helps an economy grow. Seems to me that such increases would exacerbate our problems. In addition, if government spending is spiraling out of control - and it has been for decades - why would you be gentle with spending reforms?

I think your solutions will only make matters worse - weaker growth, failure to address profligate spending - and hence do nothing to resolve the bleak future that I think is much closer than you believe.


----------



## bernoulli

Actually, reducing government spending or hiking taxes have exactly the same effect on growth. And if GDP is 100 trillion, debt at 100 trillion is ok.

I think the tax system is broken, unfair, bureaucratic and inefficient. Government spending is also inefficient and bureaucratic, so it is more a question of preference than necessity. 

Collapse can be defined as the inability of financing the debt. For that one should look at the term structure of the interest rate. If we see the 30-year interest rate at 3% like we do today, the idea of a collapse is laughable actually. First thing we would see would be a huge spike on long-term interest rates, which is actually low by historical standards. Make a graph of the term structure and you will see what I am talking about.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> Actually, reducing government spending or hiking taxes have exactly the same effect on growth. And if GDP is 100 trillion, debt at 100 trillion is ok. I think the tax system is broken, unfair, bureaucratic and inefficient. Government spending is also inefficient and bureaucratic, so it is more a question of preference than necessity.


I certainly believe that the tax system needs to be overhauled...

Hiking taxes takes money out of the private sector, killing growth (the private sector is the only one that can create jobs/growth). Reducing government spending either returns money to the private sector (a good thing, creating growth), or begins the process of reducing debt and interest payments - also a good thing, as it portends future growth.

How can these two things be the same? Maybe you really are more Keynesian than you inferred!:wink2:


----------



## bernoulli

er...Econ 101. GDP = C + I + G + X - M. C and I depends on t, the tax rate. Ignoring dynamics, raising t or reducing G have the same impact on GDP. What you refer to is something called crowding out, the idea that government spending crowd out private investments. But that is not necessarily true, and unless it happens there is simply no difference. I don't need to be a Keynesian for that. Tax hikes don't necessarily crowd out investments (especially if one simplifies the tax code and raise taxes on non-income generating capital) not government spending crow out investments (infrastructure, R&D etc).

Government is part of GDP, you know?

It seems you are attaching moral values to economic variables - less taxes good and government spending bad. However, it is easy to prove cases in which more government spending is good and less taxes are bad. Both are tools, and can either be misused or be efficient.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> er...Econ 101. GDP = C + I + G + X - M. C and I depends on t, the tax rate. Ignoring dynamics, raising t or reducing G have the same impact on GDP. What you refer to is something called crowding out, the idea that government spending crowd out private investments. But that is not necessarily true, and unless it happens there is simply no difference. I don't need to be a Keynesian for that. Tax hikes don't necessarily crowd out investments (especially if one simplifies the tax code and raise taxes on non-income generating capital) not government spending crow out investments (infrastructure, R&D etc). Government is part of GDP, you know? It seems you are attaching moral values to economic variables - less taxes good and government spending bad. However, it is easy to prove cases in which more government spending is good and less taxes are bad. Both are tools, and can either be misused or be efficient.


Don't get technical on me!:biggrin:

Government being a part of GDP is a problem; government spending artificially inflates GDP, but government spending is _*not *_private sector spending, as government has no money of its own - it must tax, borrow, or print to receive it. Are you arguing that government spending is no different than private spending? If so, I direct you to Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable.

Actually, I didn't attach moral values to taxing and spending. What I wrote was, "Hiking taxes takes money out of the private sector, killing growth (the private sector is the only one that can create jobs/growth). Reducing government spending either returns money to the private sector (a good thing, creating growth), or begins the process of reducing debt and interest payments - also a good thing, as it portends future growth." Government spending is sometimes necessary, of course. But such necessary spending should not be confused with economic stimulation of an economy. The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend!

If I'm wrong, explain logically why that is so...thanks!


----------



## bernoulli

I am sorry but government IS part of GDP accounting. It is neither a problem nor something good, it just is! And yes, government expenditure in final goods in services is as much part of GDP as private spending in a static model of the economy. GDP measures sales of goods and services, regardless of who produces or consumes them.

And you are wrong when you say that "The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend!" Economics is NOT a zero-sum game, nor is spending. Efficient govermnent spending can be as beneficial to the economy as private spending. For instance, investment in infrastructure, if well done, can enhance private spending.

You seem to confuse money with credit, and you seem to believe that there is a finite pile of money that govermnent and private enterprises draw from. You can have BOTH more government spending and private spending. Credit can be created out of thin air! Not that it is good, but again, it just is. When governments spend more IT DOES NOT MEAN companies spend less, nor vice versa.

I am trying to be non-technical, but it is getting hard. The basic workings of an economy are counterintuitive, and hard to explain sometimes.



Tiger said:


> Don't get technical on me!:biggrin:
> 
> Government being a part of GDP is a problem; government spending artificially inflates GDP, but government spending is _*not *_private sector spending, as government has no money of its own - it must tax, borrow, or print to receive it. Are you arguing that government spending is no different than private spending? If so, I direct you to Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable.
> 
> Actually, I didn't attach moral values to taxing and spending. What I wrote was, "Hiking taxes takes money out of the private sector, killing growth (the private sector is the only one that can create jobs/growth). Reducing government spending either returns money to the private sector (a good thing, creating growth), or begins the process of reducing debt and interest payments - also a good thing, as it portends future growth." Government spending is sometimes necessary, of course. But such necessary spending should not be confused with economic stimulation of an economy. The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend!
> 
> If I'm wrong, explain logically why that is so...thanks!


----------



## bernoulli

Let me try again. Companies spend money based on expectations of future profits. Government spending is a very small part of such expectations. If more spending stimulates the economy (assume, for instance more farm subsidies), then farmers will produce more, hire more workers, which in turn will consume more etc. It is the Keynesian multiplier, and it shows how government spending can stimulate private investments. It is all interrelated. 

Keynesians are not always right. On a good model of an economy, you will have both a multiplier effect and a crowding out effect. It is hard to predict which one is larger. In a downturn government spending usually generates more private investments - conversely, when an economy is overheating, more government spending will crow out private investments and also, by other means, generate more inflation. So spending money when the Financial Crisis hit was actually good for the economy. You can argue that right now there is no need for public spending and you would have a good case, but government spending can be good (or bad). 

hope that helps, but I now feel like drawing graphs and having students asking questions. Sorry...


----------



## L-feld

Tiger said:


> L-feld, you distort much to make your points. The "interstate commerce clause" could not possibly mean what you say it means, for it would have given incredible power to the federal government re: economic matters, and no state would have ratified such a centralizing, autocratic document so soon after breaking away from British hegemony.
> 
> The notion that the Supreme Court has these special powers of adaptation and interpretation is also false. First, no such power exists in Article III. Second, the Constitution is a creation of the states; why would they cede power to a handful of federal magistrates? Lastly, the notion that the federal government (via court decisions as well as executive and congressional ones) gets to decide its own power is the epitome of autocracy. Do you really wish to make the argument that the founding generation consisted of autocrats?
> 
> You are also wrong about John Marshall; he was a nationalist and centralizer whose arguments during the 1780s were soundly rejected by many. In fact, he lobbied for Virginia's ratification of the Constitution based on the limited nature of federal power. Of course, when he became Chief Justice, his tune changed. He's a dishonorable character in the eyes of many...
> 
> "Loose framework"? Is that what Jefferson thought? Mason? Wilson? Sherman? Dickinson? Even Madison? The preponderance of historical evidence says the exact opposite - the Constitution was a document of definite powers and prohibitions; it was not an amorphous work to be placed in the hands of the judiciary. You're making an unsustainable argument based on nothing but your political opinions and lawyer's perspective.
> 
> If you really believe that "strict constructionism" began with the New Deal, you have distorted actual history into an unrecognizable mess. The New Deal Court (after the post-Court packing nonsense and subsequent jurisprudential "shift in philosophy") helped destroy whatever was left of the original Constitution!
> 
> Your post, L-feld, and the Court rulings and justices you cite, prove my point - the federal government led by its centralizers and power-hungry adherents have distorted the Constitution for its own power and political aggrandizement. Just about everything you wrote, and the subsequent history of what passes for "constitutional law" would have shocked - and nauseated - the founding generation.


Do I want to make the case that the framers of the constitution were a bunch of autocrats? Does that point even need to be made?

The fact that congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which are today accepted as unconstitutional, so soon after ratification of the constitution proves it. And don't give me any bs that just because Jefferson and Madison opposed ideas they weren't part of our country's intellectual heritage. If you want to get hung up on the framer's original intent, you have to remember that Adams and Hamilton were as influential as anyone else.

And if you think John Marshall is dishonest, but choose to cling to every word of supposedly liberty-loving salve owners, you might be the one in need of a history lesson.

Finally, to say that Judicial Review is not a legitimate concept under the constitution is ridiculous. Article III provides for a Supreme Court. It doesn't go into any detail as to what that court will do, but it is perfectly reasonable to think that the Supreme Court would function similarly to the King's Bench, since we already had a functioning common law system in place at the time of ratification. If the framers wanted something else, surely they would have said so in the Constitution. Surely, if Judicial Review was not a legitimate concept, then Madison and Jefferson would have ignored Marshall striking down the Judiciary Act and would have felt compelled to go along with the ruling in favor of Marbury. But they never delivered the writ of mandamus, did they? No. Either they (1) accepted the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act, or they chose to ignore the court' sun constitutional use of judicial Review because it benefitted their political cause. Pick one.

Ultimately, we're stuck with a bunch of contradictions left to us by the framers. Either we can accept them and try to adapt

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> And you are wrong when you say that "The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend!" Economics is NOT a zero-sum game, nor is spending. Efficient govermnent spending can be as beneficial to the economy as private spending. For instance, investment in infrastructure, if well done, can enhance private spending.


If you believe that I'm wrong, please explain how. Let's keep it non-technical:

If the federal government spends $100 billion on some project, that money must come from taxes on the private sector, borrowing (which has to be paid back with interest, also by taxing the private sector), or by printing the money (inflating the currency). This has to be true, since government has no money of its own!

So, any money spent by the federal government is money that the private sector no longer has to spend and/or invest. There is no net economic stimulus! With apologies to Bastiat, you seem to focus on the things seen, but ignore the things unseen. Rather than focusing on what government spending "accomplishes", why not look at what the loss of that $100 billion dollars does when it is not spent/saved by the private sector? Which, of course, spends far more efficiently and productively than government decree could ever do.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Tiger

L-feld, you have resorted to distortion again...

First of all, if you believe the founding generation consisted of autocrats, you either are ignorant of history, purposely distorting to support your "points", or you don't know what the word "autocrat" means.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional; I don't need a court to tell me that. Ironically, it was a Federalist congress and president who made those horrifying acts law - you know, the same Federalists (such as Marshall, Hamilton, and Adams) that you praise for their loose constructionism!

The Constitution is pretty darn explicit. In addition, we have the ratification debates (and the arguments of Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike) to show us what the states believed that they were ratifying. We don't need to hang on the opinions of any one founder, for that would be fruitless. For the record, the overwhelming number - maybe all! - who argued for the Constitution explained it as a document of expressly delegated, limited powers. Your modern-day revisionism is very far from the truth.

Your slavery point has nothing to do with dishonesty. Many slaveholders - George Mason comes to mind - deplored the system that they were born into. The topic would take too long to engage here, so I won't.

If the Constitution is a document of *expressly delegated,* limited powers as its supporters argued, then the absence of "judicial review" in Article III would mean that the power did not exist. In addition, if the federal government having the power to determine what the powers of the federal government are don't disturb you, then I'm not sure what will. It is a recipe for dictatorship. At least those bastards in the Third Reich had the decency to suspend the Weimar Constitution; we simply violate ours while pretending to show it fealty.

Additionally, if such a crucial function was indeed given to the Court (making the Court in effect superior to Congress), why wasn't it more explicit? Interestingly, many Anti-Federalists feared that the ambiguous language in Article III would indeed lead to the Court eventually claiming the power of "judicial review" and as such gaining enormous power for itself and by extension, the federal government, and thus destroying the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances, along with any last vestige of federalism. They weren't wrong, were they? Certainly, some founders believed that the Court did/should have that power; however, to make it sound as if it were a universal belief is simply untrue.

The notion that the preponderance of Founding Fathers desired a handful of unelected judges to determine the meaning of the Constitution (essentially making law for millions of Americans) is absurd. _Neither did they create an oligarchy that bases its rulings on the capricious political preferences of its members._ Politically expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government - including the Court - since its inception have been the ruination of the United States.


----------



## bernoulli

You give me 3 choices, only one of which diminishes the spending power of the private sector:

1 - Yes.

2 - No, government can pay its debts (with interest) by taxes OR growth, or by postponing debt. Given the multiplier effect, as I already explained, it may be that government spending causes MORE private spending, not less.

3 - Printing money does not necessarily equals inflation. See US right now, printing U$85 billion A MONTH and no inflation in sight. Also, printing money allows government spending with no effect on private investments.

It all hinges on the interrelations in the economy. I showed you scenarios where government spending generates MORE private spending. But it does not always work like that. Hence the whole idea behind anti-cyclical economic policy.

So, it is not a question of if I believe you are wrong. You are wrong. Not a zero-sum game, in a static or dynamic scenario.

Actually, by bailing out the economy in 2008 government spending shot up and at the same time prevented private investment from collapsing. Which is exactly what you learn in ANY Economics textbook - in a financial crisis we need expansionary fiscal policy, to protect private investment!

I tend to lean more liberal, but facts are facts. One may argue if we need Quantitative Easing right now (I think we don't, and the Fed should stop printing money), but government spending during the crisis was relevant to prevent an economic collapse. And yes, that is a strong word for a strong scenario.



Tiger said:


> If you believe that I'm wrong, please explain how. Let's keep it non-technical:
> 
> If the federal government spends $100 billion on some project, that money must come from taxes on the private sector, borrowing (which has to be paid back with interest, also by taxing the private sector), or by printing the money (inflating the currency). This has to be true, since government has no money of its own!
> 
> So, any money spent by the federal government is money that the private sector no longer has to spend and/or invest. There is no net economic stimulus! With apologies to Bastiat, you seem to focus on the things seen, but ignore the things unseen. Rather than focusing on what government spending "accomplishes", why not look at what the loss of that $100 billion dollars does when it is not spent/saved by the private sector? Which, of course, spends far more efficiently and productively than government decree could ever do.
> 
> Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Tilton

Let's not forget that about 41% of the US federal debt is money that the federal government owes itself.


----------



## Joseph Peter

The whole judicial review argument is specious at best. Is it set forth in Art. 3? No. Has it been around for a little over 200 years? Yes. Has any legislature since that time, dem controlled, repub controlled, or whig controlled ever actually done anything to abolish it? No. Now just why has it gone undone for two centuries?

It was a power grab by the judiciary which has no enforcement mechanism at all. Tell me the other two branches, which have plenty of mechanisms to impose their will, have not done likewise. 

We can argue econ and the whole shut down biz all over the highway validly as has been done here; judicial review has zero to do with it, directly or indirectly. This current issue is a p_ssing match internally involving one party and to a lesser extent b/n congress and the executive.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> No, government can pay its debts (with interest) by taxes OR growth, or by postponing debt. Given the multiplier effect, as I already explained, it may be that government spending causes MORE private spending, not less...Printing money does not necessarily equals inflation. See US right now, printing U$85 billion A MONTH and no inflation in sight. Also, printing money allows government spending with no effect on private investments...So, it is not a question of if I believe you are wrong. You are wrong. Not a zero-sum game, in a static or dynamic scenario...Actually, by bailing out the economy in 2008 government spending shot up and at the same time prevented private investment from collapsing.


But you dodged my point!

Any spending by government is necessarily with money taken from the private sector, other than by printing it, which is the definition of inflation. If you have no problem with this, why stop at $85 billion a month. Let's print a trillion a month! We'll all be rich...yeah!

"Government can pay off debt with growth" you say - and whose growth is that? Why, the private sector, of course! Again, money siphoned out of the private economy, not out of thin air.

Wouldn't private spending and investment have a far greater "multiplier effect", or is that only the magical province of government?

You say I'm wrong, but fail to prove so, other than repeated references to "zero sum game." Yet, if I'm wrong, so is von Mises, Hayek, Bastiat, and Hazlitt. Not bad company for me to be in! Besides, we're not wrong...

Many believe the 2008 "bailout" was a disaster, rather than averting one.

Again, I refer you to Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable. Sometimes, common sense and logic are far more potent than the absurdities that pass for modern (and not so modern) economics, to paraphrase Hazlitt...


----------



## Tiger

Tilton said:


> Let's not forget that about 41% of the US federal debt is money that the federal government owes itself.


Can you please explain...thanks!


----------



## Tiger

Joseph Peter said:


> The whole judicial review argument is specious at best. Is it set forth in Art. 3? No. Has it been around for a little over 200 years? Yes. Has any legislature since that time, dem controlled, repub controlled, or whig controlled ever actually done anything to abolish it? No. Now just why has it gone undone for two centuries?
> 
> It was a power grab by the judiciary which has no enforcement mechanism at all. Tell me the other two branches, which have plenty of mechanisms to impose their will, have not done likewise.
> 
> We can argue econ and the whole shut down biz all over the highway validly as has been done here; judicial review has zero to do with it, directly or indirectly. This current issue is a p_ssing match internally involving one party and to a lesser extent b/n congress and the executive.


It's "gone undone" because the political class seeks absolute power, and will never voluntarily reduce their own power. This was warned against repeatedly by many in the Founding generation. It's also why there's not a damn bit of difference between how either of the two major political parties rule, er, I mean govern...

Of course - and I did mention it in a previous post ("Politically expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government - including the Court - since its inception have been the ruination of the United States") - the other two branches of the federal government have been just as aggressive in usurping political power. It's what the Anti-Federalists feared, and has come to fruition.

Judicial review became an issue in this thread when someone referred to the Court. A few of us decided to discuss it - that's allowable, is it not?


----------



## L-feld

Tiger said:


> L-feld, you have resorted to distortion again...
> 
> First of all, if you believe the founding generation consisted of autocrats, you either are ignorant of history, purposely distorting to support your "points", or you don't know what the word "autocrat" means.
> 
> The Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional; I don't need a court to tell me that. Ironically, it was a Federalist congress and president who made those horrifying acts law - you know, the same Federalists (such as Marshall, Hamilton, and Adams) that you praise for their loose constructionism!
> 
> The Constitution is pretty darn explicit. In addition, we have the ratification debates (and the arguments of Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike) to show us what the states believed that they were ratifying. We don't need to hang on the opinions of any one founder, for that would be fruitless. For the record, the overwhelming number - maybe all! - who argued for the Constitution explained it as a document of expressly delegated, limited powers. Your modern-day revisionism is very far from the truth.
> 
> Your slavery point has nothing to do with dishonesty. Many slaveholders - George Mason comes to mind - deplored the system that they were born into. The topic would take too long to engage here, so I won't.
> 
> If the Constitution is a document of *expressly delegated,* limited powers as its supporters argued, then the absence of "judicial review" in Article III would mean that the power did not exist. In addition, if the federal government having the power to determine what the powers of the federal government are don't disturb you, then I'm not sure what will. It is a recipe for dictatorship. At least those bastards in the Third Reich had the decency to suspend the Weimar Constitution; we simply violate ours while pretending to show it fealty.
> 
> Additionally, if such a crucial function was indeed given to the Court (making the Court in effect superior to Congress), why wasn't it more explicit? Interestingly, many Anti-Federalists feared that the ambiguous language in Article III would indeed lead to the Court eventually claiming the power of "judicial review" and as such gaining enormous power for itself and by extension, the federal government, and thus destroying the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances, along with any last vestige of federalism. They weren't wrong, were they? Certainly, some founders believed that the Court did/should have that power; however, to make it sound as if it were a universal belief is simply untrue.
> 
> The notion that the preponderance of Founding Fathers desired a handful of unelected judges to determine the meaning of the Constitution (essentially making law for millions of Americans) is absurd. _Neither did they create an oligarchy that bases its rulings on the capricious political preferences of its members._ Politically expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government - including the Court - since its inception have been the ruination of the United States.


That's exactly my point. The framers were far from univocal. Worrying about their original intent is a dead end that will only lead you to contradictions.

At any rate, judicial review has functioned as the law of the land for the vast majority of our country's history. Supreme Court jurisprudence is as much a part of the country's legal fabric as the text of the constitution. Want to go back to year zero? Good luck with that.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## bernoulli

I will try this one last time, but this is not an internet argument I need to win. You just seem to lack basic economic knowledge.

You are wrong when you say printing money is the definition of inflation. The US government is printing something like a trillion a year and inflation is down. Printing money IS NOT the defition of inflation. You need to understand something about monetary economics and the neutrality of money. Even if you believe in the neutrality of money in the long run, there is no workable model of the economy where money is neutral in the short run.

As I explained to you the government is part of GDP and hence government CAN grow an economy. You are right when you say private investment is preferrable. And yes, Governments can grow economies with money out of thin air. It is exactly what the US did in 2008 and what Abenomics is about in Japan as recently as, are you ready?, 2013! Again, basic monetary economics. If you don't believe it, that is fine. The good thing about science is that one does not need to believe in it for it to be true.

Look, Hayek as a libertarian ideologist is great. Hayek as an economist - outdated. You do have to understand Economics is a social SCIENCE, and thus we have a much better understanding of Economics today than when Hayek is alive. His models are just plainly outdated. Our knowledge is incomplete and the economy is a complexity system, hence no Economic model can be perfect. But we do understand basic economic mechanisms.

If you do believe the bailout was wrong, that is fine. I have an understanding of financial systems that is good enough for me to believe with a high degree of probability that we averted something like the Great Depression, which is a good paralel - Financial Crisis with no Lender of Last Resort.



Tiger said:


> But you dodged my point!
> 
> Any spending by government is necessarily with money taken from the private sector, other than by printing it, which is the definition of inflation. If you have no problem with this, why stop at $85 billion a month. Let's print a trillion a month! We'll all be rich...yeah!
> 
> "Government can pay off debt with growth" you say - and whose growth is that? Why, the private sector, of course! Again, money siphoned out of the private economy, not out of thin air.
> 
> Wouldn't private spending and investment have a far greater "multiplier effect", or is that only the magical province of government?
> 
> You say I'm wrong, but fail to prove so, other than repeated references to "zero sum game." Yet, if I'm wrong, so is von Mises, Hayek, Bastiat, and Hazlitt. Not bad company for me to be in! Besides, we're not wrong...
> 
> Many believe the 2008 "bailout" was a disaster, rather than averting one.
> 
> Again, I refer you to Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable. Sometimes, common sense and logic are far more potent than the absurdities that pass for modern (and not so modern) economics, to paraphrase Hazlitt...


----------



## Tiger

L-feld said:


> That's exactly my point. The framers were far from univocal. Worrying about their original intent is a dead end that will only lead you to contradictions. At any rate, judicial review has functioned as the law of the land for the vast majority of our country's history. Supreme Court jurisprudence is as much a part of the country's legal fabric as the text of the constitution. Want to go back to year zero? Good luck with that.


But my point is that we can determine original intent (perhaps not perfectly, but close enough) from the Constitution itself, and from the ratification debates in the states where that meaning/intent was discussed in detail. There is actually little mystery as to what the structure and powers of the general (federal) government were supposed to be...

Re: judicial review - a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right, to paraphrase Thomas Paine. Putting so much power in the hands of a few unelected judges is undoubtedly oligarchical...


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> I will try this one last time, but this is not an internet argument I need to win. You just seem to lack basic economic knowledge...As I explained to you the government is part of GDP and hence government CAN grow an economy...You are right when you say private investment is preferrable. And yes, Governments can grow economies with money out of thin air...If you don't believe it, that is fine. The good thing about science is that one does not need to believe in it for it to be true...Hayek as a libertarian ideologist is great. Hayek as an economist - outdated. You do have to understand Economics is a social SCIENCE, and thus we have a much better understanding of Economics today than when Hayek is alive. His models are just plainly outdated...


I may lack basic knowledge, but you have yet to address my premise, which is based on Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable. I'm so dumb that I can't be refuted! When you say that "governments can grow economies out of thin air", you are on mystical grounds more than scientific ones. You belittle Hayek, but what about Hazlitt? He's a 20th century economist who spent a lifetime refuting the economic fallacies that so many economists try to dazzle us with - needlessly complex models and dizzying illogic -rather than logic and common sense, often to the point of non sequitur. For example, "governments can grow money out of thin air" or "government spending doesn't impact the private sector - it's not a zero sum game" Hazlitt's _Economics In One Lesson_ destroys such silliness, but I'd guess that you would believe him to be "outdated", too.

I have a feeling that in the long run, all of the "magic" of government spending will put us in a disastrous position, far worse than Greece, Spain, et al. All of the charlatans' magic didn't seem to help those countries...


----------



## Tilton

Tiger said:


> Can you please explain...thanks!


I assume that is probably sarcasm because Intragovernmental holdings/debt is a pretty basic concept. If not, here's a fast and cheap analogy: you dip into your savings account to buy a new car and then you say to yourself "I owe my savings account $30,000 at some point down the road" and then consider that to be part of your total debt owed, along with your mortgage, student loans, etc (ie. all of your other, real debt to outside parties). Of course, you don't really owe anyone $30,000 because you paid for that car in cash, not credit, but you nevertheless consider it a debt. Now expand that out on the scale of the federal government and you can see how it owes itself trillions in debt. It isn't "real" debt like the kind owed to some outside party that could come in and demand payment is real debt, but they write it into the ledger all the same.


----------



## bernoulli

You are talking about a book published in 1946. Took a quick read, but it is hard to take it seriously when he uses examples from the XIXth century. It seems interesting, but again, a lot of things he writes about are wrong.

I have read most of Hayek's books, though, and his later writings recognize Economics as a Complexity System with all its implications. Yes, both authors sometimes deny simple economic mechanisms. And both are wrong when they do it.

There is nothing mystic about it. Government prints money out of thin air, uses money to hire people and buy inputs to build a bridge, GDP goes up. Where is the mysticism? Should the government build the bridge? That is another question, and the answer may be no. Can it do it? Hell, yeah! You did learn about the New Deal in high school right?

You may believe whatever you want regarding the fiscal future of the US. Here is a Hazlitt quote you may use it and that is quite alright: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." Instead of denying that government spending can create growth, you should argue: by doing it governments are creating long term unintended consequences that may be bad for the economy. That is a good point, actually. But governments CAN create growth, that is indisputable, as much as gravity or evolution. If you don't believe me, I am sure if you jump out of a building gravity will make you fall and you will get a Darwin award.

Reading a Dawkins book does not qualify me to talk about biology science, nor reading Hawkings' A Brief History of Time turns me into a cosmologist. The idea you can teach Economics in one lesson is laughable, actually.



Tiger said:


> I may lack basic knowledge, but you have yet to address my premise, which is based on Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable. I'm so dumb that I can't be refuted! When you say that "governments can grow economies out of thin air", you are on mystical grounds more than scientific ones. You belittle Hayek, but what about Hazlitt? He's a 20th century economist who spent a lifetime refuting the economic fallacies that so many economists try to dazzle us with - needlessly complex models and dizzying illogic -rather than logic and common sense, often to the point of non sequitur. For example, "governments can grow money out of thin air" or "government spending doesn't impact the private sector - it's not a zero sum game" Hazlitt's _Economics In One Lesson_ destroys such silliness, but I'd guess that you would believe him to be "outdated", too.
> 
> I have a feeling that in the long run, all of the "magic" of government spending will put us in a disastrous position, far worse than Greece, Spain, et al. All of the charlatans' magic didn't seem to help those countries...


----------



## Tiger

Tilton said:


> I assume that is probably sarcasm because Intragovernmental holdings/debt is a pretty basic concept. If not, here's a fast and cheap analogy: you dip into your savings account to buy a new car and then you say to yourself "I owe my savings account $30,000 at some point down the road" and then consider that to be part of your total debt owed, along with your mortgage, student loans, etc (ie. all of your other, real debt to outside parties). Of course, you don't really owe anyone $30,000 because you paid for that car in cash, not credit, but you nevertheless consider it a debt. Now expand that out on the scale of the federal government and you can see how it owes itself trillions in debt. It isn't "real" debt like the kind owed to some outside party that could come in and demand payment is real debt, but they write it into the ledger all the same.


Not sarcastic at all; just wanted to be sure to what you were referring to...

The intragovernmental debt between, say, the Treasury Dept. and the Social Security trust fund is real debt, Tilton. There are future obligations owed, and the money must be repaid to the trust fund to pay those obligations. Those funds needed to repay the trust fund will come from taxpayers...


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> You are talking about a book published in 1946. Took a quick read, but it is hard to take it seriously when he uses examples from the XIXth century. It seems interesting, but again, a lot of things he writes about are wrong.
> 
> There is nothing mystic about it. Government prints money out of thin air, uses money to hire people and buy inputs to build a bridge, GDP goes up. Where is the mysticism? Should the government build the bridge? That is another question, and the answer may be no. Can it do it? Hell, yeah! You did learn about the New Deal in high school right?
> 
> You may believe whatever you want regarding the fiscal future of the US. Here is a Hazlitt quote you may use it and that is quite alright: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
> 
> That is a good point, actually. But governments CAN create growth, that is indisputable, as much as gravity or evolution. If you don't believe me, I am sure if you jump out of a building gravity will make you fall and you will get a Darwin award.
> 
> The idea you can teach Economics in one lesson is laughable, actually.


You belittle Hazlitt without reading his work - such arrogance! Of course, Keynes' work from the 1930s is acceptable to you, I'm sure. And belittling does not answer the points made by Hazlitt or me, for that matter, but I guess that's what happens when all you have is absurd theory. Hazlitt's book was written precisely for people like you!

When government "builds the bridge", from where did it get the money? Once again, you focus on the things seen, but not on what is not seen. That money taken from the private sector would have been spent or saved, Bernouli, creating real growth, but your bridge stopped it from happening!

The New Deal was an abject failure. Just ask Henry Morgenthau. Even modern textbooks are coming around to that point. You need to pick a better example...

I am very familiar with the Hazlitt quote. If you ever decide to read his book, perhaps you'll actually understand what he means, rather than make a flippant remark about the title. Let me guess - Ludwig von Mises was an idiot, too?

Comparing your "government creates growth" nonsensical theories to gravity is just too ludicrous for comment. One is absolutely observably true, the other is demonstrably false. Whatever credibility you had just dissipated...

Finally, if you are correct, and I am wrong, then why isn't the United States in great fiscal shape? After all, $3.5 trillion a year in spending, and nearly $1 trillion a year added in deficits should guarantee financial bliss. Instead, we have low growth, enormous debt, high unemployment, unsustainable social programs, and a stagnant wage for the middle class for decades.

Bernouli, rather than ridicule the brilliance of Hazlitt, you might want to look a bit more objectively at nonsense such as "Governments can grow economies with money out of thin air." If true, then would you object to the U.S. government printing say, $500 trillion so we can all be rich? You know, because prestidigitation works far better than actual productivity!


----------



## Tilton

Tiger said:


> Not sarcastic at all; just wanted to be sure to what you were referring to...
> 
> The intragovernmental debt between, say, the Treasury Dept. and the Social Security trust fund is real debt, Tilton. There are future obligations owed, and the money must be repaid to the trust fund to pay those obligations. Those funds needed to repay the trust fund will come from taxpayers...


Keep tabs on that and let me know when it gets repaid.


----------



## Tiger

Tilton said:


> Keep tabs on that and let me know when it gets repaid.


It won't be repaid; little or none of our debt will, despite the magic of the pseudo-scientists.

Learn how to say "master" in Chinese...


----------



## bernoulli

Yes, a PhD in a subject that thinks a scientific book written in 1946 for a non-specialized audience is full of erroneous science. Who would have thought?

Here is the thing you don't understand: there are theories and there are facts. You have no knowledge of Economics at all, and I mean AT ALL, reads a bunch of books from the 1940's for a non-specialized audience and thinks thousands of PhDs in Economics are full of BS. Ok then, I appreciate rational discourse and it seems that has come to an end. Enjoy your faith, I will stay with Science.

Here is the thing: you are no different from hard-core Marxists, believing in ideology before science. Faith. Blergh...I am simpathetic to ideas from Hayek and Hazlitt, but their economics are just wrong.



Tiger said:


> You belittle Hazlitt without reading his work - such arrogance! Of course, Keynes' work from the 1930s is acceptable to you, I'm sure. And belittling does not answer the points made by Hazlitt or me, for that matter, but I guess that's what happens when all you have is absurd theory. Hazlitt's book was written precisely for people like you!
> 
> When government "builds the bridge", from where did it get the money? Once again, you focus on the things seen, but not on what is not seen. That money taken from the private sector would have been spent or saved, Bernouli, creating real growth, but your bridge stopped it from happening!
> 
> The New Deal was an abject failure. Just ask Henry Morgenthau. Even modern textbooks are coming around to that point. You need to pick a better example...
> 
> I am very familiar with the Hazlitt quote. If you ever decide to read his book, perhaps you'll actually understand what he means, rather than make a flippant remark about the title. Let me guess - Ludwig von Mises was an idiot, too?
> 
> Comparing your "government creates growth" nonsensical theories to gravity is just too ludicrous for comment. One is absolutely observably true, the other is demonstrably false. Whatever credibility you had just dissipated...
> 
> Finally, if you are correct, and I am wrong, then why isn't the United States in great fiscal shape? After all, $3.5 trillion a year in spending, and nearly $1 trillion a year added in deficits should guarantee financial bliss. Instead, we have low growth, enormous debt, high unemployment, unsustainable social programs, and a stagnant wage for the middle class for decades.
> 
> Bernouli, rather than ridicule the brilliance of Hazlitt, you might want to look a bit more objectively at nonsense such as "Governments can grow economies with money out of thin air." If true, then would you object to the U.S. government printing say, $500 trillion so we can all be rich? You know, because prestidigitation works far better than actual productivity!


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> Yes, a PhD in a subject that thinks a scientific book written in 1946 for a non-specialized audience is full of erroneous science. Who would have thought?
> 
> Here is the thing you don't understand: there are theories and there are facts. You have no knowledge of Economics at all, and I mean AT ALL, reads a bunch of books from the 1940's for a non-specialized audience and thinks thousands of PhDs in Economics are full of BS. Ok then, I appreciate rational discourse and it seems that has come to an end. Enjoy your faith, I will stay with Science.
> 
> Here is the thing: you are no different from hard-core Marxists, believing in ideology before science. Faith. Blergh...I am simpathetic to ideas from Hayek and Hazlitt, but their economics are just wrong.


In your arrogance, you neglected to mention all of the PhDs who disagree with your counterintuitive (and often ludicrous) positions. I may "know nothing at all" but then neither do all of the classical and Austrian economists, either.

Finally, for someone who "knows nothing", I managed to make many points that you could not refute. Maybe you should have studied alchemy...


----------



## gaseousclay

alright, guys, could we stay on topic and not engage in personal attacks?


----------



## Chouan

Seems to be an argument between an expert, who is engaged and employed in the field of economics, and a member of the forum who "believes" that because their feelings on the subject, without expert knowledge, are different, then the expert has to be wrong. It looks like the deployment of the "common sense", and "it stands to reason" arguments versus economic theory, so often advanced to support an ideologically based view.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Seems to be an argument between an expert, who is engaged and employed in the field of economics, and a member of the forum who "believes" that because their feelings on the subject, without expert knowledge, are different, then the expert has to be wrong. It looks like the deployment of the "common sense", and "it stands to reason" arguments versus economic theory, so often advanced to support an ideologically based view.


What utter, tendentious nonsense. You've distorted this discussion completely! I guess when one man of the left is under fire, the others come rushing in to help. The only ideology espoused in this thread is by you and Bernoulli, as any cursory reading of the thread would prove...

I used logic from von Mises, Hazlitt, Rothbard, and Bastiat, but you call it "feelings." Bernoullli espouses discredited beliefs yet he's supposedly a man of "science." Hmmm, I guess von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, and an enormous number of past and present PhDs who are inclined to the classical and Austrian schools of economics are ideological, but the Keynesians and quasi-socialists aren't.

Bernoulli ridicules a book he hasn't read - misinterprets and misunderstands it as well - but this is "science." He talks of "growth out of thin air", yet this is "science." He ignores a multitude of points that I made that utterly devastate his assertions, yet he's using "science." He ridicules as outdated Hazlitt's book from the 1940s, but hypocritically uses Keynesian ideas from the 1930s. (Using this idiotic logic, we would have to flush an enormous amount of knowledge down the toilet simply because it wasn't as modern as charlatans such as Bernoulli prefer.) I ask him to tell us why, if his "science" is correct, why the U.S. shouldn't simply print $500 trillion right now, but never received an answer. I asked about the horrific shape the U.S. economy is in (and more importantly, will be in down the road) - despite decades of exactly the policies espoused by Bernoulli - but silence is the only reply. Is this what passes for "science" on the left? Is this what passes for expertise? He even claimed that what he said was "Economics 101", but admitted he wasn't able to explain it. Yet, he criticizes Hazlitt, who made a career of explaining and dissecting the fallacies of mystical economists such as Keynes, Hansen, Veblen, Bernoulli, et al.

Bernoulli (and you) imply ineptitude on my part, yet anyone objective following this dialogue would realize that the "expert" quickly ran out of intellectual ammunition, and resorted to ad hominem attacks on me, and belittled Hazlitt without even studying his work. Bernoulli even made an asinine reference to the New Deal - something this history professor knows much about. But again, when you're on the left, you're insulated by distortion, fiction, and tendentious storytelling that if repeated enough starts to sound true. Facts, logic, and present circumstances - even another opinion - need not apply.

Chouan, has it ever occurred to you that there are many who don't ascribe to what you and Bernoulli proffer as "facts"? Again, Hazlitt's little book was designed to debunk the absurdities emanating from the Bernoullis and Chouans of the world. Perhaps less name calling and a little more humility might help here.

Remember, for every Keynes, there's a von Mises. For ever Krugman, there's a Hoppe. The notion that Bernoulli has all of the facts and science on his side - especially proven to be false in this thread - reeks of ideology and politics, not "science."

Congratulations, Chouan - Walter Duranty would be proud of you!


----------



## Yodan731

It looked to me that the expert ran out of patience, not ammo.

You are correct that a number of economists agree with you, however it appears as if a far larger number of economists agree with Bernoulli.


----------



## Tiger

Yodan731 said:


> It looked to me that the expert ran out of patience, not ammo.
> 
> You are correct that a number of economists agree with you, however it appears as if a far larger number of economists agree with Bernoulli.


It wasn't simply a case of how many economists agree with Bernoulli or with me; there were many issues that were involved. (By the way, how do you know how many economists agree/disagree with our positions - do you have polling data that we can review?)

Of course, once we agree that there are different viewpoints held by different schools of economic thought, perhaps we can stop the finger pointing at me by others that claim I'm unequivocally wrong...

The "expert" had ample opportunity to respond to my points - and multiple times failed to do so, but instead choose to belittle me and others of similar mindset. This was not a case of lost patience, Yodan731. If anything, I lost patience in his inability to respond to the classical questions posed by Bastiat and Hazlitt...


----------



## Tilton

On a note related to the recent discourse: Tiger, please provide some published research on economics which you have authored. It is easy enough to find subsequent citations and then we can reasonably evaluate the weight of your claims. Reading some books from the 40's seems like sub-par qualifications. 

On a note related to the ACTUAL topic of this thread: And on the tenth day, there was horrific traffic. I was hoping this shutdown thing would at least keep some folks off the roads - and it did for a few days - but all good things must come to and end, I suppose.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> What utter, tendentious nonsense. You've distorted this discussion completely! I guess when one man of the left is under fire, the others come rushing in to help. The only ideology espoused in this thread is by you and Bernoulli, as any cursory reading of the thread would prove........
> 
> Chouan, has it ever occurred to you that there are many who don't ascribe to what you and Bernoulli proffer as "facts"? Again, Hazlitt's little book was designed to debunk the absurdities emanating from the Bernoullis and Chouans of the world. Perhaps less name calling and a little more humility might help here.
> 
> Remember, for every Keynes, there's a von Mises. For ever Krugman, there's a Hoppe. The notion that Bernoulli has all of the facts and science on his side - especially proven to be false in this thread - reeks of ideology and politics, not "science."
> 
> Congratulations, Chouan - Walter Duranty would be proud of you!


You've just proved that you're ideologically driven. I made no reference to your political viewpoint, yet you immediately respond with a condemnation of me as being "on the left", as if it were an insult. Curious.


----------



## Shaver

The notion that a man has to be a qualified professional in order to express a sensible viewpoint on a given subject is laughable. 

If economics is such an exact science why then is the world in this shocking state, eh? Econometrics are worthless, give me the Tarot for more sensible predictions any day.


----------



## Tiger

Tilton said:


> On a note related to the recent discourse: Tiger, please provide some published research on economics which you have authored. It is easy enough to find subsequent citations and then we can reasonably evaluate the weight of your claims. Reading some books from the 40's seems like sub-par qualifications.


The ad hominem attacks continue. Using this logic, no one on this forum would be allowed to offer any opinion - or incontrovertible fact - on any topic unless they are "published." How absurd! my field is history, and I've read many comments on the topic from people here, including those posting on this thread. I haven't asked them for their qualifications. I imagine, Tilton, that you'll be asking them for their credentials, too, won't you?

I need not have a degree in mathematics or have published a novel to state that 2 + 2 = 4 (but even more if calculated by governments that "grow economies out of thin air"!) or that I was deeply moved by _All Quiet on the Western Front_...


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> You've just proved that you're ideologically driven. I made no reference to your political viewpoint, yet you immediately respond with a condemnation of me as being "on the left", as if it were an insult. Curious.


Wrong again. You falsely claimed that I relied on "feelings" and "beliefs", and that I "support an ideologically based view." To which ideology you did not specify, but undoubtedly you had one in mind, or what you wrote would be meaningless.

In any event, a cursory review of your posts on the Interchange (heck, even the one which began this very thread!) demonstrates that you are on the left politically. I couldn't give a damn about your politics; my point was that it was unsurprising that you rallied to the aid of Bernoulli, who had already described himself as "liberal" and tilting to the Keynesian view of economics.

It is you who politicized this issue, and is making accusations, all while continuing to avoid the arguments adduced. And that should "be curious" to anyone truly objective...


----------



## Tiger

Tilton said:


> On a note related to the recent discourse: Tiger, please provide some published research on economics which you have authored. It is easy enough to find subsequent citations and then we can reasonably evaluate the weight of your claims. Reading some books from the 40's seems like sub-par qualifications.


Forgot to add: rather than waiting for my (never to occur) first publication on economics, instead please refer to the work off: von Mises, Hoppe, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Ricardo, Mill, Smith, Hayek, Higgs, Murphy, Menger, Wicksteed, Say, and a host of others - past and present - who have written extensively on these topics.

And of course, since you're *so *fair and consistent, you do discount Keynes' work from the 1930s, don't you?


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> The notion that a man has to be a qualified professional in order to express a sensible viewpoint on a given subject is laughable.
> 
> If economics is such an exact science why then is the world in this shocking state, eh? Econometrics are worthless, give me the Tarot for more sensible predictions any day.


Thank you for your kindness and support, Shaver. You have no idea how truly grateful and moved I am...thank you again.


----------



## Tilton

Tiger said:


> Forgot to add: rather than waiting for my (never to occur) first publication on economics, instead please refer to the work off: von Mises, Hoppe, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Ricardo, Mill, Smith, Hayek, Higgs, Murphy, Menger, Wicksteed, Say, and a host of others - past and present - who have written extensively on these topics.
> 
> And of course, since you're *so *fair and consistent, you do discount Keynes' work from the 1930s, don't you?


I was only saying that in reference to Bernoulli holding more clout in the world of economics. Stop getting your panties in such a bunch, no need to be so sensitive.

And, FWIW (and I know, not much as I'm sure my opinion holds no value to you), I am quite anti-Keynesian. I'll be the first to admit that I have no business sticking my nose into an economics debate, but it would seem to me that Keynes' philosophy is far too short-sighted. Economies are cyclical and it makes little sense to prop up failing businesses instead of letting them die by their own misjudgments - that is, only if you want real capitalism - and it likely only postpones (and exacerbates) the inevitable. Forest fires would seem to be a good analog for this.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> I certainly agree the VA has generally been a disgrace, and a breach of the contract with our servicemen and servicewomen. But making it function worse doesn't seem like the answer. Maybe that's just me, though.


Before the government shutdown last week, Congress passed and Obama signed a bill allowing the military to be paid during the federal closure. However, the death benefit payments were not covered by that legislation.
*Carney said the Pentagon told lawmakers before the shutdown that the death benefit payments were not covered by the bill and would be cut off during a shutdown. However, he repeatedly refused to say when the president was first told that death benefits would not be paid. *
A senior administration official said Obama raised his concerns about the stoppage in payments Tuesday night during an evening walk around the White House grounds with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough. He directed McDonough to get the problem solved within 24 hours.
The Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget developed a solution overnight allowing Fisher House to enter into a rush agreement essentially making the organization a government contractor that could deliver the benefits, the official said.
The administration and defense officials both insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the offer publicly by name.
*Amid the controversy, Hagel made a rare trip Wednesday to Dover Air Force Base for the arrival of remains of four soldiers killed in Afghanistan. *The remains of every U.S. military member killed overseas are flown to Dover for processing. Family members attend the arrival, but the secretary of defense usually does not.
Among the soldiers whose remains were brought to Dover on Wednesday was Pfc. Cody J. Patterson, 24, of Philomath, Ore. Patterson's family allowed members of the media to witness the return of his remains, but an Army liaison officer who works with mortuary officials at Dover said the family did not want to talk to reporters.
The other soldiers whose remains were returned were 1st Lt. Jennifer M. Moreno, 25, of San Diego, Calif.; Sgt. Patrick C. Hawkins, 25, of Carlisle, Pa.; and Sgt. Joseph M. Peters, 24, of Springfield, Mo. In a statement Tuesday, U.S. Army Special Operations Command said Hawkins and Patterson were members of the 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, and Peters was a special agent assigned to the 286th Military Police Detachment.
Hagel put his hand over his heart as white-gloved soldiers carried the flag-draped case carrying Patterson's remains from a C-17 cargo plane to a white panel truck for transfer to the Dover mortuary.

Read more: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...tary_death_benefits_120278.html#ixzz2hQpdLOKX 
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

So the White House was informed but did nothing until after the pain was inflicted.

Meanwhile Hagel gets sent out to restore order to the crisis he created.

This gets old fast!!


----------



## Tiger

I simply asked for fairness, Tilton, nothing more. Clearly, you did not do this, so I responded. Please keep in mind that being attacked by multiple parties is a bit harrowing, but I can handle it - without so much as a wrinkle to my panties!

Additionally, I do value your position(s) - as long as it isn't another broadside against me...


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> Thank you for your kindness and support, Shaver. You have no idea how truly grateful and moved I am...thank you again.


My pleasure to provide a small assist, old chap. :icon_smile:

TANSTAAFL is the principle that we both appear to (sensibly) agree upon.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> My pleasure to provide a small assist, old chap. :icon_smile:
> 
> TANSTAAFL is the principle that we both appear to (sensibly) agree upon.


When I first saw "TANSTAAFL" I was a bit perplexed - thought you were using one of Bernoulli's formulas!

You are correct, of course, Shaver - there is no such thing as a free lunch, even when purchased with inflated dollars...


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> ... the vast majority of actions performed by all three branches of the federal government violate the Constitution in letter as well as spirit. To deny this is to not understand the history of the document, as well as the salient antecedents.


This comment could well have been regarded as treasonous during some periods of our nation's past. As it is, it's just wild unsupportable hyperbole.



Tiger said:


> ... there is undoubtedly ample power at the state level to achieve whatever it is that the people of the states wish to achieve...as long as they obey their state constitutions!


Ignoring the fact that issues that cross state lines must at some point be dealt with by, at least, the adjudicating force of a federal government; states inevitably will have disputes with one another.



Tiger said:


> Just about everything you wrote, and the subsequent history of what passes for "constitutional law" would have shocked - and nauseated - the founding generation.


I submit that you have no business suggesting what would have "nauseated" the Founding Fathers, especially since we know that, in many cases, what would have nauseated Jefferson would have been applauded by Hamilton.



Tiger said:


> I think your solutions will only make matters worse - weaker growth, failure to address profligate spending - and hence do nothing to resolve the bleak future that I think is much closer than you believe.


"I think." Well, fine, but so what?



Tiger said:


> ... the private sector is the *only one* that can create jobs/growth


This absurd foundational statement sets you on your following route to nowhere. The public sector most certainly can create jobs, growth and wealth; our mammoth public works (the Interstate highway system, Hoover Dam, NASA) evidence that.



Tiger said:


> Government being a part of GDP is a problem; government spending artificially inflates GDP, but government spending is _*not *_private sector spending, as government has no money of its own - it must tax, borrow, or print to receive it. Are you arguing that government spending is no different than private spending? If so, I direct you to Bastiat's "Broken Window" parable.
> 
> Government spending is sometimes necessary, of course. But such necessary spending should not be confused with economic stimulation of an economy. The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend!


Public and private expenditure can both stimulate the economy, as our recent "federal stimulus" demonstrated. I don't necessarily believe it was wise in the long run (I'm agnostic on that score), but inarguably without it we'd be in worse shape *at this moment in time. * And your suggestion that Bastiat's Window applies only to public expenditure is likewise ridiculous; it applies to any wasteful expenditure, whether by public or private entities.



Tiger said:


> Rather than focusing on what government spending "accomplishes", why not look at what the loss of that $100 billion dollars does when it is not spent/saved by the private sector? Which, of course, spends far more efficiently and productively than government decree could ever do.


The idea that private sector expenditures are necessarily more efficient and productive than public ones is likewise unsupportable. People like to point out mammoth public failures like the "bridge to nowhere," but I've worked on corporate projects that were cancelled at the 11th hour with massive expenses and no tangible product. Overall I agree that the market does a better job of incentivizing productive expenditures than does government fiat, but it's not guaranteed in every instance.



Tiger said:


> Politically expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government - including the Court - since its inception have been the *ruination of the United States*.


Which is why, no doubt, we are *so* much poorer a nation than we were in 1787. Can you not recognize your own hyperbole here?



Tiger said:


> I have a feeling that in the long run, all of the "magic" of government spending will put us in a disastrous position, far worse than Greece, Spain, et al. All of the charlatans' magic didn't seem to help those countries...


"I have a feeling." Fine, but so what? So far as I can tell, Spain and Greece are still functioning, even given their frightening unemployment rates.



Tiger said:


> When government "builds the bridge", from where did it get the money? Once again, you focus on the things seen, but not on what is not seen. That money taken from the private sector would have been spent or saved, Bernouli, creating real growth, but your bridge stopped it from happening!


Yes, and when General Electric issues bonds for construction of a new cathode-ray-tube plant that never ends up being completed, it takes away investor money from a new tech startup that could've begun production on a revolutionary new battery. Or new photovoltaic technology. Or (you name it). Expenditures by any entity invariably affect the credit available to other entities. It's part of the market.



Tiger said:


> Finally, for someone who "knows nothing", I managed to make many points that you could not refute. Maybe you should have studied alchemy...


Other than telling you that you're a dilettante, and that your understanding of economic theory is limited (both of which you yourself acknowledged in one of your initial posts), bernoulli hasn't insulted you. Your resorting to insult yourself is classic behavior of the man who's lost the argument.

bernoulli wasn't incapable of refuting your points; he gave up trying to speak in a language you don't understand (and to be honest, I don't either; I'm not painting myself as someone better-versed than you). I perceive no arrogance in bernoulli, but I do in you, in that you place yourself on equal debate footing with someone who has spent a lifetime of study and practice in a field you happen to like reading about. It's as if I were to set myself up on equal footing to argue football coaching strategy with Bill Belichick.


----------



## Tiger

It would be impossible, MaxBuck, to answer each of your remarks in detail, especially when much of this has already been covered, but I'll add a few comments.

- "Treasonous"? "Unsupportable hyperbole"? Perhaps a reading of the Constitution is in order for you. This is a breathtakingly absurd comment!
- It's not a battle of Hamilton vs. Jefferson, as clearly mentioned earlier in the thread. It's the Constitution, as spelled out in its text as well as by the ratification debates in the states, that matters, not any one person's opinion.
- As written multiple times, "public works" are funded by private dollars. You are focusing on "the things seen" and ignoring "the things not seen" as per Bastiat. You seem to misunderstand his parable...
- You conflate economic and political issues constantly, and seem to misunderstand points that were written in detail, but you've chosen to truncate them without their proper context. Would require too much to correct here...
- Of course there are private screw-ups. That is allowed, isn't it? The difference is, no one expropriated someone else's money to perform the screw-ups.
- Bernoulli resorted to a variety of condescending and unequivocal remarks, even though there is ample support for my positions by many noted - and in some cases legendary - economists. He also failed to respond to my points, and instead chose ad hominem attacks (as has others, including you). Not the mark of an "expert" or a "scientist."
- "Lost the argument"? If Bernoulli speaks in a language that neither of us understand (as you claim), how can anyone determine who won the argument? Besides, this is not new ground; these arguments have been debated for over a century. 
- I did not "place myself on equal footing" with anyone; I made what I thought were lucid and logical points that are influenced by the classical and Austrian schools of economics. The notion that a discussion must now be allowable only if the participants have the same field of study is ludicrous. I do not need an advanced degree in astronomy to know that the Ptolemaic view of the universe is false...
- Speaking of, my field is history, and you and others have made erroneous and distorting statements regarding this field. I have not required any of you to acquire advanced degrees, or be published, in order to continue discussing, yet this seems to be required of me when discussing economic concepts. For some reason, I'm being held to a standard that no one else is being held to, MaxBuck. Perhaps you and some of the other self-assigned "gatekeepers" will now comb through everyone else's statements, and demand that they prove a level of expertise when they discuss/debate history, economics, politics, sports, clothing, restaurants, science, and every other topic that appears on this forum. At least then some of the hypocrisy would be mitigated.
- If you and others are not prepared to do that, then maybe you need to rethink exactly who have been the arrogant ones...


----------



## Tiger

One last point, MaxBuck. Your understanding of history - and especially of early American history - appears to be poor (as is your understanding of classical economics), in my opinion. So, will you follow your own advice, and not debate such historical points with me in _*my field of expertise*_, as per your "Bill Belichick" and "Bernoulli" comments? Or will you (and others) continue to do so, despite your own supposed beliefs about such things?

See the point? If you're not willing to censor yourself and others, please don't attempt to do so with me. Of course, after reading your comments and those of others, it is apparent that the only expertise displayed is that of hypocrisy...


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> One last point, MaxBuck. Your understanding of history - and especially of early American history - appears to be poor (as is your understanding of classical economics), in my opinion. So, will you follow your own advice, and not debate such historical points with me in _*my field of expertise*_, as per your "Bill Belichick" and "Bernoulli" comments? Or will you (and others) continue to do so, despite your own supposed beliefs about such things?
> 
> See the point? If you're not willing to censor yourself and others, please don't attempt to do so with me. Of course, after reading your comments and those of others, it is apparent that the only expertise displayed is that of hypocrisy...


OK, let me be blunt. You appear to delight in bludgeoning with your words those who disagree with you without requiring of yourself any real rigor in your arguments.

I don't claim to know as much about early American history as you do. But you speak of the Founders as though they spoke as one (which they didn't; the Constitution and our form of government were the result of compromise among men with differing priorities and opinions). This in turn doesn't speak favorably to your knowledge of our early history, or else it suggests your interpretive abilities are suspect. Your simplistic representations of our early history make it difficult to believe that you're a serious historian. And your suggestion that our entire history of government reflects routine and unchecked violation of the Constitution by all three branches of federal government is not a mainstream position, but rather an extremely radical one.

As for conflating politics and economics, I don't think I'm the one who opened that door. A review of your posts here reveals you've taken a position on both economic and political issues, speaking with a similar voice to the Tea Party wing of the GOP. As it happens, I'm in favor of limited federal government, lower and simpler tax rates, and reduced entitlements as I suspect you are. Nonetheless, I'm tired of reading the same tired nonsense from Tea Partiers such as their equating monetary expansion to inflation as you did (which is clearly bogus; we've expanded the money supply immensely in a time of minimal inflation for nearly 15 years). bernoulli plainly explained a number of fallacies you promoted in your posts, which explanations you proceeded to ignore.

Sometime in your life I hope you develop a better understanding of your own fallibility.


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> OK, let me be blunt. You appear to delight in bludgeoning with your words those who disagree with you without requiring of yourself any real rigor in your arguments.
> 
> I don't claim to know as much about early American history as you do. But you speak of the Founders as though they spoke as one (which they didn't; the Constitution and our form of government were the result of compromise among men with differing priorities and opinions). This in turn doesn't speak favorably to your knowledge of our early history, or else it suggests your interpretive abilities are suspect. Your simplistic representations of our early history make it difficult to believe that you're a serious historian. And your suggestion that our entire history of government reflects routine and unchecked violation of the Constitution by all three branches of federal government is not a mainstream position, but rather an extremely radical one.
> 
> As for conflating politics and economics, I don't think I'm the one who opened that door. A review of your posts here reveals you've taken a position on both economic and political issues, speaking with a similar voice to the Tea Party wing of the GOP. As it happens, I'm in favor of limited federal government, lower and simpler tax rates, and reduced entitlements as I suspect you are. Nonetheless, I'm tired of reading the same tired nonsense from Tea Partiers such as their equating monetary expansion to inflation as you did (which is clearly bogus; we've expanded the money supply immensely in a time of minimal inflation for nearly 15 years). bernoulli plainly explained a number of fallacies you promoted in your posts, which explanations you proceeded to ignore.
> 
> Sometime in your life I hope you develop a better understanding of your own fallibility.


In fact, it has been I who has been bludgeoned by those without "any real vigor in their arguments."

You have again distorted what I've written. As I've written multiple times (and this was from a dialogue with L-feld, not Bernoulli), the intent of the founding generation re: the Constitution can be found in the text of the document itself and in what was argued/represented in the ratification debates in the states. Overwhelmingly, the Constitution was portrayed as it appears to be; a document creating a limited federal government of specific, expressed powers. If you have no evidence to the contrary, why do you persist in distorting my words?

Even a cursory reading of Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution will show that the powers wielded by today's federal government are an incredible expansion of the original delegated powers. Even those who agree with that expansion generally recognize what has occurred, but justify it on other grounds. Again, if I'm wrong, show me how - don't simply follow the pattern of this thread and tell me I'm wrong without adducing evidence.

I was involved with two subsections of this thread: a governmental/political one with L-feld, and an economic one with Bernoulli. You have somehow conflated two strains of thought. I'd be happy to discuss one or the other, but not both simultaneously.

My point about inflation was that printing money is a cause of it; today's dollar is worth a tiny fraction of what it was worth in the early 1930s. While this is indisputable, I will admit, however, that I'm too much of a neophyte to argue the topic in any detail, other than to point out the tremendous devaluation of the dollar.

You say that Bernoulli pointed out "a number of fallacies", yet I can't seem to find where he accomplished this. There was a lot of absolutist statements, and accusations of "being wrong" directed at me, Hazlitt, Hayek, et al., yet no proof. For anyone to dismiss classical and Austrian school economists - and in the case of Bernoulli re: Hazlitt, without bothering to familiarize himself with the man's work/positions! - so summarily displays a decided lack of "real rigor."

As has been the pattern throughout, I have made a number of points, and have raised questions, but most have been ignored. MaxBuck, you have now done the same - my last posts pointed out the double standards and hypocrisy of those making demands of me, yet most of what I've written remains unanswered.

I am incredibly fallible; I know this all too well. However, I am not the one summarily dismissing others' arguments without adducing proof, of making statements of opinion but portraying them as fact (a quick review of your prior post does this repeatedly). That's where the real arrogance lies.

I recognize that it's difficult to join a rather lengthy thread and fully capture all that's been written, but I do think that it's the least one should do before subjecting others to distortions of their positions, creating strawmen, making unreasonable demands that they themselves won't adhere to, and acting as if they have the indisputable truth when, for example, it is understood that Keynesians and Austrians will have diametrically different viewpoints.

If you wish to make a point or refute one I've made, please do so. But can we end the amateur psychoanalysis and scolding? Enough is enough!


----------



## Chouan

My field is also History. That wouldn't qualify me to challenge a professor of economics on the subject of economics, either.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> My field is also History. That wouldn't qualify me to challenge a professor of economics on the subject of economics, either.


Whilst this is decidedly not directed at my esteemed associate Bernoulli (whose input to these fora I value and admire), yet still, having worked in higher education for a goodly number of years now, I can reassure the members that high academic standing is cetainly no assurance of expertise. Truly this may be so.

Now, I am away to our departmental head's office to tell her just that. *ahem* Probably. :redface:


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> If you wish to make a point or refute one I've made, please do so.


You haven't yet addressed any of the key points I've made, so perhaps I can reprise them in numbered question fashion so you can advise me where I went astray. It should be evident that I believe all these things you've said are patently wrong.

1. Do you represent the Founders as speaking with one common voice as you implied they did in Post 54?

2. Do you represent that our entire national history features routine violation of the Constitution by all three federal branches as you baldly stated in Post 50?

3. Do you represent that all government spending is wasteful and all private spending is productive as you implied by invoking the Bastiat's Window parable in Post 74?

4. Do you represent that expansion of the money supply equates to inflation as you stated in Post 83?

5. Do you represent that government spending can create no jobs nor growth as you stated in Post 72?

6. Do you represent that our nation has reached "ruination" as you stated in Post 79? This last strikes me as the strangest remark you've made here, since in the 326 years since our (then-small) nation was founded, we've become the greatest economic and geopolitical force in the history of mankind. This sort of language is common among the so-called "Tea Party Patriots," yet it sounds to me like the least patriotic statement that an American could make.


----------



## Shaver

I'll just leave this here: https://one-simple-idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations.htm


----------



## Tilton

Shaver said:


> I'll just leave this here: https://one-simple-idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations.htm


Just a small note that the author conspicuously leaves out of his point #15: _at least _40% of undocumented persons in the US did not cross the border illegally - they came to the US legally and then proceeded to overstay their visas.


----------



## Shaver

Tilton said:


> Just a small note that the author conspicuously leaves out of his point #15: _at least _40% of undocumented persons in the US did not cross the border illegally - they came to the US legally and then proceeded to overstay their visas.


Is it a conspicuous omission? Once the visa expires then status transforms to illegal irrespective of initial access, surely?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> My field is also History. That wouldn't qualify me to challenge a professor of economics on the subject of economics, either.


Chouan, you are too intelligent to keep harping on this censorious and ludicrous line of thinking. You have challenged many people on many issues, and that seems to be fine, yet somehow I must now have a degree in economics to debate points with Bernoulli. You started this very thread on a political topic - are you saying that you would cease discussing once you discovered that your debate partner had a degree in political science, even if his/her position was diametrically opposed to yours? I doubt that very much!

Additionally, let's assume a person has an advanced degree in history, but comes from the Howard Zinn school of thought. Must everyone accept that person's opinions as truths? Or perhaps the "expert" was more like Forrest MacDonald&#8230;would we (you) then lie prostrate before his throne, and accept anything he uttered, since he was an "expert"? Of course not! This is really insane, and I won't partake in such nonsensical banter on this topic.

I implore everyone to keep in mind that there are dozens of schools of economic thought; the idea that one person is an "expert" with all of the answers is simply too ridiculous for words. Besides, I used the ideas of von Mises, Hazlitt, Rothbard and others - are _they _qualified to discuss economics, Chouan?

As Shaver wrote, "The notion that a man has to be a qualified professional in order to express a sensible viewpoint on a given subject is laughable."


----------



## Tiger

*I apologize in advance to everyone for this protracted post, but it seems nothing less would satisfy MaxBuck, and who is more accommodating than I am?

*But you do have advanced degrees in history and economics, correct, MaxBuck? If not, I believe Chouan will be checking into this shortly&#8230;oh wait, no, that only applies to me!

Sit back and enjoy, MaxBuck:

1. Do you represent the Founders as speaking with one common voice as you implied they did in Post 54?

_I have already answered this, multiple times. "Founding generation" is a general term, and exceptions can always be found. The issue is, which framers/founders either at the Federal Convention or in the ratification debates viewed the Constitution as this incredibly elastic and expansive document that bestowed tremendous power upon the federal government, as it operates now? Let me know when you find one&#8230;_

2. Do you represent that our entire national history features routine violation of the Constitution by all three federal branches as you baldly stated in Post 50?

_Yes, I do. It started in the Washington Administration, and continues to this day, regardless of political party or political philosophy. There are very few exceptions&#8230;_

3. Do you represent that all government spending is wasteful and all private spending is productive as you implied by invoking the Bastiat's Window parable in Post 74?

*I never said or implied such a thing!*_ Please don't alter my words, MaxBuck._

4. Do you represent that expansion of the money supply equates to inflation as you stated in Post 83?

_As previously mentioned, I find the topic of inflation a bit too rarefied for me, but these guys don't seem to be too shy to state their opinions:_

_Let us start from the basic fact that there is no record in the economic history of the whole world, anywhere or at any time, of a serious and prolonged inflation which has not been accompanied and made possible, if not directly caused, by a large increase in the quantity of money. - Gottfried Haberler_

_Inflation, always and everywhere, is primarily caused by an increase in the supply of money and credit. In fact, inflation __is_ _the increase in the supply of money and credit. - Henry Hazlitt_

_If the quantity of money is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unit decreases, and the quantity of goods that can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also. - Ludwig von Mises_

5. Do you represent that government spending can create no jobs nor growth as you stated in Post 72?

_Yes, I stand by the comment. If government has no money of its own, then it must use private sector money to accomplish anything (through taxation or borrowing, which requires taxation to pay back. And then there's inflation of the currency - in essence, the most insidious of all taxes.). As written previously, "government spending is sometimes necessary, of course. But such necessary spending should not be confused with economic stimulation of an economy. The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend or save/invest!" The things seen, and the things not seen, as per Bastiat. _

6. Do you represent that our nation has reached "ruination" as you stated in Post 79? This last strikes me as the strangest remark you've made here, since in the 326 years since our (then-small) nation was founded, we've become the greatest economic and geopolitical force in the history of mankind. This sort of language is common among the so-called "Tea Party Patriots," yet it sounds to me like the least patriotic statement that an American could make.

_Ah, the resort to questioning my patriotism! Isn't there an aphorism about people who do such things?_

_Please stop with the Tea Party stuff; it's insulting, and besides, there are so many darn groups claiming the moniker - often with varying positions - that it's impossible to label them one way or another. Thus, impossible to label me; please stop it._

_"326 years"? No wonder you like Bernoulli's formulas!_

_"Nation" - are you sure? Weren't we supposed to be a republic of confederated states, not a consolidated nation? But that's an argument for another day, especially after you've re-read the Declaration of Independence&#8230;_

_Here's what I believe: Politically __expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government since its inception have been __the ruination of the United States. Politicians have allowed this to happen because these transmogrifications have invariably led to an enormous expansion of political power - benefiting the politicians, but irreversibly hurting the liberty of the states (those forgotten entities long since eviscerated by the de facto emasculation of the Tenth Amendment) and their citizens. We practice a hypocritical brand of foreign interventionism that has created many enemies for us. The federal U.S. Code of Laws is over 205,000 pages long. Economically, our "limited federal government" spends $3.5 trillion a year, with a nearly $1 trillion a year deficit, has accumulated many trillions in overall debt, we have low growth, high unemployment, unsustainable social programs, and a stagnant wage for the middle class for decades._

_We have deviated unrecognizably from the founding "principles of '76" and no longer resemble the limited federal republic of sovereign states that the vast number of our Founding Fathers designed us to be._

*Hope that answers your questions. What's next, MaxBuck - a resort to insulting my mother?*


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> *I apologize in advance to everyone for this protracted post, but it seems nothing less would satisfy MaxBuck, and who is more accommodating than I am?*


I've encountered a great many people more accommodating than you, but let's continue.


Tiger said:


> But you do have advanced degrees in history and economics, correct, MaxBuck? If not, I believe Chouan will be checking into this shortly&#8230;oh wait, no, that only applies to me!


Pauvre petit. What disqualifies you is not your absence of degrees, but rather your absence of logic and cohesive argument.



Tiger said:


> 1. Do you represent the Founders as speaking with one common voice as you implied they did in Post 54?
> 
> _I have already answered this, multiple times. "Founding generation" is a general term, and exceptions can always be found. The issue is, which framers/founders either at the Federal Convention or in the ratification debates viewed the Constitution as this incredibly elastic and expansive document that bestowed tremendous power upon the federal government, as it operates now? Let me know when you find one&#8230;_


 Quite a lot of fancy words there, and I admit I can't quite figure out whether you admit or deny what I attributed to you.



Tiger said:


> 2. Do you represent that our entire national history features routine violation of the Constitution by all three federal branches as you baldly stated in Post 50?
> 
> _Yes, I do. It started in the Washington Administration, and continues to this day, regardless of political party or political philosophy. There are very few exceptions ..._


That's a pretty bold comment, and puts you into the position of claiming the Constitution to be useless. And also in the position of claiming that the growth and vigor of our great nation has nothing to do with the value of the Constitution, since you suggest it's never been obeyed. Pardon me, but that's incredible nonsense.



Tiger said:


> 3. Do you represent that all government spending is wasteful and all private spending is productive as you implied by invoking the Bastiat's Window parable in Post 74?
> 
> *I never said or implied such a thing!*_ Please don't alter my words, MaxBuck._


Come now. You invoked the Bastiat's Window parable in suggesting that public and private expenditures were different. That certainly implies a belief that public spending is _ipso facto_ wasteful, and your entire screed is consistent with such an inference. Be intellectually consistent enough to admit your position, please.



Tiger said:


> 4. Do you represent that expansion of the money supply equates to inflation as you stated in Post 83?
> 
> _As previously mentioned, *I find the topic of inflation a bit too rarefied for me,* but these guys don't seem to be too shy to state their opinions:_
> 
> _Let us start from the basic fact that there is no record in the economic history of the whole world, anywhere or at any time, of a serious and prolonged inflation which has not been accompanied and made possible, if not directly caused, by a large increase in the quantity of money. - Gottfried Haberler_
> 
> _Inflation, always and everywhere, is primarily caused by an increase in the supply of money and credit. In fact, inflation __is_ _the increase in the supply of money and credit. - Henry Hazlitt_
> 
> _If the quantity of money is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unit decreases, and the quantity of goods that can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also. - Ludwig von Mises_


So you rely upon the word of economists who lived in a time of commodity-based currency as your reference when discussing the impact of monetary expansion in a time of fiat currency. But I'd think that a period of 15+ years in which monetary expansion has occurred without measurable inflation would persuade you to rethink your paradigm.

I think your coy comment that the topic of inflation is "too rarefied for you" is pretty disingenuous, since you've offered your opinion on the subject anyhow.



Tiger said:


> 5. Do you represent that government spending can create no jobs nor growth as you stated in Post 72?
> 
> _Yes, I stand by the comment. If government has no money of its own, then it must use private sector money to accomplish anything (through taxation or borrowing, which requires taxation to pay back. And then there's inflation of the currency - in essence, the most insidious of all taxes.). As written previously, "government spending is sometimes necessary, of course. But such necessary spending should not be confused with economic stimulation of an economy. The money government spends is money that the private sector no longer has for it to spend or save/invest!" The things seen, and the things not seen, as per Bastiat._


"Things seen and unseen." Pretty philosophical comment, but it's wrong in this case. The suggestion that public investment in massive and productive public works such as the Interstate highway system isn't creation of wealth is outlandish.



Tiger said:


> 6. Do you represent that our nation has reached "ruination" as you stated in Post 79?
> 
> _Ah, the resort to questioning my patriotism! Isn't there an aphorism about people who do such things? *My comment was that the statement was unpatriotic, not that you are. Please be more rigorous in your reading.*_
> 
> _Please stop with the Tea Party stuff; it's insulting, and besides, there are so many darn groups claiming the moniker - often with varying positions - that it's impossible to label them one way or another. Thus, impossible to label me; please stop it. *I didn't label you as a Tea Partier, I said that your comments were consistent with their drivel. Please be more rigorous in your reading.*_
> 
> _"326 years"? No wonder you like Bernoulli's formulas! *Busted! Bad math; should have been 226 years. That's why my wife takes care of the checkbook.*_
> 
> _"Nation" - are you sure? Weren't we supposed to be a republic of confederated states, not a consolidated nation? But that's an argument for another day, especially after you've re-read the Declaration of Independence. *So now you're arguing we're not a nation? I hope you're realizing just how idiosyncratic your positions are.*_
> 
> _Here's what I believe: Politically __expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government since its inception have been __the ruination of the United States. Politicians have allowed this to happen because these transmogrifications have invariably led to an enormous expansion of political power - benefiting the politicians, but irreversibly hurting the liberty of the states (those forgotten entities long since eviscerated by the de facto emasculation of the Tenth Amendment) and their citizens. We practice a hypocritical brand of foreign interventionism that has created many enemies for us. The federal U.S. Code of Laws is over 205,000 pages long. Economically, our "limited federal government" spends $3.5 trillion a year, with a nearly $1 trillion a year deficit, has accumulated many trillions in overall debt, we have low growth, high unemployment, unsustainable social programs, and a stagnant wage for the middle class for decades._
> 
> _We have deviated unrecognizably from the founding "principles of '76" and no longer resemble the limited federal republic of sovereign states that the vast number of our Founding Fathers designed us to be._
> 
> *Hope that answers your questions. What's next, MaxBuck - a resort to insulting my mother?*


Strawman! I've simply held you accountable for your words. You have backtracked rapidly from some of your outrageous comments, and used obfuscation to deflect attention from some others. I'd hardly blame your mother for your nonsense; you and you alone are responsible for this drivel.

And by the way, your suggestion that we as a nation have reached "ruination?" That's hardly patriotic; it's an insult to our founding fathers and to the great (yet fallible) men who have shaped our great nation over the past - yes - *226* years.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> As Shaver wrote, "The notion that a man has to be a qualified professional in order to express a sensible viewpoint on a given subject is laughable."


I agree with Shaver. But the person must be sensible in order to offer such a sensible viewpoint.


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck, you either willfully distort what I've plainly written, or simply don't understand it. Most of your comments are snide, and evade my points. Not surprising...

I've not backtracked one bit! Perhaps rather than attack, you could intelligently respond, but I hope for too much.

Notes: Hazlitt and von Mises are 20th century economists; I can cite others, but to what purpose?...Alexander Hamilton set out immediately to change the understanding of the Constitution, as did John Marshall...Sedition Act of 1798...the Constititution isn't "useless"; it simply wasn't effective in preventing the centralizers from destroying it...you continue to misread my use of Bastiat...your CPI-defined inflation may not be the proper measure...nothing disingenuous about me or my remarks, but your nastiness is fully evident..."226 years"? Did anything occur prior to this?

"Massive public works" only occur with massive expropriation of private funds. You continue to evade the central economic point I've made - had the money not been expropriated, it would have created much growth/wealth in the private sector. 

It's amazing how you continue to insult me. "Drivel"? "Nonsense"? For a guy that has not effectively responded to anything I've written, this is quite bold. Well, at least I'm in good company with von Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek, et al.

Love the way you attempt to portray yourself as a defender of the American founders; there is no stronger traditionalist in this regard than me, yet you continue to question my patriotism. 

Your non-answers speak volumes...


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> I agree with Shaver. But the person must be sensible in order to offer such a sensible viewpoint.


Every query you made has been responded to; yet because you don't agree with what I've written (or more accurately, you don't agree with the distortions of my positions that you attempt to represent as my positions), I'm not "sensible."

Since you've defended Bernoulli, you must agree with his statement that "government can create growth out of thin air." Hmmm...and I'm the one not sensible?

P.S. - Since a few of us have already disclosed our fields of specialty, perhaps you can do so as well, MaxBuck?


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> Notes: Hazlitt and von Mises are 20th century economists; I can cite others, but to what purpose?...Alexander Hamilton set out immediately to change the understanding of the Constitution, as did John Marshall...Sedition Act of 1798...the Constititution isn't "useless"; it simply wasn't effective in preventing the centralizers from destroying it...you continue to misread my use of Bastiat...your CPI-defined inflation may not be the proper measure...nothing disingenuous about me or my remarks, but your nastiness is fully evident..."226 years"? Did anything occur prior to this? *...* *Stream of consciousness ...* *What's your point? If the Constitution has consistently been violated throughout our history by all three branches of government, what has been its utility? What does the Sedition Act have to do with anything I've asked you? What's your problem with my citation of 226 years, since that's how long we've existed as a nation?*
> 
> "Massive public works" only occur with massive expropriation of private funds. You continue to evade the central economic point I've made - had the money not been expropriated, it would have created much growth/wealth in the private sector. *No, I evaded nothing -- you stated flatly that government cannot create wealth, ignoring my examples of mammoth and productive public works such as the Interstate system. Do you now deny that statement? I've never suggested that money put to use in the private sector can't create growth and wealth; all I've said is that it's no slam dunk that it will, and I've provided examples to prove the point. I'll even acknowledge that, on balance, the private sector does a much better job of doing so than does the public sector.*
> 
> Love the way you attempt to portray yourself as a defender of the American founders; there is no stronger traditionalist in this regard than me, yet you continue to question my patriotism. *Where did I claim to be a "defender of America's founders?" Quit putting words in other people's mouths. Your claim, though, to be a "strong traditionalist" is greatly at odds with your idiosyncratic claim that all three branches of federal government have routinely violated the Constitution since its ratification. That's hardly a traditional viewpoint.*
> 
> Your non-answers speak volumes... *You've continued to evade my questions. What specific questions have you asked me that I've failed to answer? Be specific and I'll respond.*


As to what my own education is, I'm an engineer. I don't claim any advanced education in either economics or history. But I've read enough of the Durants, Dumas Malone, the Federalist Papers, and the Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution to be able to converse as at least an intelligent naif on US history. And history, unlike (arguably) economics, is not a science.

Other points you've failed to address so far:

a. You strongly implied we've achieved "ruination." The word is yours.
b. You stated that monetary expansion is the same as inflation.
c. You stated that government spending can create no jobs. (Note you did not say that it can create no *net* jobs; had you said that, I'd agree.)

I believe one problem with Hazlitt and Friedman is that they assume that the economy is an ideal system, in which equilibriums are reached instantaneously and optimization is provided rapidly by the market. But it isn't. Aside from Hazlitt's specious equation of monetary expansion and inflation, I don't have the understanding to debate his major premises, nor do I claim him to be in error otherwise. But I do believe that the nonideality of real economic system response to stimuli such as the bust in housing prices and associated demand in the late 2000s means that his econometric assumptions aren't entirely valid in the real world.

With all this being said, I'm fully in accord with Uncle Milty (Friedman) that unencumbered free markets are the best mechanism we have to *likely* produce the best economic outcome for the greatest number of people. I disagree with his overriding assumption that such markets *guarantee* efficiency or optimal outcomes, but that may be cutting things too finely. And I've said all this with the understanding that I could be completely wrong.


----------



## Tilton

Shaver said:


> Is it a conspicuous omission? Once the visa expires then status transforms to illegal irrespective of initial access, surely?


Maybe I read it differently, but to me it implied that the issue was that the root of the issue is that the borders are not secure enough.


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> As to what my own education is, I'm an engineer. I don't claim any advanced education in either economics or history. But I've read enough of the Durants, Dumas Malone, the Federalist Papers, and the Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution to be able to converse as at least an intelligent naif on US history. And history, unlike (arguably) economics, is not a science.
> 
> Other points you've failed to address so far:
> 
> a. *You strongly implied we've achieved "ruination." The word is yours.
> *b. You stated that monetary expansion is the same as inflation.
> c. You stated that government spending can create no jobs. (Note you did not say that it can create no *net* jobs; had you said that, I'd agree.)
> 
> I believe one problem with Hazlitt and Friedman is that they assume that the economy is an ideal system, in which equilibriums are reached instantaneously and optimization is provided rapidly by the market. But it isn't. Aside from Hazlitt's specious equation of monetary expansion and inflation, I don't have the understanding to debate his major premises, nor do I claim him to be in error otherwise. But I do believe that the nonideality of real economic system response to stimuli such as the bust in housing prices and associated demand in the late 2000s means that his econometric assumptions aren't entirely valid in the real world.
> 
> With all this being said, I'm fully in accord with Uncle Milty (Friedman) that unencumbered free markets are the best mechanism we have to *likely* produce the best economic outcome for the greatest number of people. I disagree with his overriding assumption that such markets *guarantee* efficiency or optimal outcomes, but that may be cutting things too finely. And I've said all this with the understanding that I could be completely wrong.


Hello MaxBuck, may I take opportunity to clarify a small matter with you? Ruination describes items which are degraded, to a larger or lesser extent, and anything which devalues the environment in which it operates can be understood as a ruination. Ruination is not a state of utter collapse, it is an ongoing (occasional even) process. Ruin, on the other hand, describes the remains of something which _has_ been destroyed, a total and final position. We are agreed on these two distinct definitions, I trust?


----------



## MaxBuck

Shaver said:


> Hello MaxBuck, may I take opportunity to clarify a small matter with you? Ruination describes items which are degraded, to a larger or lesser extent, and anything which devalues the environment in which it operates can be understood as a ruination. Ruination is not a state of utter collapse, it is an ongoing (occasional even) process. Ruin, on the other hand, describes the remains of something which _has_ been destroyed, a total and final position. We are agreed on these two distinct definitions, I trust?


No. Ruin and ruination are, for all practical purposes, synonyms in standard US English usage. Can't speak to connotation differences on your side of the pond.


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> No. Ruin and ruination are, for all practical purposes, synonyms in standard US English usage. Can't speak to connotation differences on your side of the pond.


The Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive record of the English language) would disagree with you.

It may be a subtle difference unappreciated by most, but nevertheless the meaning is not interchangeable from one word to the other.


----------



## MaxBuck

Shaver said:


> The Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive record of the English language) would disagree with you.


Actually, at least speaking for its online version, it would not.



> *ruination
> **noun*
> 
> *the action or fact of ruining someone or something or of being ruined:commercial malpractice causes the ruination of thousands of people*
> 
> * the state of being ruined:the headquarters fell into ruination*


Again, not speaking to connotation, which this doesn't address. As you're aware, connotation differs more between Britain and the US than does denotation.


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> Actually, at least speaking for its online version, it would not.
> 
> Again, not speaking to connotation, which this doesn't address. As you're aware, connotation differs more between Britain and the US than does denotation.


How curious - I have just looked on-line and that is not the meaning given: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/168698?redirectedFrom=ruination&
Perhaps they operate a simplified version for the U.S. territories? :devil:


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Chouan, you are too intelligent to keep harping on this censorious and ludicrous line of thinking. You have challenged many people on many issues, and that seems to be fine, yet somehow I must now have a degree in economics to debate points with Bernoulli. You started this very thread on a political topic - are you saying that you would cease discussing once you discovered that your debate partner had a degree in political science, even if his/her position was diametrically opposed to yours? I doubt that very much!
> 
> Additionally, let's assume a person has an advanced degree in history, but comes from the Howard Zinn school of thought. Must everyone accept that person's opinions as truths? Or perhaps the "expert" was more like Forrest MacDonald&#8230;would we (you) then lie prostrate before his throne, and accept anything he uttered, since he was an "expert"? Of course not! This is really insane, and I won't partake in such nonsensical banter on this topic.
> 
> I implore everyone to keep in mind that there are dozens of schools of economic thought; the idea that one person is an "expert" with all of the answers is simply too ridiculous for words. Besides, I used the ideas of von Mises, Hazlitt, Rothbard and others - are _they _qualified to discuss economics, Chouan?
> 
> As Shaver wrote, "The notion that a man has to be a qualified professional in order to express a sensible viewpoint on a given subject is laughable."


NIce of you to say so. However, although I would feel confident in discussing, or arguing with, people in areas in which I believe I know something; I wouldn't engage in arguments in areas in which I know I don't know anything of moment. I wouldn't argue about engineering with a professional engineer, I wouldn't argue about chemistry with a professional chemist either. I would argue with either of them about politics, or film, or literature, or clothes. I wouldn't argue about Law with a Barrister, or a Professor of Law either as further examples. These people I would acknowledge as experts in their fields, and whilst I may disagree with their opinions in other areas, in their own field of expertise I would be happy to defer to them.


----------



## MaxBuck

Shaver said:


> How curious - I have just looked on-line and that is not the meaning given: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/168698?redirectedFrom=ruination&
> Perhaps they operate a simplified version for the U.S. territories? :devil:


Interesting. Your link is subscriber-only, while mine was open to anyone. Not sure what the deal is, but it appears there are different websites operated by the OED. My link was oxforddictionaries.com. Both sites are operated by Oxford University Press.


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> Interesting. Your link is subscriber-only, while mine was open to anyone. Not sure what the deal is, but it appears there are different websites operated by the OED. My link was oxforddictionaries.com. Both sites are operated by Oxford University Press.


That is interesting.

I have a good mind to register a complaint with the OED. If it cannot be relied upon to settle a dispute then it's a very poor show, a very poor show indeed. :mad2:


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> NIce of you to say so. However, although I would feel confident in discussing, or arguing with, people in areas in which I believe I know something; I wouldn't engage in arguments in areas in which I know I don't know anything of moment. I wouldn't argue about engineering with a professional engineer, I wouldn't argue about chemistry with a professional chemist either. I would argue with either of them about politics, or film, or literature, or clothes. I wouldn't argue about Law with a Barrister, or a Professor of Law either as further examples. These people I would acknowledge as experts in their fields, and whilst I may disagree with their opinions in other areas, in their own field of expertise I would be happy to defer to them.


But surely you don't equate economics with the hard/exact/natural sciences such as chemistry and physics? The fact that there are numerous "schools" of economic thought, and a greater number of subsets of these schools, is ipso facto proof that there's a level of subjectivity inherent in economics, making it far closer to "politics, film, literature, or clothes," and thus an allowable topic for discussion, in your formulation.

I have no doubt that if we had a poster named Frédéric, for instance, who was an economics professor who espoused the same principles and concepts that I have, he would be challenged by the same people who challenged me. None of you would suddenly defer to Frédéric; your beliefs would drive your opposition, as they have with me. I understand this, yet I'm held to a far different standard.

How do I know this? Look at all of the historical inaccuracies that appear in this thread that I've tried to correct. The same people who urged me to cease discussing economics with an "expert" - to the point where they demanded credentials of me! - have remained mystifyingly silent when posters without an advanced degree in history have made remarks that were unequivocally false. Suddenly, my area of expertise is meaningless, with anyone entitled to write whatever they wish, and without anything evidentiary to support it. But I quote Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Frédéric Bastiat - titans in the field of economics - and I'm treated as if I've made this stuff up extemporaneously! MaxBuck (and Bernoulli) has ridiculed von Mises and Hazlitt, yet no one is calling for him to cease. Here's a guess: von Mises and Hazlitt are just a tad more accomplished than MaxBuck and Bernoulli&#8230;

Finally, if someone on this board was a professor of geology, and wrote that the earth consisted of 80% lasagna (I wish!), would you still defer to that person? I very much doubt it! Yet, to my Classical/Austrian influenced view of economics, writing that "governments can create growth out of thin air" is essentially the same. Advanced degrees or not, people need to support their assertions.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> MaxBuck ... has ridiculed von Mises and Hazlitt ...


It would be nice if you were a bit more concerned with truthfulness. I have not ridiculed either of these brilliant gentlemen, and I don't believe bernoulli has either. I simply believe (as do most actual economists practicing today) that the science has advanced since they ended their studies. It certainly doesn't mean their theories are typically wrong, and I'd never claim such a thing.



Tiger said:


> Finally, if someone on this board was a professor of geology, and wrote that the earth consisted of 80% lasagna ...


 ... or was a professor of history and claimed the Constitution had been routinely violated by all three federal government branches from the time it was ratified ...

You continue to ignore my requests that you either admit to the positions you've taken throughout this discussion (and that I've cited) or acknowledge your error. I'm finished with this pointless dialogue.


----------



## Shaver

One only needs examine the various conflicting theories in high-energy physics (a hard science if ever there was) and all of which can be supported by distinct, yet oppositional, mathematical theorem to be able to appreciate that knowledge is a journey.

Why, I am old enough to recall when plate tectonics was but a fanciful notion - who would dispute it now?

Many of the greatest advances in science were made by dabblers (remember that lowly patent clerk who bent space-time to his own will?) Discount the dilettantes at your peril. :icon_smile:

Finally, economics is certainly no science, it does not possess the basic attributes required to define it as such. Thus there are no facts involved here, merely opinions and speculation.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck, I'll try to respond the best I can, but so many points on one message makes this very unwieldy. Perhaps in the future, can we tackle one topic at a time?

The Constitution is only as effective in maintaining the "principles of '76" as the people who live under it; this is true of any constitution. Our political leaders - with the implicit help from the American people - have subverted our constitutional system. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Mason and many others warned that in a republic, virtue and wisdom was essential for that republic to endure. When I think of the "American Republic", I think of a limited general (federal) government of confederated states, an essentially unencumbered free market economic system, and with a foreign policy that follows Washington's admonition to avoid permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. We no longer remotely resemble this description; hence my reference to "ruination" (defined by Merriam-Webster as "the act or process of destroying something"). If I didn't have such deep love for my country, none of this would matter. You don't have to agree, but I sure would like to see evidence to the contrary if I'm wrong. I've provided plenty in earlier posts&#8230;

I mentioned the Sedition Act (and Hamilton and Marshall) to illustrate how quickly our Constitution was hijacked by the centralizers whose ideals differed greatly from those espousing a limited government of expressly delegated and enumerated powers (the overwhelming majority of the founding generation). A reading of Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions may be eye-opening, if you haven't already done so.

Are you certain we became a "nation" in 1787? What were we before that? What changed? What's the difference between being a "nation" as opposed to a confederated republic of states? Just something to think about; it may spur both research and new philosophical underpinnings&#8230;

I have answered your point about "mammoth and productive public works" that "create wealth" multiple times. This will be the last: No wealth is created! That money would have been used by the private sector - according to our free choices - to create far more wealth/growth through saving, investing, and all forms of commerce. Chapter IV of Henry Hazlitt's _Economics in One Lesson_ gives this topic extraordinary treatment; it's six pages of magnificence, and well worth reading.

*If you are making the case that traditional constitutionalists believe that the Constitution has not been incredibly violated over the past two hundred years, then I'm stunned beyond words. I have yet to meet/read a traditional constitutionalist who doesn't believe that the constitution has been subverted beyond all recognition!
*
Not surprised that you're an engineer; you are very intelligent (but also a bit inflexible and far more demeaning than I'd prefer).

Reading the _The Federalist_ is only part of the process; have you read the objections of the Anti-Federalists? That's the other side of the coin, MaxBuck. It is remarkable to read how arguments by Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, Morris and other Federalists were matched by Mason, Yates, Lee, Henry, Clinton, Monroe, and others. Another topic that will lead you down a whole new philosophical (and constitutional) path, I believe. Of course, reading the Constitution (and the indispensible Tenth Amendment) really provides us with a flavor for just what powers were given to the general government by the states, and what terms such as "limited government" and "expressly delegated powers" really mean. Might also help you to refrain from senseless attacks on me purporting to defend the Constitution, when you're debating with someone who has defended it for two decades...

As mention in a reply to Chouan, "But surely you don't equate economics with the hard/exact/natural sciences such as chemistry and physics? The fact that there are numerous "schools" of economic thought, and a greater number of subsets of these schools, is ipso facto proof that there's a level of subjectivity inherent in economics&#8230;"

I have answered "ruination" (see above), and have answered about "inflation" as well. (In fact, your dismissive treatment of von Mises and Hazlitt was very disappointing.) Why you believe I didn't answer this point is puzzling. Do you want more quotes from other economists on the topic, including those who explain the seeming absence of inflation over the past decade and a half? I'm sure you can find those for yourself.

*We are in agreement - government can create no net jobs!* I thought that was implied by my argument - and in some posts made explicit - since the topic was economic stimulus, and some were arguing that government intervention spurs growth (and thus "creating new jobs"), while I argued the opposite. Classical/Austrian vs. Keynesian economics&#8230;
Re: Hazlitt's "specious equation of monetary expansion and inflation" - I'm afraid it's not just Hazlitt, but an enormous number of classical and Austrian school economists who will swear by this. In addition, the Austrian school has written extensively (and with great accuracy) on "booms and busts" if you're interested.

Milton Friedman is in general far closer to the classical economists of the world then he is to the Keynesians (as displayed by his debates with Keynesian Paul Samuelson), but his monetarist theories would probably put him at odds with most in the Austrian school. Again, I'm not in my comfort zone here&#8230;I'd call myself a dilettante again, but I fear I'll have that thrown in my face by people who prefer the ad hominem argument to logical/factual ones.

Did I answer all that you wanted?


----------



## Tiger

Thank you again, Shaver.

MaxBuck wasn't patient enough to wait for my response; he had to attack me once again. Hopefully, after reading my most recent post (too long by any measure), he'll finally attenuate some of his arrogance...


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> It would be nice if you were a bit more concerned with truthfulness. I have not ridiculed either of these brilliant gentlemen, and I don't believe bernoulli has either...
> 
> ... or was a professor of history and claimed the Constitution had been routinely violated by all three federal government branches from the time it was ratified.
> 
> ...You continue to ignore my requests that you either admit to the positions you've taken throughout this discussion (and that I've cited) or acknowledge your error. I'm finished with this pointless dialogue.


1) This is incredibly dishonest - but typical and as such unsurprising.
2) When you begin to understand what the Constitution was supposed to be, and how it has been subverted, perhaps we can resume discussion. Until that point, please stop babbling like a drunken football fan about something you've proven to know very little about!
3) Nothing has ever been ignored. You are either too obtuse to understand what I've written (on multiple occasions), or too stubborn to accept it. I think it's mostly the latter...
4) I'll acknowledge error when it's proven to be so. That has yet to occur - and you in particular are not remotely close to doing so.
5) Here's an idea - why don't you read my most recent post that covers every darn thing you've mentioned? Then re-read everything else I wrote, which has addressed every "point" you've, um, made. This may help you to understand my positions, as opposed to what you purport them to be. If you still have the need to claim that you haven't been acknowledged, then there's no sense in continuing. Not only do you myopically believe in only what you want to believe, you seek to mold other people's thoughts into what you believe they're saying, regardless of the actual written words. You're an ideologue, and a nasty one at that...


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> You're an ideologue, and a nasty one at that...


With many people I might say that I'm sorry you feel that way. In your case I couldn't care less. Have a nice life.


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> With many people I might say that I'm sorry you feel that way. In your case I couldn't care less. Have a nice life.


So, despite all of your personal attacks against me, distortions of the truth, various other obfuscations, avoidance of the issues, false claims of being unacknowledged, faulty logic, misrepresentations - no, outright lies about my positions, talk-radio level history knowledge, demeaning of economists whose shoes you are not fit to shine, and overall miserable and nasty demeanor, you do something that many such scoundrels do - when you've realized that you've been bested, you simply quit.

I just wish I hadn't wasted so much time with such a mean-spirited and closed-minded charlatan...


----------



## Joseph Peter

I suppose it was inevitable. The Republican Party, such as it is, is experiencing its own internal plate tectonics. One faction is throwing the other under the proverbial bus while the other is simply focused on "not blinking". Let's throw in default deniers in as well. I suppose the Dems can enjoy their relatively uncontested election victories for the next several cycles. Well done, GOP, well done. Does such a useless and unfruitful "battle" constitute ruin or ruination of the GOP? Boy oh boy.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> ... you do something that many such scoundrels do - when you've realized that you've been bested, you simply quit.


----------



## Shaver

There are some frightfully marvellous words and phrases in foreign tongues that have no direct correlation within my beloved English language. 

One of my favourites is assuredly this: l'esprit d'escalier. Quite literally the 'spirit of the stairs' or 'staircase wit'. This jolly endearing phrase refers to a perfect retort which frustratingly only occurs to one after the adversarial exchange, too late to be of benefit.

Say what you like about the internet, it allows even the dullest of us time to pause, to marshall our resources, and to proffer the most delicious bon mot. Except when, incredulously, it doesn't.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> There are some frightfully marvellous words and phrases in foreign tongues that have no direct correlation within my beloved English language.
> 
> One of my favourites is assuredly this: l'esprit d'escalier. Quite literally the 'spirit of the stairs' or 'staircase wit'. This jolly endearing phrase refers to a perfect retort which frustratingly only occurs to one after the adversarial exchange, too late to be of benefit.
> 
> Say what you like about the internet, it allows even the dullest of us time to pause, to marshall our resources, and to proffer the most delicious bon mot. Except when, incredulously, it doesn't.


Shaver, you are as urbane, literate, and intelligent a person as I've ever come across. I learn something every day from your posts! You also have the ability to be informative without being pedantic, and profound without being arcane.

A priceless asset to AAAC...


----------



## bernoulli

One last time:

Should I point out that I have an article written and published praising Hayek? Oh well, when I tried to explain things in technical terms I was asked not to. When I gave non-technical explanations, those were not accepted. I spent a wonderful week in NYC, and even taught at Stern. I feel refreshed to try to cram some basic common sense into people. I know I am being condenscending, but so what? Just don't read if you don't feel like it. 

Yes, printing 500 trillion would cause inflation and nothing else, whereas printing 1 trillion a year maintain liquidity (and create growth) without creating inflation (thus far). So what? Governments can indeed create growth of thin air, the question is all the other consequences. Again, all of these are facts accepted by everybody. Nowhere I said that governments should be doing that. Are you good so far? Let's try more:

I told I was not strictly Keynesian (but I am not a macroeconomist, after all). Nobody would use any of Keynes' models today. In fact, the models were outdates in the late 30's early 40's, when the neoclassical synthesis put Keynes models in a much more firm ground (Hicks version is particularly interesting from a historical point of view). Yes, some of basic facts that Keynes pointed out are still there, and he has had a massive influence, but from the top of my had we had post-keynesian, neo-keynesian, neoclassical, new classical (yes, neo and new, go figure), friedman monetarists etc, all different strands of macroeconomics. All of them agree that Money is NOT NEUTRAL in the short run, which means the government can impact real variables in the short run (Friedman contends that Money is neutral in the long run). Shaver may be right when he posits that maybe it should not be done (but then again, he may be wrong), but the fact is that governments can. If you can't accept that, I am sorry, but you lack basic common sense. After all, we are seeing the government affecting the US economy RIGHT NOW by the Quantitative Easing. A lot of name dropping, I know. Anyway, here is for the kill:

Your idols are wrong. But all idols are wrong. Idolatry is futile. Either you understand something, at least minimally, or you don't. And you don't. A shame, as I was looking forward to a rational discourse. Take of that what you will. If you want a more technical proof, I have given it already. After all, again: GDP = C + I + G + X - M. How can the government not affect GDP IF IT IS PART OF HOW IT IS MEASURED?


----------



## bernoulli

BTW, I agree that I should be challenged, even though I have professional qualifications. I hate arguments of authority.

But I quote Shaver "The notion that a man has to be a qualified professional in order to express a sensible viewpoint on a given subject is laughable." 

The problem is that most opinions spoused on this thread and that I showed that are wrong have not been sensible at all! Those are struck down on the first or second lecture of an Econ 101 course! 

I think everybody should be allowed to give sensible opinions, sensible being the keyword. Economics is far from a hard science, but there are basic mechanisms that are undisputed. I feel like people are looking at the sky and maintaining that the Sun revolves around Earth. Or that the Earth is 6000 years old, or any other kind of BS that shows people don't have a basic understanding of how scientific knowledge works. 

Faith and idolatry have run through this thread. I abhor both. 

Anybody have a sensible economics question that we can discuss?


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Shaver, you are as urbane, literate, and intelligent a person as I've ever come across. I learn something every day from your posts! You also have the ability to be informative without being pedantic, and profound without being arcane.
> 
> A priceless asset to AAAC...


May I second that?


----------



## Pentheos

bernoulli said:


> Anybody have a sensible economics question that we can discuss?


I have about $15K I need to put somewhere. Suggestions?


----------



## bernoulli

which country and how much risk are you willing to take?


----------



## Tiger

You are correct on one point, Bernoulli - you are incredibly condescending. Arrogant as hell, too, which is why I've chosen to respond to your assertion-filled but factually-challenged post. You still don't understand that what you represent as "truth" is far from a certainty.

You claim that quantitative easing hasn't created inflation (but agree that the basic concept of printing money *is* inflationary, which is what I asserted!), and you insist on perpetuating the fallacy that "governments can create growth out of thin air." You claim that "all of these are facts accepted by everybody" and "nobody disputes" this. Except, you know, for all of these guys (and I could've cited many more):
https://mises.org/daily/6340/; https://mises.org/daily/6534/; https://mises.org/daily/5621/; https://mises.org/daily/6432/Killing-the-Currency; ; ; https://mises.org/daily/4905/Is-There-a-Conservative-Case-for-QE; https://mises.org/daily/4851

Faith? Idolatry? You seem to be the one illogically wedded to economic fallacies that have been debunked, not me. A friend once said to me, "ultimately, people believe what they want to believe." You epitomize this, but are far worse, in that you insularly believe that you possess the only truth - a logically and morally pernicious combination of arrogance and ignorance. Yes, my so-called "idols" disagree with you. Has the thought crossed your mind that it is *you* who is wrong? Or that much of economics is subjective? Since so many economic "schools" clash on so many issues, this may well be the case. Unfortunately, your arrogance does not permit such a possibility.

Rational discourse? You repeat your idiocies, but don't address the plethora of points I made - merely as messenger - of some of the greatest minds of the classical and Austrian schools of economics. I know, "they're all wrong" - simply because the great Bernoulli says so. You would have a bit more credibility if you were able to articulate a lucid thought on this thread without resorting to poorly expressed dogma, or answer the dilemmas that I posited for you earlier (post #93 in particular).

Re: GDP - You again resort to obfuscation and distortion - I did *not* say that government cannot affect GDP. What I wrote was, "Government being a part of GDP is a problem; government spending artificially inflates GDP, but government spending is *not *private sector spending, as government has no money of its own - it must tax, borrow, or print to receive it." These guys also disagree with you on GDP: https://mises.org/daily/3843; 



; https://mises.org/daily/2878
As one of the above stated, "Murray Rothbard always made the point in his class lectures that GDP figures were suspect because government outputs are included. Of course, government doesn't produce anything that consumers will pay for willingly, thus it must take from the productive economy to provide these services. So there is at least double counting of the outputs." Maybe you should repeat that GDP formula again, to make yourself feel better.

You finally admit that economics is "far from a hard science" - a point I made repeatedly. (Maybe some of your acolytes on this thread should read that again) Yet, you cling to assertions that are vehemently opposed by other "experts" as well as common sense and logic. It is you who is far more Ptolemaic than Newtonian, not me!

Finally, here are two statements written by Shaver (my apologies to the estimable Shaver for bringing him into a dialogue that perhaps he may wish to avoid): "If economics is such an exact science why then is the world in this shocking state, eh? Econometrics are worthless, give me the Tarot for more sensible predictions any day" and "Economics is certainly no science, it does not possess the basic attributes required to define it as such. Thus there are no facts involved here, merely opinions and speculation."

Incredibly strong remarks, yet there is a remarkable absence of comment about them by those who should find them incendiary. Such silence is very mysterious, since Shaver appears to destroy the notion of economics as science, and with it all of Bernoulli's arrogated claims of "fact", "truth", and "certainty."

Perhaps the mystery can be explained this way: I challenged the prevailing dogma of a few forum members (one in particular), and in response they launched ideological (but not logical or factual) warfare against me - and made it personal to boot. However, these charlatans decided to steer clear of engaging Shaver, because they are monuments to intellectual cowardice.


----------



## bernoulli

I am sorry but I can't discuss with somebody whose sources all come from the same website. You never took a class of Economics in your life and you propose to discuss it. You don't understand the basic mechanisms of how an economic system works. And you put faith in other people instead of trying to understand the subject you are writing about. 

BTW, I don't agree with Shaver too. I use Econometrics and it is an important tool in Economics. It can be sometimes abused, but I do agree with the choice of Nobel Prize to Hansen, who greatly improved on the subject. So I disagree with Shaver, so what? I respect him immensely, and I have no issues with different opinions.

Economics is not a hard science, but it is still a science. One which you have no knowledge of. Believe whatever you want. You may think me arrogant, but when I think somebody has somethink to say - ESPECIALLY IF I DISAGREE WITH HIM, I listen and try to take advantage of the fact that I have somebody to trade ideas with. I gave you a lot of outs in terms of how you could defend your faith with economic-sound theory. You never took it because you find the Austrians your bible and their words the gospel, with the Mises Institute their preacher. 

It is laughable really. I wish I could have more faith in people's rationality, but you sir is a living proof of what happens when reason abandons man and only faith remains. Worse of all, you let other people do the thinking for you.


----------



## Tiger

Same website for many, but all different authors - but of course, you won't consider anything other than your own myopic positions and the ad hominem attacks that seem to be all you can ever muster. I guess the ideas of von , Hoppe, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Ricardo, Mill, Smith, Hayek, Higgs, Murphy, Menger, Wicksteed, Say, Andersen, and many other simply don't count, but your opinion does. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your intellectual deficiency.

"Different opinion" than Shaver? His opinion crushed your field, yet you avoided defending it. Feckless to the core...

I never tried to be an economist; I simply questioned what appeared to be fallacious thinking on your part - and your answers (all of them, including the non-answers) confirmed that. A review of the dialogue confirms this. You never answered any of my points/objections, because you couldn't. It was far easier for you to screech that you were "right" and I was "wrong." Who cares about logic, evidence, and the current state of many of the world's economies as proof of Bernoullian failure?

I don't need your "outs" - especially when you had greatly difficulty explaining anything that you believed to be true. The beauty of a Henry Hazlitt is that he was logical, intelligent, and superb at communicating complex thoughts. You have none of those skills; I pity your students. I pity academia...

"When reason abandons man and only faith remains" - that's exactly the classical and Austrian criticisms of the Keynesians and all of the branches stemming from their economic fallacies, yet you have the audacity to accuse me of it. You epitomize the "abandonment of reason" - your "growth out of thin air" stupidity is a shrine to it!

Nobody thinks for me, Bernoulli, nor do I need the approbation of you or anyone else, for that matter. Economics is not my field, but I know enough to discern between logical policy and absurdities. I gravitate to the former; you are a creature of the latter. I also admit if I am unfamiliar with something; you arrogantly dismiss what you don't know, and can't articulate what you (arguably) do know. Your clear ignorance and misunderstanding of the classical and Austrian schools displays more of the empty suit than the educator.

It is interesting to note that after all of this back-and-forth nonsense, you still haven't addressed any of the arguments I've made. When you're filled with nothing but absurd theory without evidence, that's what invariably happens.

I have taken classes in economics - at NYU, with an Oxford professor. It goes without saying that he wasn't a jackass like some economics professors.

If I made a list of the ludicrous statements you have made, including the personal attacks/harsh criticisms of others (without knowing a damn thing about their work!), the incredibly poor way you express your thoughts, and the repeated avoidance of your opponent's arguments, it would reveal an unprofessional, tendentious, and intellectually unsound coward.

Now you really have something to laugh about!


----------



## Shaver

I have learnt not to argue with my lady friends via text. A small dispute can degenerate rather quickly in the absence of the normal methods of human interaction (inflection of tone, facial expression and body language) and whilst deprived of their prudent checks and brakes we are not our best representatives. 

I remember fondly my occasionally heated exchanges with Mr. Balfour, blistering each others opinions and yet never each other.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> I have learnt not to argue with my lady friends via text. A small dispute can degenerate rather quickly in the absence of the normal methods of human interaction (inflection of tone, facial expression and body language) and whilst deprived of their prudent checks and brakes we are not our best representatives.
> 
> I remember fondly my occasionally heated exchanges with Mr. Balfour, blistering each others opinions and yet never each other.


I agree; such subtleties are crucial in supporting civilized discourse and mitigating polemical disputes. Unfortunately, when I was faced with accusatory and domineering language - both implicitly and overtly - of being stupid, et al., the "civilized" part of the discourse quickly dissipated, and I eventually responded strongly.

The entire thread became distasteful and unbecoming...


----------



## bernoulli

Very simple.

Given GDP = Y

GDP = Y = C + I + G + X - IM

Consumption depends on autonomous consumption (a) and marginal propensity to consume (b). Tr is transfers and Tx taxes paid. Yd is then disposable income.

C = a + b Yd = a + b (Y + Tr - Tx).

If we substitute C on GDP, we can work out a solution for Y.

Y - b Y = a + b Tr - b Tx + I + G + X - IM .

For multiperiods it is easy to see that:

final DY / initial DG = 1 / (1-b), where DY is the effect on GDP and DG is the amount of new government spending. Which shows how Government can affect GDP in the long run. It is really simple. Government spending goes up (by printing money by fiat, for instance, but not necessarily), Consumption goes up, Investment goes up, and so on, and the final effect on GDP depends on the marginal propensity to consume. Governments can affect the economic cycle, and thus are usually at best when used for anticyclical policy, deaccelerating an overheating economy or jumpstaring a failing one (like in the last 5 years). If the Government tries to affect an overheating economy by spending more money, then more inflation will happen.

There it is, a simple macroeconomic model taught in Econ 101. 
For a model used in economic policy around the world, you can check the Brazilian one:
https://www.bcb.gov.br/pec/wps/ingl/wps239.pdf

It is full of particularly interesting equations like this



The difference between the simple model above and the one used for economic policy is huge, but some of the basics are the same. Read the pdf and then we can talk.


----------



## Tiger

No wonder so many students learn absolutely nothing in economics classes, and why the world is in such terrible shape. Esoterica that answers nothing and proves nothing. Reminds me of a doctor who spends so much time discussing the arcane workings of a cellular process that he allows his patient to die of an easily-treated disease.

You attached a 139-page PDF file; you are as pretentious an empty suit as I've ever come upon, and can no longer be taken seriously. Maybe I should attach a PDF of Ludwig von Mises' _Human Action_...

And yes, the central points that have been made _ad nauseum_ still remain unanswered. Maybe another formula might work, Bernoulli, in place of sound logic and economic principle...


----------



## Tiger

Notice also the mathematical sloppiness right up front, and the lack of defining variables. All done, of course, to obfuscate logic and truth.

As per economist Murray Rothbard, "GDP figures are suspect because government outputs are included. Of course, government doesn't produce anything that consumers will pay for willingly, thus it must take from the productive economy to provide these services." - Why address Rothbard's point, Bernoulli, when you can cut & paste formulas ad infinitum and avoid the truth?

We can all "see" the economist's new clothes, Bernoulli, and he's dressed much like Hans Christian Andersen's emperor...


----------



## bernoulli

Which slopiness? I have defined all variables that did not have been defined previously. Again, I am sorry, but if you find this really basic simple model to be beyond you, then there is nothing I can do. You want to critique economics? Go ahead and feel free to demonstrate why the model above does not work. There is no higher math involved.

If you want one more simple one that Hayek subscribed to (after all, this is the classic definition, pre-Keynes):

MV = PY, that means that quantity of money times transactions (velocity of money) = inflation times gdp. That shows that printing money can impact prices AND/OR gdp, depending on the real market equilibrium. Real simple and easy.


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> Notice also the mathematical sloppiness right up front, and the lack of defining variables. All done, of course, to obfuscate logic and truth.
> 
> As per economist Murray Rothbard, "GDP figures are suspect because government outputs are included. Of course, government doesn't produce anything that consumers will pay for willingly, thus it must take from the productive economy to provide these services." - Why address Rothbard's point, Bernoulli, when you can cut & paste formulas ad infinitum and avoid the truth?
> 
> We can all "see" the economist's new clothes, Bernoulli, and he's dressed much like Hans Christian Andersen's emperor...


I just read through this entire thread, and I have to say, you are on thin ice here. I think you're mixing up ideologies with basic economics.

You also consistently got replies from Bernoulli that were on point and addressed the subject. They were not overly technical either.

Since common sense is whatever whomever wants it to be, I find it overrated.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Very simple.
> 
> Given GDP = Y
> 
> GDP = Y = C + I + G + X - IM
> 
> Consumption depends on autonomous consumption (a) and marginal propensity to consume (b). Tr is transfers and Tx taxes paid. Yd is then disposable income.
> 
> C = a + b Yd = a + b (Y + Tr - Tx).
> 
> If we substitute C on GDP, we can work out a solution for Y.
> 
> Y - b Y = a + b Tr - b Tx + I + G + X - IM .
> 
> For multiperiods it is easy to see that:
> 
> final DY / initial DG = 1 / (1-b), where DY is the effect on GDP and DG is the amount of new government spending. Which shows how Government can affect GDP in the long run. It is really simple. Government spending goes up (by printing money by fiat, for instance, but not necessarily), Consumption goes up, Investment goes up, and so on, and the final effect on GDP depends on the marginal propensity to consume. Governments can affect the economic cycle, and thus are usually at best when used for anticyclical policy, deaccelerating an overheating economy or jumpstaring a failing one (like in the last 5 years). If the Government tries to affect an overheating economy by spending more money, then more inflation will happen.
> 
> There it is, a simple macroeconomic model taught in Econ 101.
> For a model used in economic policy around the world, you can check the Brazilian one:
> https://www.bcb.gov.br/pec/wps/ingl/wps239.pdf
> 
> It is full of particularly interesting equations like this
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between the simple model above and the one used for economic policy is huge, but some of the basics are the same. Read the pdf and then we can talk.


There is a tangible problem with these types of faux algebraic formula, being that they exist in isolation and patently cannot be said to describe anything beyond themselves - a problem given that they are designed (somewhat optimistically) to describe external phenomenon.

As example, I could say that (S+P) x B = Sh where S is a shoe, P is polish, B is buffing and Sh is shine. However, in truth, does this equation have any intrinsic value? Will it assist us in predicting subtle Stochastic matrices?

Repeatedly Economic models disregard the simplest statistical comprehension, failing to appreciate that a once in a hundred year event can happen five years in a row - critical risk management failure. The Gaussian Coplua function was a remarkably embarrassing recent example of this, here it is:

This idiotic piece of nothing enchanted Wall Street and left us with the financial meltdown we must all endure today.

Here is an interesting article;


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> Which slopiness? I have defined all variables that did not have been defined previously. Again, I am sorry, but if you find this really basic simple model to be beyond you, then there is nothing I can do. You want to critique economics? Go ahead and feel free to demonstrate why the model above does not work. There is no higher math involved.
> 
> If you want one more simple one that Hayek subscribed to (after all, this is the classic definition, pre-Keynes):
> 
> MV = PY, that means that quantity of money times transactions (velocity of money) = inflation times gdp. That shows that printing money can impact prices AND/OR gdp, depending on the real market equilibrium. Real simple and easy.


We are arguing in circles. I have adduced many questions, logical points, counterpoints, concepts, and real-life conditions. You have avoided just about all of them, and instead reply with GDP formulas (rather than, for instance, answering the devastating critiques of the GDP concept itself and its components referred to earlier), 139-page PDF files, and ad hominem attacks on me and some of the greatest minds to work in the field of economics (remarkably, without knowing a damn thing about their work!). No rational discussion can take place under these conditions.
*
Note*: You present the GDP formula (and related manipulations) as if it was on the order of say, the Pythagorean Theorem, but we both know this is false. In the Theorem, A, B, and C are not subjective, estimated, or fictitious. The components of GDP *are* subjective, estimated, and fictitious, and the fact that government spending is also included in that figure makes it a very flawed metric - if one can even call it that. Either you are too obtuse to realize this, or you deceptively use your formulas to lend a false sense of scientific/mathematical credence to numbers that are far from scientific; GDP is a contrivance.

You can't articulate a logical point, so you answer in equations that have nothing to do with the basic arguments I have made, which are rooted in classical and Austrian school economics. I provided numerous links to short articles by various economists who speak your "economic language" but debunk your style of economic thought; you chose to ignore them. You may as well post another 139-page PDF in Portuguese; it will have the same value, which is none at all.

You have made, and continue to make, the error that all economic sophists make. You look at only short-term effects, but ignore the long term effects. You look at how things affect one group, but not all groups. You completely ignore the pernicious effects of government taxation, spending, borrowing, and inflation, but instead believe it to be beneficial, despite the toll it takes on private enterprise, and the terrible condition of the American and world economies. Bastiat destroyed this line of reasoning a century and a half ago; you persist in spouting neo-mercantilism.

Yours is a world of absurdities, fallacies, and sophisms, yet you continue to infer that I'm stupid because I am unfamiliar with the arcane formulas of economics. Of course I'm unfamiliar with such details; economics is not my field. (But the people whose work I've cited are familiar with those formulas and details, and they tear your sophistry to pieces!). However, that does not preclude me from understanding economic concepts, yet that is where you have failed to respond intelligently to anything I've proffered during this discussion. That's why I've referred to you as being Ptolemaic - a man espousing fallacious formulas but devoid of logic, common sense, and recognition of the actual economic conditions around him.

You cannot seem to grasp that there are a plethora of economists, past and present, who absolutely believe (and in my opinion, have proven) that what you espouse is fallacious. Yet, you continue to act as if you are the sole bastion of truth, despite laboring in a field where politics, emotion, self-interest, and fallacy appear to be far more prevalent than logic and evidence - this dialogue is proof of that. You purport to be a "scientist" but you're far more akin to an alchemist.

Please save your formulas for your fellow-travelers or for your indoctrinated students. I have made an abundance of points; if you wish to discuss them, I suggest you end the obfuscation and avoidance, and address them. They can easily be found throughout this thread. If, however, you persist in trying to cram formulas at me or expect me to read 139-page PDF files, I'll assume that you are not capable or willing to discuss those concepts that I have introduced (but belong to some of the titans of the field of economics, not me).

I have dealt with many professors over the years - as a student and as a colleague. You willfully tried to dodge discussion and deceive others by erecting smoke screens of jargon and poorly-introduced formulas of questionably accuracy and reliability. No teacher worth his salt does such disgraceful things; it is the antithesis of open inquiry, learning, and education.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> I just read through this entire thread, and I have to say, you are on thin ice here. I think you're mixing up ideologies with basic economics.
> 
> You also consistently got replies from Bernoulli that were on point and addressed the subject. They were not overly technical either.
> 
> Since common sense is whatever whomever wants it to be, I find it overrated.


Would love for you to produce some examples, Bjorn, especially about "ideologies" and Bernoulli's "replies that addressed the subject." I've read through the thread, too, and can't seem to find them...


----------



## Tiger

An exceptional post, Shaver. I even like the parts that I don't understand! :redface:


----------



## bernoulli

Shaver,

You would be right if only those did not mean anything. However, they do.

C is agreggate consumption
G is government spending in final goods and services.
I is agreggate investment
X is exports
IM imports.

Do they represent what they are supposed to represent? Well, can you measure agreggate consumption? I believe so. However, if one is to discuss ontological assumptions on the validity of economic concepts, then I am afraid that I feel like not participating on such a discussion. I've written about this in the past (on the commensurability of concepts between complexity theory and microeconomics), but really, if you don't belive such constructs are valid, there is not much I can do. I can, however, state that real world economic policy is based on such simple and intuitive concepts. And I do think they work.

They are not faux algebra, we do derive economic policies from them. The pdf I posted is used for the Brazilian government to decide on interest rates, which all agree that have real impact on people's lives.



Shaver said:


> There is a tangible problem with these types of faux algebraic formula, being that they exist in isolation and patently cannot be said to describe anything beyond themselves - a problem given that they are designed (somewhat optimistically) to describe external phenomenon.
> 
> As example, I could say that (S+P) x B = Sh where S is a shoe, P is polish, B is buffing and Sh is shine. However, in truth, does this equation have any intrinsic value? Will it assist us in predicting subtle Stochastic matrices?
> 
> Repeatedly Economic models disregard the simplest statistical comprehension, failing to appreciate that a once in a hundred year event can happen five years in a row - critical risk management failure. The Gaussian Coplua function was a remarkably embarrassing recent example of this, here it is:
> 
> This idiotic piece of nothing enchanted Wall Street and left us with the financial meltdown we must all endure today.
> 
> Here is an interesting article;


----------



## Tiger

Here's an article by Frank Shostak, Ph.D. in Economics, on the myriad problems with GDP and its usage: https://mises.org/daily/770

This article is by investment banker Martin Hutchinson, on the dubious nature of GDP due to its politicization: https://moneymorning.com/2011/08/23/gdp-lie-time-for-new-measure-of-economic-growth/

Interest rates have tremendous impact on people's lives; that's why they should be determined in a free market, not by government fiat...


----------



## bernoulli

You don't understand that the money supply is determined by the Central Bank, or do you propose everybody can print their own currency? You don't understand the basics of supply and demand, or how the money market works. BTW, your vaunted PhD has not published anything other than in journals of Austrian Economics. That means that he is preaching to the converted. The Austrian religion it seems. Hayek has to be rolling in his grave to see his ideas turned into religion.

Again, you don't understand the basic mechanisms of economic systems and you want to propose, through other people's words, to change something you don't understand. People who have been published in mediocre journals who amount to nothing in academic circles - i.e., nobody reads them. And I mean nobody. 

Do you know who behave the same way? Marxists. Complaining that economics is flawed, that they are the only ones right, and thus publish in their own little niche journals that nobody reads. Religious people. blergh....


----------



## bernoulli

BTW, Friedman promoted that the Central Bank had a rule to determine the interest rate. He understood how market mechanisms work. People have moved on from his theories, but he has an excellent point. But he never proposed that markets determine interest rates. That is just laughable. I would respect people who defends Friedman's ideas. I won't respect somebody who states that "printing money IS inflation", "markets need to determine interest rates" etc. That is just wrong on a factual basis.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> You don't understand that the money supply is determined by the Central Bank, or do you propose everybody can print their own currency? You don't understand the basics of supply and demand, or how the money market works. BTW, your vaunted PhD has not published anything other than in journals of Austrian Economics. That means that he is preaching to the converted. The Austrian religion it seems. Hayek has to be rolling in his grave to see his ideas turned into religion.
> 
> Again, you don't understand the basic mechanisms of economic systems and you want to propose, through other people's words, to change something you don't understand. People who have been published in mediocre journals who amount to nothing in academic circles - i.e., nobody reads them. And I mean nobody.
> 
> Do you know who behave the same way? Marxists. Complaining that economics is flawed, that they are the only ones right, and thus publish in their own little niche journals that nobody reads. Religious people. blergh....


- Good to see you still enjoy attacking people, not their ideas. I could give you dozens more Ph.Ds who disagree with you, but at this point, why bother? Your tiny mind is shut...

- "Hayek's ideas"? Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about, as the Austrian school predates Hayek by a century, and the classical school even longer than that. But as we've seen, that hasn't stopped you from attacking legendary economists and their ideas, despite not knowing a damn think about them. You are about as "expert" and a man of "science" as a kindergarten child...

- Your "central bank" comment is nonsensical, and has no relation to what I said about interest rates.

- If there's one person who has proven that he does not understand supply and demand - even when it comes to the money supply and the function of interest rates in a market economy - it's you!

- Yes, Bernoulli, mediocrities such as von , Hoppe, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Ricardo, Mill, Smith, Hayek, Higgs, Murphy, Menger, Wicksteed, Say, Andersen, and many others. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

- "Marxist"? Nice try, but since it is _you _who seems to relish government interventionism in markets, well, maybe you need to take a look in the mirror, Comrade. Maybe you can do that while cutting and pasting more magical formulas!

- I have never said that I (or the economists whose ideas I've used, with proper attribution) am the only one who is right. *You *have done that from the beginning, and it's there for all to see in this thread. It's precisely the reason why I've chosen to do battle on this thread for so long, besides the initial reason of debunking the fallacies you perpetuate. You, sir, are a liar. A dishonest charlatan and empty suit who can only resort to attacks and distortions. Time to change your clothes, Emperor Bernoulli!

- Your attacks on religion/religious people - in whatever warped context you mean them - are disgusting. In fact, you are disgusting...and a fool. It is you who cling cult-like to mystical concepts that have been discredited, and who refuses to even conceive that others could have a different opinion. Even others whose shoes you are not fit to shine (see list above). An ideologue through and through, and a jackass to boot.


----------



## bernoulli

Money supply is determined by the Central Bank, either directly, by the monetary base, or indirectly through reserve requirements. This is so basic that is actually like saying that 2+2 = 4. BTW, I don't find you disgusting at all. We disagree strongly, and I may think you are heavily misguided and close minded, but you have done me no wrong, and have commited no act to make me think you are a disgusting person. Yes, I find religious ideas laughable, but never ascribe ideas to people's actions. Be that as it may, I don't find you a jackass either.


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> BTW, Friedman promoted that the Central Bank had a rule to determine the interest rate. He understood how market mechanisms work. People have moved on from his theories, but he has an excellent point. But he never proposed that markets determine interest rates. That is just laughable. I would respect people who defends Friedman's ideas. I won't respect somebody who states that "printing money IS inflation", "markets need to determine interest rates" etc. That is just wrong on a factual basis.


Interest rates are the price of money. If you don't believe that prices should be determined by markets, then there's no hope for you. Tell me again who's the Marxist?

So, you "won't respect someone who states that 'printing money is inflation'", eh? How about these guys (this is now the second time I've quoted them; perhaps you'll eventually catch on):

_Let us start from the basic fact that there is no record in the economic history of the whole world, anywhere or at any time, of a serious and prolonged inflation which has not been accompanied and made possible, if not directly caused, by a large increase in the quantity of money. - Gottfried Haberler

Inflation, always and everywhere, is primarily caused by an increase in the supply of money and credit. In fact, inflation is the increase in the supply of money and credit. - Henry Hazlitt

If the quantity of money is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unit decreases, and the quantity of goods that can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also. - Ludwig von Mises
_My guess is that these gentlemen wouldn't respect your ludicrous views either, Bernoulli.

Your insularity and arrogance blinds you to anything outside of your solipsistic view of the world. That would really be "laughable", if it wasn't so sad - your presence in a classroom is poisonous to young minds.


----------



## bernoulli

just proved to you that printing money cannot be inflation. Again, MV = PY, money can cause inflation and/or growth by the definition of all the classics you adore. We are seeing this right now, as the Quantitative Easing is not causing inflation AT ALL. It is just plain evidence. Please, do not deny reality.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Shaver,
> 
> You would be right if only those did not mean anything. However, they do.
> 
> C is agreggate consumption
> G is government spending in final goods and services.
> I is agreggate investment
> X is exports
> IM imports.
> 
> Do they represent what they are supposed to represent? Well, can you measure agreggate consumption? I believe so. However, if one is to discuss ontological assumptions on the validity of economic concepts, then I am afraid that I feel like not participating on such a discussion. I've written about this in the past (on the commensurability of concepts between complexity theory and microeconomics), but really, if you don't belive such constructs are valid, there is not much I can do. I can, however, state that real world economic policy is based on such simple and intuitive concepts. And I do think they work.
> 
> They are not faux algebra, we do derive economic policies from them. The pdf I posted is used for the Brazilian government to decide on interest rates, which all agree that have real impact on people's lives.


I offer here a link to an article which may be of some small interest to you: https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue55/Hudson255.pdf

Beyond the other concerns that economics provoke in me, I wonder about the exponential functions applied which seem inadequate to contain the optimisms and pessimisms of the human character - as is historically established in every bubble and crash. There are no empirical models which allow for this cascade failure of the invisible hand, to my knowledge at least?

Even the most complicated economic theories are but subjective approximations of reality, fumbling towards explanation of tangible phenomena. When they work they are operating within circumstances where we don't really need them, when they fail that is when we needed them to work the most. This seems to me to be a fairly accurate description of the properties of a useless item. :icon_smile_wink:
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## CuffDaddy

bernoulli,

I'm no economist, and claim no great (or even passable) insight into macroeconomics. In my grostesquely-simplistic and ignorant view of the subject, I have not expected QE to cause any inflation for a simple reason: the 2008 crash of the real estate market (and collapses of other related markets) simply swallowed a huge quantity of wealth, leaving a giant crater in the total supply of wealth in America. QE is just partially filling in that hole (although it's not necessarily going to the people who previously had money in the hole!). Rather than causing inflation, it has been staving off deflation. 

I know it cannot be that straightforward, but where am I going wrong?


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> just proved to you that printing money cannot be inflation. Again, MV = PY, money can cause inflation and/or growth by the definition of all the classics you adore. We are seeing this right now, as the Quantitative Easing is not causing inflation AT ALL. It is just plain evidence. Please, do not deny reality.


Yet, above I quoted three noted economists who said the opposite of you. I can find many more who would say this, too - please, argue with them, not me.

One of the articles that I provided - which I assume you didn't read - discusses why "inflation" - or, more accurately, the CPI - isn't reflecting an increase. You don't have to believe it, but once again, my only point is that you represent as fact things that others would swear is false.

You toil in a subjective field, yet pretend to operate with mathematical certainty. If anyone is "denying reality", it is you; you are delusional in your "facts" and pretensions.


----------



## bernoulli

Cuffdaddy,

You are right regarding the ends, but not the means. QE staved off deflation, but mostly due to financial markets linkages instead of wealth effects (one such effect is called the Pigou effect). A financial crisis freezes capital markets, and thus creates a huge issue in how money flows into the real economy. Because of balance sheets problems banks tend to hoard liquidity in a financial crisis, and lend less (in the height of the crisis, pretty much no credit was available to any kind of company). QE is a way to provide market stability and liquidity to financial institutions, thus creating incentives for money to flow into the regular economy - in a liquidity trap even when interest rates are really low there is no supply of credit to companies, consumers etc. QE, by being announced explicitly, tried to calm markets and increase liquidity from the financial markets into the real economy. But that was then. Now the main objective of QE is to induce growth by providing cheap money and thus creating incentives for higher aggregate consumption (C) and investments (I). One may argue that it is not necessary anymore, but it was really important during the height of the crisis.

There are some examples of financial crisis when capital markets freeze and there is no massive intervention: Japan in 1989 and Argentina in 2001, for instance. Japan is still suffering the effects of the crisis more than 20 years later (still printing money but deflation still present), and Argentina GDP dropped over 20% in 2 years, with unemployment soaring to more than 25%. Here is the problem with financial markets, when they work it is fine, but when they don't, governments really have to bail out the system (but not shareholders or management!). Which is why every financial market in the world is regulated to some degree, some more and some less. Deregulation in the American case was a huge component in the crisis. Incompetent government plus moral hazard and suboptimal bank behavior = higher probability of crisis.

The relationship between money and inflation passes through financial markets and their linkage to the real economy. When there is a liquidity trap printing money does not cause inflation. Actually, if inflation starts to rise the FED will simply raise interest rates and stop the process. There is simply no reason to fear an inflationary process in the American economy for the next 4-5 years (and probably not for a long time, as we know quite a lot more about inflation than in the stagflation period of the late 1970's and early 80's).

Just a sidenote: there is a real relationship between stock prices and liquidity in the system. One might expect a correction in stock prices when the term structure of the interest rate changes (i.e., when QE is eased off). Some of this effect was felt in May and early June, but the market has rallied. But that has no relation to the real economy. Companies are doing ok, even though the economy as a whole is lagging. Good business cycle, bad economic cycle. Europe has both bad business cycle and economic cycle. Brazil has good economic cycle (low unemployment, ok growth, decreasing income inequality) and bad business cycle.

In the end deflation or inflation has more causes than money. For instance, let's say Oil prices climb up to U$200 a barrel in 2 months. That would cause inflation regardless of monetary matters due to the pass-through effect of oil prices (the 10-fold rise in oil prices in the 1970's is largely the reason for the stagflation of the decade). Japan is another case, no amount of printed money has been able to stave off deflation consistently in the last 24 years. Deflation there has other chronicle reasons (marginal propensity to save, structural export surplus etc). Please understand that any explanation I give is necessarily incomplete, as market interactions can be quite complicated.

I know there are some technical terms above, but I hope it was readable.



CuffDaddy said:


> bernoulli,
> 
> I'm no economist, and claim no great (or even passable) insight into macroeconomics. In my grostesquely-simplistic and ignorant view of the subject, I have not expected QE to cause any inflation for a simple reason: the 2008 crash of the real estate market (and collapses of other related markets) simply swallowed a huge quantity of wealth, leaving a giant crater in the total supply of wealth in America. QE is just partially filling in that hole (although it's not necessarily going to the people who previously had money in the hole!). Rather than causing inflation, it has been staving off deflation.
> 
> I know it cannot be that straightforward, but where am I going wrong?


----------



## Tiger

bernoulli said:


> BTW, I don't find you disgusting at all. We disagree strongly, and I may think you are heavily misguided and close minded, but you have done me no wrong, and have commited no act to make me think you are a disgusting person. Yes, I find religious ideas laughable, but never ascribe ideas to people's actions. Be that as it may, I don't find you a jackass either.


Perhaps, but you have - fairly early on in this dialogue - resorted to a variety of insults. It has made this thread a labor to participate in, rather than a pleasant exchange.

It has also taught me much about how some here operate - the hypocrisy, double standards, demands, and nastiness have soured me greatly. The only reason I've continued to participate in this thread is to defend certain intellectual positions (and myself) and not appear to cede important ground. I have even resorted to a level of retaliation that I'm not proud of at all.

I think I'll spend my time on Shaver's "sweets" post. It is far safer to linger there...


----------



## bernoulli

Shaver,

The pdf that you sent is not really good. I am going to cite one simple example:

"Most economic models postulate that unemployment, for instance, can be solved by appropriate adjustments. “Trickle-down” theories of prosperity accordingly call for reductions in wage levels, while Keynesian theories call for or increased public spending to spur demand. Both approaches view savings as financing investment, which is assumed to take the form of tangible capital formation rather than a stock market or real estate bubble."

Nope, wrong. Keynes is the opposite, he postulates that credit creates its own savings and hence the idea you need savings to finance investment is wrong. You just need credit. 

Another:

"A particular kind of mathematical methodology thus has come to determine what is selected for study, recognizing only problems that have a single determinate mathematical solution reached by or what systems analysts call negative feedback."

This is laughable. There is a copious amount of different streams of research, from Applied microeconomics to game theory, macroeconomics, monetary economics etc. Most models don't have explicit solutions etc. 

"Lacking empirical testing and measurement, economics narrows into a mock-science of abstract assumptions without much regard as to whether its axioms are historically grounded."

Most economic papers are empirical papers. Testing and measurements. I don't know why economics he refers to, but it is certainly one I do not recognize.

I am sorry Shaver, but that paper you posted is ludicrous to somebody who actually pratcices economics. Economics has many failings, of course, but to disregard an entire body of really diverse literature, with different kinds of methodologies (game-theory is really different than stocasthic statistics, for instance), without offering at least a critique of a single paper?

Economics makes predictions from auctions to privatize companies to inflation-targeting and everything in between. Yes, there are bad economics out there, and if you want to call it the dismal science, fine, go with it. Still science though. And yeah, models are approximations of the reality, same thing with physics, chemistry, cosmology, and models from sociology etc. So what? Useful tools, if you understand how a model works, with its costs and benefits.


----------



## Tiger

And of course, the Keynesian belief in a "liquidity trap" and the supposed benefits of QE are vigorously opposed by many economists of the non-Keynesian stripe. 

In a field that lacks the certitude (to whatever extent that is true!) of the natural sciences, this will always be the case.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Shaver,
> 
> The pdf that you sent is not really good. I am going to cite one simple example:
> 
> "Most economic models postulate that unemployment, for instance, can be solved by appropriate adjustments. "Trickle-down" theories of prosperity accordingly call for reductions in wage levels, while Keynesian theories call for or increased public spending to spur demand. Both approaches view savings as financing investment, which is assumed to take the form of tangible capital formation rather than a stock market or real estate bubble."
> 
> Nope, wrong. Keynes is the opposite, he postulates that credit creates its own savings and hence the idea you need savings to finance investment is wrong. You just need credit.
> 
> Another:
> 
> "A particular kind of mathematical methodology thus has come to determine what is selected for study, recognizing only problems that have a single determinate mathematical solution reached by or what systems analysts call negative feedback."
> 
> This is laughable. There is a copious amount of different streams of research, from Applied microeconomics to game theory, macroeconomics, monetary economics etc. Most models don't have explicit solutions etc.
> 
> "Lacking empirical testing and measurement, economics narrows into a mock-science of abstract assumptions without much regard as to whether its axioms are historically grounded."
> 
> Most economic papers are empirical papers. Testing and measurements. I don't know why economics he refers to, but it is certainly one I do not recognize.
> 
> I am sorry Shaver, but that paper you posted is ludicrous to somebody who actually pratcices economics. Economics has many failings, of course, but to disregard an entire body of really diverse literature, with different kinds of methodologies (game-theory is really different than stocasthic statistics, for instance), without offering at least a critique of a single paper?
> 
> Economics makes predictions from auctions to privatize companies to inflation-targeting and everything in between. Yes, there are bad economics out there, and if you want to call it the dismal science, fine, go with it. Still science though. And yeah, models are approximations of the reality, same thing with physics, chemistry, cosmology, and models from sociology etc. So what? Useful tools, if you understand how a model works, with its costs and benefits.


OK, but the author appears to be a respected worldwide player in the field: https://michael-hudson.com/about/

At any rate not my own words, just an article which I thought you might enjoy.

My own words, however, "Even the most complicated economic theories are but subjective approximations of reality, fumbling towards explanation of tangible phenomena. When they work they are operating within circumstances where we don't really need them, when they fail that is when we needed them to work the most. This seems to me to be a fairly accurate description of the properties of a useless item. :icon_smile_wink:" I would be keen on your rebuff. I am prepared to revise my opinion (as always) in the face of more, and better, information.


----------



## bernoulli

He is actually respected, no doubt about that.

Your observation would make sense if economics was a descriptive science. In that sense, "when they work etc". However, economics also is a prescriptive science. There are testable predictions and policy derived out of it. Let me give you a very simple example based on International Trade Theory.

It is very easy to show that if a country wants to protect their markets from international competition, tariffs are better than quotas from society's standpoint. That it is why WTO battles hard for the elimination of non-tariff barriers. Trade agreements are always negotiated with the purpose of eliminating quotas and the likes and, if necessary, maintaining tariffs instead. Of course, in many cases (but not all) tariffs and quotas should not exist in the first place, but economic theory also shows when tariffs should be used (nascent industries and dynamical comparative advantages) and when they should not. The WTO exists, btw, because we have a better understanding of how competition and cooperation between agents works, due to game theory. It is easy to show that countries, without WTO, would resort much more to protectionism than they already do. Much of the failings of the WTO is due to politics, not economics. International trade theory is quite sound in its predictions. Back to your words: when economics is merely descriptive it does not work particularly that well, when its predictions are surrounded by good theory and evidence, it can change the world to make it a better place. Most of economics is marginally incremental though, and some questions are really hard to answer. In any case, without economic theory I would guarantee that financial crisis would be happening all the time, as is the understanding of financial systems that allow us to devise better regulation (or get rid of it in a hubris fashion, like Greenspan did, but that is another point altogether).

BTW, please do read: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/yes-economics-is-a-science.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&

Not the best defense of Economics I've seen, but he makes good points.


----------



## Tiger

The comments following the article are _very _interesting...


----------



## Tilton

I think that one particular commenter said it right in that medicine is the wrong analogy. Having an MD as an SO, I think she would laugh if someone called her a scientist. She was taught (by scientists - it didn't occur to me almost all med school professors are PhDs in a hard science rather than MDs, but they are and that makes sense) how to apply certain and narrow facets of science in practice, but that is far from truly being a scientist. Sort of the difference in being an engineer and a construction site super - the super has all the knowledge he needs to do his job and the bridge doesn't collapse, but he doesn't necessarily understand every detail of how it works and why it works.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> He is actually respected, no doubt about that.
> 
> Your observation would make sense if economics was a descriptive science. In that sense, "when they work etc". However, economics also is a prescriptive science. There are testable predictions and policy derived out of it. Let me give you a very simple example based on International Trade Theory.
> 
> It is very easy to show that if a country wants to protect their markets from international competition, tariffs are better than quotas from society's standpoint. That it is why WTO battles hard for the elimination of non-tariff barriers. Trade agreements are always negotiated with the purpose of eliminating quotas and the likes and, if necessary, maintaining tariffs instead. Of course, in many cases (but not all) tariffs and quotas should not exist in the first place, but economic theory also shows when tariffs should be used (nascent industries and dynamical comparative advantages) and when they should not. The WTO exists, btw, because we have a better understanding of how competition and cooperation between agents works, due to game theory. It is easy to show that countries, without WTO, would resort much more to protectionism than they already do. Much of the failings of the WTO is due to politics, not economics. International trade theory is quite sound in its predictions. Back to your words: when economics is merely descriptive it does not work particularly that well, when its predictions are surrounded by good theory and evidence, it can change the world to make it a better place. Most of economics is marginally incremental though, and some questions are really hard to answer. *In any case, without economic theory I would guarantee that financial crisis would be happening all the time, as is the understanding of financial systems that allow us to devise better regulation* (or get rid of it in a hubris fashion, like Greenspan did, but that is another point altogether).
> 
> BTW, please do read: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/yes-economics-is-a-science.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&
> 
> Not the best defense of Economics I've seen, but he makes good points.


Forgive me this my gentle chiding but here I am minded of Aquinas's Summa Theologica First Part Question 52, generally but most acutely in the text I have emboldened. :icon_smile:

My approach may be occasionally simplistic, however, any model of a system which cannot predict it's catastrophe has, shall we say, 'limited' value in real world application. Again to repeat myself "There are no empirical models which allow for this cascade failure of the invisible hand, to my knowledge at least?"

I look forward very much to reading the link that you have kindly provided and will feedback to you later.


----------



## Shaver

As an aside, yesterday I was sat in a meeting located in the room where Rutherford split the atom (back in 1917). 

The remarkable Lord Rutherford famously said "All science is either physics or mere stamp collecting". How very true.


----------



## bernoulli

Simple answer, nice and easy. Economics follows the scientific method. However you want to define Economics' epistemology, it does use hypothesis, testing, validation, refinement etc. I am more partial to Lakatos myself, but be it naive Popper or revolutionary Kuhn, Economics builds knowledge by paradigm shifts and incremental contributions. That is why models from the 1940's are not used anymore. They have been refined.

Of course, compared to physics, the field of economics is certainly lacking in accuracy. Physics rules (you do realize I collect scientific books of the XVIth to XVIIIth centuries and focus mainly on Physics and Math - Newton, Euler etc, right?). So no argument there. I would gladly let Physics rule supreme while the likes of Chemistry, Biology, and Economics lag behind.

Some people would argue that even social sciences that do not use the scientific model (hypothesis, testing, corroboration, refinement etc) are science. I don't agree, but some of those papers are beautiful. Take this one for instance: . Never read a more well written and interesting paper in my life. Ethnography and bikers. Go figure.

As for not predicting the Financial Crisis - yeah, statistical models usually ignore 5 sigma events. It happens. Should I bring the pentaquark in physics to show that even physics can go wrong? Or tachyons? Or string theory?

In even shorter terms: I subscribe to Lakatos' idea of economics epistemology. Maybe...:icon_smile:

I will die a very well-paid "believer" in Economics (again, I don't need to believe it for it to be true).



Shaver said:


> Forgive me this my gentle chiding but here I am minded of Aquinas's Summa Theologica First Part Question 52, generally but most acutely in the text I have emboldened. :icon_smile:
> 
> My approach may be occasionally simplistic, however, any model of a system which cannot predict it's catastrophe has, shall we say, 'limited' value in real world application. Again to repeat myself "There are no empirical models which allow for this cascade failure of the invisible hand, to my knowledge at least?"
> 
> I look forward very much to reading the link that you have kindly provided and will feedback to you later.


----------



## Shaver

That's all very well but following the scientific method does not make a subject science, aping scientific methods serves those holistic medicine charlatans very well indeed. And the clutch of pernicious Intelligent Design morons. Scientific method is commonly used as obfuscation by the quacks selling snake oil.

As to Physics 'going wrong', I would dispute that assertion - knowledge is a journey from faith, to guess, to estimate, to measurement, to certainty and then further refinement ad infinitum - with the occasional cul-de-sac and reversal, admittedly. However, Physics long ago predicted the biggest expansion and the biggest collapse that the Universe is capable of. Conversely, being unable to predict the most critical state of the economy, _or even account for it, _is that aspect of economics which prompts me to characterise it as pure flim-flam. Five standard deviations, notwithstanding. :icon_smile_wink:

I do recall that you (commendably) collect rare and/or obscure volumes - I presume that you will be aware of the copious amount of occult writings that Newton created, against which his Principia is but a miniscule fraction of his oeuvre?

Thank you for the link to the amusing article, and lest there is a group remaining on this forum whom I have not alienated myself from please allow me to say how much I despise bikers and their *ahem* 'culture'. :devil:

I doubt that we will ever agree on the subject of economics bernoulli, my friend, but I do enjoy pleasantly debating the ins and outs with a learned fellow such as yourself.

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> My approach may be occasionally simplistic, however, any model of a system which cannot predict it's catastrophe has, shall we say, 'limited' value in real world application. Again to repeat myself "There are no empirical models which allow for this cascade failure of the invisible hand, to my knowledge at least?"


You must really hate the weather man!!


----------



## Shaver

Oddly enough the weather can be predicted with an accuracy that is uncanny these days, considering the multitudinous variables to be considered (the partial differential equations are sublime). Meteorology is most assuredly a science - unlike economics. :devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Well, the weather can be predicted quite accurately for short periods of time (~3-5 days). And it can be predicted on broad scales pretty well, too. It's in intermediate stuff - like whether next month will be cooler or warmer than usual, or whether next year will see droughts or floods - that poses big problems. Which, it seems to me, is exactly where economics has its biggest problems making predictions, too. Economists can predict particular markets over short periods of time fairly well. And they can make some broad predictions about what the long run looks like. But making predictions as to next quarter's GDP, or next year's unemployment figures... they probably are about as accurate as the meteorologists.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Well, I'm glad THAT's settled.

Why do you suppose Obama insisted on closing the Government instead of negotiating with Republicans to delay the individual mandate in ACA, then extend the penalty date all by himself until 03/31/2014??


----------



## CuffDaddy

Because he and the Republicans are both repeat players. To give in to the GOP gambit would assure more of the same in the future. Using the debt ceiling as leverage had to be removed from the array of choices for either party.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Because he and the Republicans are both repeat players. To give in to the GOP gambit would assure more of the same in the future. Using the debt ceiling as leverage had to be removed from the array of choices for either party.


So long as we all understand the President closed the government instead of negotiating with, and giving into Republicans, on an issue he caved on himself within weeks after reopening the government, soley for petty political reasons, is good enough for me.


----------



## CuffDaddy

If you think the reasons I gave are "petty," then you and I (and the strong majority of the American public) have a very different view of whether the recurring threat of default was valid or not.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I think the threat of "default" was as phony and ginned up as the threat of "sequester" and the fisacal cliff. The only issue left was delaying the individual mandate. 

Now, once again, there turns out to be more bipartisanship on the side of those he accused of just days ago of being hostage takers. 

I'm not saying, that as long as he isn't called on it by an ineffective and compliant Press Corps, the demonization wasn't effective, I'm just saying one can not fool all of the people all of the time!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

"I think the threat of "default" was as phony and ginned up as the threat of "sequester" and the fisacal cliff. "

??? What in the world is that supposed to mean?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

It's supposed to mean there is a bill of goods being sold.

The sequester/fiscal cliff deadline was being sold as the next apocalypse. 

It wasn't.

The shutdown was supposed to a meteor.

It wasn't.

The credit ceiling deadline was supposed to be the next great pandemic.

It isn't.

Unsustainable, uncontrolled entitlements and regulation on the other hand, is, or cetainly will be eventually. (IMO) 

So the question remains; was Obama's intransigence regarding negotiating the delay of the individual madate worth the histrionics??

Especially knowing now what should have been known then. (That the on line rollout is a fiasco)


----------



## CuffDaddy

Okey doke, that's the root of it. I think our disagreements here are on such a fundamental level in terms of how each of us thinks the world works that there's not a lot of gain to be had by further discussions on this topic. See you in the next thread, ol' chum.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, the weather can be predicted quite accurately for short periods of time (~3-5 days). And it can be predicted on broad scales pretty well, too. It's in intermediate stuff - like whether next month will be cooler or warmer than usual, or whether next year will see droughts or floods - that poses big problems. Which, it seems to me, is exactly where economics has its biggest problems making predictions, too. Economists can predict particular markets over short periods of time fairly well. And they can make some broad predictions about what the long run looks like. But making predictions as to next quarter's GDP, or next year's unemployment figures... they probably are about as accurate as the meteorologists.


Not exactly. Global net gains and losses are well within the power of meteorology to anticipate, so are determinations of short and mid term local conditions. Further, the accuracy of the long term predictive power of meteorology increases in scope with the availability of ever increasing computational power. These are advances which, even with the same processing power, economics seems wholly unable to match. One might also add that climate is a significantly more complex pattern with infinitely more variables than economics. Perhaps some of the meteorology boys should help out the beleaguered economics chappies? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Tiger

In addition to what Shaver wrote, "GDP" was supposedly the tool to prove my arguments incorrect, but as mentioned earlier, it is a very flawed statistic. Here's an article about it: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/flaws-in-market-indicators.asp

Interestingly, the article notes that, "It is also important to understand that GDP counts production, not destruction, so rebuilding a city after a hurricane provides a boost to GDP but overlooks the billions of dollars in losses from the storm...Similarly, GDP comparisons between a nation rebuilding in the wake of destruction and a stable and healthy country could provide the impression that the former is healthier than the latter."

Do accountants only record credits and not debits in determining the health of a business? Do baseball statisticians only factor in hits but ignore outs when computing batting averages?

Perhaps as bad as the concept itself is that the GDP components are subjective, estimated, and in some cases fictitious. Hardly the basis to prove anything...


----------



## bernoulli

Shaver, 

Newton actually wrote and published very little on alchemy. He did however spend most of his time on the subject. Only two books were published based on his writings, both posthumously. 

Anyway, economics is much more than forecasting. As for your analogy, Meteorological models are also unable to forecast crisis. Should we throw out Meteorology because it did not alert us to Japan's tsunami? I know you are being facetious, but even so your arguments are very thin. Give me better arguments please. And rarely quacks use the scientific method. You are better than this. 

In any case hypersensitivity dependence on initial conditions are worse in social science models than climate science.

Even if you consider economics forecasting poor, what about everything else? I have dozens of papers and chapters and two forthcoming books, but never wrote a single line on forecasting.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Shaver,
> 
> Newton actually wrote and published very little on alchemy. He did however spent most of his time on the subject.
> 
> Anyway, economics is much more than forecasting. As for your analogy, Meteorological models are also unable to forecast crisis. Should we throw out Meteorology because it did not alert us to Japan's tsunami? I know you are being facetious, but even so your arguments are very thin. You are better than this.
> 
> In any case hypersensitivity dependence on initial conditions are worse in social science models than climate science.


Oh Mr B! Poor show. The tsunami was caused by seismic activity - we cannot expect meteorologists to have any purview here. I continue to stand behind my arguments with vigour.


----------



## bernoulli

Seismic activity falls into climate modeling, and all Meteorological agencies monitor seismic activities. But even if I contend you to be right, not bailing Lehman Brothers is akin to a Seismic activity on a stormy summer day, something unprecedented. 

Or I humbly beg you forgiveness, dismiss the tsunami and raise you one Katrina. Anomalies happen in any statistical modeling, economics or otherwise... 

In any case, always a pleasure to spar with you. 

I stand by my other arguments as well.


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Shaver,
> 
> *Newton actually wrote and published very little on alchemy. He did however spend most of his time on the subject. Only two books were published based on his writings, both posthumously. *
> 
> Anyway, economics is much more than forecasting. As for your analogy, Meteorological models are also unable to forecast crisis. Should we throw out Meteorology because it did not alert us to Japan's tsunami? I know you are being facetious, but even so your arguments are very thin. Give me better arguments please. And rarely quacks use the scientific method. You are better than this.
> 
> In any case hypersensitivity dependence on initial conditions are worse in social science models than climate science.
> 
> Even if you consider economics forecasting poor, what about everything else? I have dozens of papers and chapters and two forthcoming books, but never wrote a single line on forecasting.


Newton wrote extensively, exhaustively, on the occult (including Apocalyptical tracts). However the majority of this work is lost to us, yet still it remains certain it existed, being tantalisingly referenced in other works and library catalogues. In a slightly bizarre slice of synchronicity (given our discussion) Keynes purchased many of the remaining works in the early 20th century. Speculation is that the bulk of the manuscripts were lost in a fire or that Newton himself destroyed them. However it seems more likely that they were merely suppressed - Alchemy being illegal in England at the time. Newton's beliefs in Sacred Geometry and the architecture of The Temple of Solomon are downright wacky if not wholly entertaining (as example, _The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms). _


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> Seismic activity falls into climate modeling, and all Meteorological agencies monitor seismic activities. But even if I contend you to be right, not bailing Lehman Brothers is akin to a Seismic activity on a stormy summer day, something unprecedented.
> 
> Or I humbly beg you forgiveness, dismiss the tsunami and raise you one Katrina. Anomalies happen in any statistical modeling, economics or otherwise...
> 
> In any case, always a pleasure to spar with you.
> 
> I stand by my other arguments as well.


Climatology is but one of the interdisciplinary sciences pursued under the umbrella term 'atmospheric sciences'. Still, meteorology is entirely concerned with the atmosphere. It is seismology that is concerned with (among other phenomena) tsunamis. Geophysics is interested in all of these subjects. At any rate meteorology is able to predict with spectacular accuracy. The rest of the world saw Katrina coming from a fair way off - it was the weak President in charge of the US at that time who stuck his head in the sand. Sly digs aside, the hurricane followed the standard models, was predictable.

And yes, absolutely, I enjoy our sparring very much indeed.


----------



## Tilton

Shaver, I'm a bit confused - what did Bush do/not do during the forecasting of Katrina that would be considered "sticking his head in the sand"? Didn't he declare a state of emergency prior to landfall and immediately after the governor requested such? My Katrina knowledge is not great, so I'm genuinely asking, not trying to argue.


----------



## Shaver

Tilton said:


> Shaver, I'm a bit confused - what did Bush do/not do during the forecasting of Katrina that would be considered "sticking his head in the sand"? Didn't he declare a state of emergency prior to landfall and immediately after the governor requested such? My Katrina knowledge is not great, so I'm genuinely asking, not trying to argue.


The news reports in the U.K revealed a New Orleans reduced to an utterly shocking state, some extremely harrowing footage, and no emergency relief in sight for some considerable time. Presumably the U.S news glossed over this aspect...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina


----------



## Tilton

Shaver said:


> The news reports in the U.K revealed a New Orleans reduced to an utterly shocking state, some extremely harrowing footage, and no emergency relief in sight for some considerable time. Presumably the U.S news glossed over this aspect...?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina


Well, there's that, but it seemed like the discussion was on forecasting and not on management after the fact. We're on the same page, but I misunderstood the discussion.


----------



## bernoulli

If only hurricanes followed standard models...NYC has annual hurricane warnings and lots of people dismissed Sandy last year exactly because previous predictions were wrong. Same with Katrina, it was downgraded from a level 5 to a level 4 mere hours before touching ground in New orleans. Forecasting is reliable, but not safe from statistical mistakes. No meteorological model is perfect 100% of the time, or we would have 100% of probability of rain, instead of 95%, 90% etc, as we get today. The accuracy may be spectacular, and I agree with you, but it is not perfect.

But we are splitting hairs. You equate the failures of ONE prediction, albeit a disastrous one, with your dischenchantement to a whole scientific field that does a lot more than forecasting. Ok then, I will respect your opinion and strongly disagree with it.

BTW, this is what I wrote regarding the evolution of knowledge in economics: (hypothesis, testing, corroboration, refinement etc).
​This is what you wrote re: physics: "knowledge is a journey from faith, to guess, to estimate, to measurement, to certainty and then further refinement ad infinitum - with the occasional cul-de-sac and reversal, admittedly". We both agree in how knowledge is created.​
We are both Popperians at heart and maybe followers of Lakatos - so that we cannot be called naive. I could rework Rutherford's motto for full hubris "All social science is either economics or mere stamp collecting", but I won't go as far...:wink2:

BTW, I own a copy of the first edition of Newton's Chronology, but not the Observations. One of these days, but it is not a priority...Even his alchemical works are fascinating readings, as he was careful in his analysis, crazy as they sound today.



Shaver said:


> Climatology is but one of the interdisciplinary sciences pursued under the umbrella term 'atmospheric sciences'. Still, meteorology is entirely concerned with the atmosphere. It is seismology that is concerned with (among other phenomena) tsunamis. Geophysics is interested in all of these subjects. At any rate meteorology is able to predict with spectacular accuracy. The rest of the world saw Katrina coming from a fair way off - it was the weak President in charge of the US at that time who stuck his head in the sand. Sly digs aside, the hurricane followed the standard models, was predictable.
> 
> And yes, absolutely, I enjoy our sparring very much indeed.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> - *Good to see you still enjoy attacking people, not their ideas*. I could give you dozens more Ph.Ds who disagree with you, but at this point, why bother? *Your tiny mind is shut*...


----------



## Tiger

Another dishonest and hypocritical post from a person who seems to specialize in them...


----------



## Shaver

This thread had slipped my mind. 

Give me five, coffee and a smoke, and I'll be back in the fray. :tongue2:


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> If only hurricanes followed standard models...NYC has annual hurricane warnings and lots of people dismissed Sandy last year exactly because previous predictions were wrong. Same with Katrina, it was downgraded from a level 5 to a level 4 mere hours before touching ground in New orleans. Forecasting is reliable, but not safe from statistical mistakes. No meteorological model is perfect 100% of the time, or we would have 100% of probability of rain, instead of 95%, 90% etc, as we get today. The accuracy may be spectacular, and I agree with you, but it is not perfect.
> 
> But we are splitting hairs. You equate the failures of ONE prediction, albeit a disastrous one, with your dischenchantement to a whole scientific field that does a lot more than forecasting. Ok then, I will respect your opinion and strongly disagree with it.
> 
> BTW, this is what I wrote regarding the evolution of knowledge in economics: (hypothesis, testing, corroboration, refinement etc).
> ​This is what you wrote re: physics: "knowledge is a journey from faith, to guess, to estimate, to measurement, to certainty and then further refinement ad infinitum - with the occasional cul-de-sac and reversal, admittedly". We both agree in how knowledge is created.​
> We are both Popperians at heart and maybe followers of Lakatos - so that we cannot be called naive. I could rework Rutherford's motto for full hubris "All social science is either economics or mere stamp collecting", but I won't go as far...:wink2:
> 
> BTW, I own a copy of the first edition of Newton's Chronology, but not the Observations. One of these days, but it is not a priority...Even his alchemical works are fascinating readings, as he was careful in his analysis, crazy as they sound today.


It is worth bearing in mind that however destructive a hurricane may seem to those involved within it's path, still as part of a global weather system it is a highly localised and very temporary effect which leaves no lasting imprint upon the system within which it operates. Unlike financial markets the whole atmosphere does not collapse indefinately subsequent to a minor trauma.

I imagine that until we can model human greed, deviousness, gullibility and stupidity plus be able to predict the purity of cocaine on the trading floors day-to-day then economics will be the scientific equivalent of licking one's finger and holding it up to see which way the wind is blowing. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver

bernoulli said:


> If only hurricanes followed standard models...NYC has annual hurricane warnings and lots of people dismissed Sandy last year exactly because previous predictions were wrong. Same with Katrina, it was downgraded from a level 5 to a level 4 mere hours before touching ground in New orleans. Forecasting is reliable, but not safe from statistical mistakes. No meteorological model is perfect 100% of the time, or we would have 100% of probability of rain, instead of 95%, 90% etc, as we get today. The accuracy may be spectacular, and I agree with you, but it is not perfect.
> 
> But we are splitting hairs. You equate the failures of ONE prediction, albeit a disastrous one, with your dischenchantement to a whole scientific field that does a lot more than forecasting. Ok then, I will respect your opinion and strongly disagree with it.
> 
> BTW, this is what I wrote regarding the evolution of knowledge in economics: (hypothesis, testing, corroboration, refinement etc).
> ​This is what you wrote re: physics: "knowledge is a journey from faith, to guess, to estimate, to measurement, to certainty and then further refinement ad infinitum - with the occasional cul-de-sac and reversal, admittedly". We both agree in how knowledge is created.​
> We are both Popperians at heart and maybe followers of Lakatos - so that we cannot be called naive. I could rework Rutherford's motto for full hubris *"All social science is either economics or mere stamp collecting*", but I won't go as far...:wink2:
> 
> BTW, I own a copy of the first edition of Newton's Chronology, but not the Observations. One of these days, but it is not a priority...Even his alchemical works are fascinating readings, as he was careful in his analysis, crazy as they sound today.


It may delight you to be informed that I am currently employed within one of the over-arching social science disciplines. I tend to keep schtum about my beliefs. :tongue2:


----------



## Tilton

Tiger said:


> Another dishonest and hypocritical post from a person who seems to specialize in them...


You do realize that, putting the meat of the argument aside, you're the one in this thread who does most of the name calling and personal attacks, don't you? It doesn't bother me, but don't go crying foul when others speak far less harshly about you than you speak about other people here. I would guess that half the reason people are following this thread is to watch what basically amounts to a teenager with a thesaurus and a LexisNexis subscription throwing a temper tantrum.


----------



## phyrpowr

Shaver said:


> I imagine that until we can model human greed, deviousness, gullibility and stupidity plus be able to predict the purity of cocaine on the trading floors day-to-day then economics will be the scientific equivalent of licking one's finger and holding it up to see which way the wind is blowing. :icon_smile_wink:


I tend to agree. I can't help asking economists (and wannabes) who write out a formula where the little symbols for "insider trading" and "alcoholic fraternity brother VP" are.

A real weather map (not the one on the TV) looks like a conductor's score for "Flight of the Bumblebee" where the notes change themselves every hour or less...but at least no one is making the changes to generate an extra dollar in the pocket.


----------



## Tiger

Tilton said:


> You do realize that, putting the meat of the argument aside, you're the one in this thread who does most of the name calling and personal attacks, don't you? It doesn't bother me, but don't go crying foul when others speak far less harshly about you than you speak about other people here. I would guess that half the reason people are following this thread is to watch what basically amounts to a teenager with a thesaurus and a LexisNexis subscription throwing a temper tantrum.


Actually, it was a host of others - including you, Tilton - who began the attacks and insinuations against me (not to mention the ludicrous demands made of me). One should not be surprised that such attacks were finally met with very strong responses.

I also understand the bitterness inherent in your last sentence, since I (and others) pointed out the silliness of your "demands."

Any reading of this entire - not selective - thread will show this to be true...


----------



## Tilton

Tiger said:


> Actually, it was a host of others - including you, Tilton - who began the attacks and insinuations against me (not to mention the ludicrous demands made of me). One should not be surprised that such attacks were finally met with very strong responses.
> 
> I also understand the bitterness inherent in your last sentence, since I (and others) pointed out the silliness of your "demands."
> 
> Any reading of this entire - not selective - thread will show this to be true...


Nope, sorry. I'm not bitter - and I still think that if you present yourself as an expert you should be able to back it up with proof of expertise. Frankly, though, I'd forgotten all about that, though I would hardly call them "demands," and I can only assume that you have the same understanding, hence the quotation marks. Also, to my memory, I don't believe I have ever resorted to name-calling on AAAC (though I could be wrong) and in this thread I was quite far from launching personal attacks against you. I do apologize for whatever I've said that you've taken so deeply personally, but reading my posts, I just don't see it. (okay, up until the teenager with a thesaurus comment, that was an attack, and I'll admit to that).

But, look, Bernoulli criticized the math (not the idea) of a 70-year old book and you took it way too personally and that was the tipping point. Of course no one person is totally to blame for the deterioration of this thread, though. Honestly, I find my own opinion to generally line up with those you express, but you can't take things so personally on the internet, buddy. The point here was to have a discussion about the ramifications of the government shutdown, not to tell everyone who holds a different opinion that their views are poisonous. If you can't view criticism and disagreement impartially and as something strictly related to the issue at hand instead of taking it as a personal attack (which it isn't, or perhaps, shouldn't be), then the internet is going to be a really sour place.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tilton said:


> ... teenager with a ... LexisNexis subscription ...


My blood curdles with the thought. I'm assuming you invoked this fearful incubus only because it's Hallowe'en.


----------



## Tiger

Ouch, Tilton - first you insinuate that I am the one attacking, and after I reply that I was the one who was attacked first - repeatedly - you criticize me for being too sensitive! I'm sure you'll be posting a similar message to the other parties in this dialogue, right?

Your attack on me was far more subtle than the others. By asking me to produce credentials/publications in economics, you held me to a standard that you have not done with anyone else on AAAC - ever. (If I'm wrong, please tell me when this has previously occurred.) In fact, during this same thread, many posters wrote things that were inaccurate regarding my field (history), yet not once did you ask them for _their_ credentials. In effect, your message was a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to censor/silence me. I've read AAAC for years, and have seen posts (and opinions) on politics, law, sports, history, economics, meteorology, literature, sociology, automobiles, psychology, clothing(!), and a hundred other topics, and not once have you or anyone else held someone to such a censorious standard. Do you really think you were objective, Tilton? Can you see why I would strenuously object to such a tactic?

Re: Bernoulli - you seem to ignore his many initial insults at me, and only focus on my responses. The notion that he merely criticized a book, and then I began personal attacks is simply false; the unfairness here is perplexing.

Let's examine what actually occurred: Bernoulli's post #75 starts the "you're wrong!" mantra, even though we were discussing issues that may be subjective (and I've maintained that line of reasoning throughout the thread). Post #76 insinuates that I'm no better than one of his Eco 101 students. Post #80 again resorts to the "wrong" mantra, and claims the mantle of "fact" when he really is merely making assertions. In post #87 he claims that I "lack basic economic knowledge" - both false and condescending (as proven repeatedly throughout this thread). In post #91, Bernoulli attacks a book he has not read, my economic philosophy, and then passes a nasty remark about "learning the New Deal in high school." (Since I've taught the topic in college and high school, I'd say that I was fairly well-versed in it. Is Bernoulli?) He closes with sarcasm regarding "gravity," as if I'm a Neanderthal. Finally, in post #96, Bernoulli squeals that I "have no knowledge of Economics at all, and I mean AT ALL." He then ridicules me as relying on "faith" while he claims to be a man of "science." (I think that nonsense has been dispelled in this thread&#8230;repeatedly.) He ends this post with this incredibly insulting and vicious line - "You are no different from hard-core Marxists, believing in ideology before science. Faith. Blergh&#8230;" (Which, of course, is exactly what Bernoulli was doing the entire time, while hiding behind a fictitious "science.")

*It is at this point when I finally start to respond to these attacks*, and the dialogue became increasingly vitriolic (got that thesaurus handy, Tilton!) from both sides. In addition, others with the same political/economic mindset as Bernoulli - and make no mistake, politics played a role here - will then pile on, and I will handle each one in an appropriate manner.

So Tilton, those are the facts of what occurred; they are there for all to see. Please stop making me sound like the aggressor, and please stop distorting what has occurred!


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> Ouch, Tilton - first you insinuate that I am the one attacking, and after I reply that I was the one who was attacked first - repeatedly - you criticize me for being too sensitive! I'm sure you'll be posting a similar message to the other parties in this dialogue, right?
> 
> Your attack on me was far more subtle than the others. By asking me to produce credentials/publications in economics, you held me to a standard that you have not done with anyone else on AAAC - ever. (If I'm wrong, please tell me when this has previously occurred.) In fact, during this same thread, many posters wrote things that were inaccurate regarding my field (history), yet not once did you ask them for _their_ credentials. In effect, your message was a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to censor/silence me. I've read AAAC for years, and have seen posts (and opinions) on politics, law, sports, history, economics, meteorology, literature, sociology, automobiles, psychology, clothing(!), and a hundred other topics, and not once have you or anyone else held someone to such a censorious standard. Do you really think you were objective, Tilton? Can you see why I would strenuously object to such a tactic?
> 
> Re: Bernoulli - you seem to ignore his many initial insults at me, and only focus on my responses. The notion that he merely criticized a book, and then I began personal attacks is simply false; the unfairness here is perplexing.
> 
> Let's examine what actually occurred: Bernoulli's post #75 starts the "you're wrong!" mantra, even though we were discussing issues that may be subjective (and I've maintained that line of reasoning throughout the thread). Post #76 insinuates that I'm no better than one of his Eco 101 students. Post #80 again resorts to the "wrong" mantra, and claims the mantle of "fact" when he really is merely making assertions. In post #87 he claims that I "lack basic economic knowledge" - both false and condescending (as proven repeatedly throughout this thread). In post #91, Bernoulli attacks a book he has not read, my economic philosophy, and then passes a nasty remark about "learning the New Deal in high school." (Since I've taught the topic in college and high school, I'd say that I was fairly well-versed in it. Is Bernoulli?) He closes with sarcasm regarding "gravity," as if I'm a Neanderthal. Finally, in post #96, Bernoulli squeals that I "have no knowledge of Economics at all, and I mean AT ALL." He then ridicules me as relying on "faith" while he claims to be a man of "science." (I think that nonsense has been dispelled in this thread&#8230;repeatedly.) He ends this post with this incredibly insulting and vicious line - "You are no different from hard-core Marxists, believing in ideology before science. Faith. Blergh&#8230;" (Which, of course, is exactly what Bernoulli was doing the entire time, while hiding behind a fictitious "science.")
> 
> *It is at this point when I finally start to respond to these attacks*, and the dialogue became increasingly vitriolic (got that thesaurus handy, Tilton!) from both sides. In addition, others with the same political/economic mindset as Bernoulli - and make no mistake, politics played a role here - will then pile on, and I will handle each one in an appropriate manner.
> 
> So Tilton, those are the facts of what occurred; they are there for all to see. Please stop making me sound like the aggressor, and please stop distorting what has occurred!


----------



## Tiger

^^^ You seem to be the type of guy that got his ass kicked a lot growing up...


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> ^^^ You seem to be the type of guy that got his ass kicked a lot growing up...


----------



## Tiger

Now that was funny! Not quite as hilarious as your "serious" answers, but still funny!


----------



## Shaver




----------



## CuffDaddy

I have just learned that one can laugh their @$$ off if one does a google images search for "come at me bro," provided that one has an appropriately juvenile sense of humor. Which I do. 

For example:


----------



## Shaver

One for you CD:


----------



## CuffDaddy

On the theme and sub-theme:


----------



## Tiger

Great stuff! Sure beats all of the economics talk...


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> Great stuff! Sure beats all of the economics talk...


One for, but decidedly not aimed at, you Tiger old bean.:icon_smile:


----------



## Shaver

The ethos of our epoch:


----------



## Tiger

Have to love "condescending" Wonka - always wonderfully caustic.

Or the angry Wonka - "You get nothing...you lose...good day, sir!"


----------



## Tilton

Alas, Tiger, now I know you're full of it! If there's one single topic on this earth I have no knowledge (...erm... opinion) on, it is sports (though I did post in a thread about what to wear to sports games, which I do sometimes attend, I could only recognize two Washington-area athletes: RG3 because he is on every bill board and Ovechkin becasue I used to see him around our old neighborhood)!


----------



## Tiger

I meant that _*all of us*_ post and comment on a variety topics, Tilton, not just you!

I need to figure out how to use these damn memes...can anyone send me a 139 page PDF file on meme creation? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> I meant that _*all of us*_ post and comment on a variety topics, Tilton, not just you!
> 
> I need to figure out how to use these damn memes...can anyone send me a 139 page PDF file on meme creation? :icon_smile_wink:


It could not be easier, old sport. Take a look here: https://memegenerator.net/

Now, I expect my ribs to be tickled by your creativity the next time I look in on this thread. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Tiger

Let's try one more, which I hope will be taken in jest...


----------



## Tiger

Thank you, Shaver, for putting a match in the hands of a pyromaniac!


----------



## Gurdon

‘What Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow’ - Benjamin Disraeli

Shaver,

Was Disraeli referring to the football team?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> Thank you, Shaver, for putting a match in the hands of a pyromaniac!


It is always a pleasure to assist. :icon_smile:


----------



## Shaver

Gurdon said:


> 'What Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow' - Benjamin Disraeli
> 
> Shaver,
> 
> Was Disraeli referring to the football team?
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


If he was it will have been City! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Bjorn

I just forgot about this thread for a while, had a whisky today, went back, reviewed, and would like to say, yet again, no, you're just wrong.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> I just forgot about this thread for a while, had a whisky today, went back, reviewed, and would like to say, yet again, no, you're just wrong.


Such a, err, thoughtful response, especially since you made a similar remark weeks ago, but couldn't support it when challenged to do so.

Good to see that the whisky hasn't impaired your reasoning!


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> I just forgot about this thread for a while, had a whisky today, went back, reviewed, and would like to say, yet again, no, you're just wrong.


C'mon Bjorn, you will have to be more specific than that - quite a few people have contributed to this thread. Who's wrong? Spit it out, man. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

US and Local Governments closed for Veterans Day.

https://www.capitalgazette.com/news...cle_3d590e0d-0f0c-5c91-bafe-44d41d8f7f73.html

Most government employees will be off Monday in honor of Veterans Day. Here is a list of closings:


Federal offices: Closed.
State offices: Closed.
County offices: Closed.
City offices: Closed.
Banks: Closed.
Courts: Closed.
Schools: Open with a two-hour early dismissal.
Libraries: Open.
Senior centers: Closed.
Post offices: Closed.

Where is the honor in going to work??


----------



## eagle2250

^^Rather ironic, isn't it?
While most of us are given a day off work to honor them, those we honor remain on duty! Is it possible to be grateful and offer thanks, absent taking the day off and sitting on one's duff? :icon_scratch:


----------



## MaxBuck

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Rather ironic, isn't it?
> While most of us are given a day off work to honor them, those we honor remain on duty! Is it possible to be grateful and offer thanks, absent taking the day off and sitting on one's duff? :icon_scratch:


I have my own business, and therefore need to work today.

I don't think I am honoring our brave veterans any less than those who are spending the day at leisure.


----------



## eagle2250

MaxBuck said:


> I have my own business, and therefore need to work today.
> 
> I don't think I am honoring our brave veterans any less than those who are spending the day at leisure.


Indeed...can we not have a holiday and express our gratitude without taking a day off? :thumbs-up:


----------



## bernoulli

Americans and their fascination with work. I prefer to work for a living than living to work (I am saying this tongue firmly in cheek).

https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-hours

My aim is to be so productive that I need to work a minute a week. One day.... Meanwhile I have to be content with only 6 months off hard work.



eagle2250 said:


> Indeed...can we not have a holiday and express our gratitude without taking a day off? :thumbs-up:


----------

