How small is your small government?

[Anarkistsdream]

Thank you for the excellent reply... I am by no means an economist..

Neither is BBS, which is why you end up with explanations like:

"The government is largely involved in interest rates"

Shortly followed by,

"f you want sensible prices for currencies and interest rates, you should leave government out of it."

But hey, whatever works for you Anarkistsdream.

Had that been his only reply, I would agree and would not have thanked him, but he replied with more than that... You can learn something from everyone, that doesn't mean you have to take ALL they say as gospel... Too much hatred and arrogance on these forums. But hey, whatever works for you, Symmetry.

[mrswdk]

He clearly has a personal vendetta against BBS. His sole contribution to this forum seems to be following BBS around from thread to thread, trying to snipe him whenever he (thinks) he has an opportunity.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[BigBallinStalin]

He clearly has a personal vendetta against BBS. His sole contribution to this forum seems to be following BBS around from thread to thread, trying to snipe him whenever he (thinks) he has an opportunity.

Trolling a troll? Is this even possible?!?!

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[BigBallinStalin]

The most difficult issue for free market enthusiasts is addressing the question of welfare--i.e. helping the poor. The general questions are: given the absence of government spending (thus lower taxes, freer financing/currency, etc.), would society provide more for the poor?

Another--and better--question is: would the gains from decreased taxation and regulation lead to greater incomes which would be allocated more toward the economy? If so, what fraction would help the poor by providing greater opportunities of employment and of entrepreneurship?
(welfare spending/charity is not the main driver of prosperity)

Another question is: what explains income mobility? Are those who earn less income actually satisfied enough with that amount?--in that they don't care to strive for more profitable ventures? Or do they have that motivation, but their efforts are thwarted through regulation and/or lack of opportunity?

There's no clear answers to these questions--as of yet and as far as I know.

[_sabotage_]

For real? No answers?

Gaining access to what others want. The more that want it, the greater the income. Access is restricted, which in itself is a major industry.

It's not that the lower earners are less motivated than the higher earner's, they are just fishing in a different pond. Or they are fishing in the same pond and another catches the fish.

Growing up in low income areas brings it's own worldview. Is the laziest Rothschild poor? Poor only compared to those the richest of them hang around. But if that is their existence, then they are poor. Thaksin was the leader of a poor country.

Bill Gates came from humble beginnings as did his parents' friend Warren Buffet. Isn't that sweet though, Buffet was one of the initial advisors to Gates. Gates had the right connections and interests to make himself wealthy. On the other hand, there are probably hundreds as capable as him, without the connections. They didn't happen to go to one of the few schools in the country where they could spend all day programming. He got to the top first and those that follow have him as a barrier.

With free markets, this will always be the case: first to the top. In some cases it's first few, who then act as one. This is the case for all hierarchical systems, be it government, business or Oprah.

The key is not to ignore the fact that people act in groups, but embrace it and say fine, we act as one and the small guys do it as well. If they are going to collude, why shouldn't we? And that is supposed to be the government. Millions of individual voices being adhered to. But what we get is the military-industrial complex controlling our government through propaganda, all mass media, and financial institutions.

I say, put your money where your mouth is: let people decide which programs their tax dollars go to.

If I pay 60k in taxes a year, I want it to go to roads, maintaining clean drinking water, schools, ensuring the quality of my food and health care. I don't care about immigration, war, espionage, etc. I don't need or want the government to bail out the banks.

If the government is to be relevant in the coming years, it will only be as the collective moderator of societies indivualized needs, not as the provider, or arbitrator of them. This can be achieved by an open book system and ongoing analysis.

[BigBallinStalin]

None of that is conclusive nor exemplifies any standard of science. It also relies on a poor understanding of free markets, government, and civil society.

[BigBallinStalin]

For real? No answers?

Gaining access to what others want. The more that want it, the greater the income. Access is restricted, which in itself is a major industry.

It's not that the lower earners are less motivated than the higher earner's, they are just fishing in a different pond. Or they are fishing in the same pond and another catches the fish.

Growing up in low income areas brings it's own worldview. Is the laziest Rothschild poor? Poor only compared to those the richest of them hang around. But if that is their existence, then they are poor. Thaksin was the leader of a poor country.

Bill Gates came from humble beginnings as did his parents' friend Warren Buffet. Isn't that sweet though, Buffet was one of the initial advisors to Gates. Gates had the right connections and interests to make himself wealthy. On the other hand, there are probably hundreds as capable as him, without the connections. They didn't happen to go to one of the few schools in the country where they could spend all day programming. He got to the top first and those that follow have him as a barrier.

With free markets, this will always be the case: first to the top. In some cases it's first few, who then act as one. This is the case for all hierarchical systems, be it government, business or Oprah.

No, that's not always how it would work nor how it works--even with government collusion in the mix. If being first mattered so much, then the first ones to establish a business in good X would still be here. Obviously, that's not the case. Constant competition requires constant effort.

And no, all markets aren't hierarchical in the sense that all have some hierarchical structure (e.g. Apple controls the smartphone industry and tells other producers what to do). That's not the case; that's incorrect use of that definition. Government is definitely hierarchical because of how the decision rights are established--in a hierarchical fashion. You don't see this with markets because one company does not control the others in the same manner as a government branch dominates the lower branches.

The key is not to ignore the fact that people act in groups, but embrace it and say fine, we act as one and the small guys do it as well. If they are going to collude, why shouldn't we? And that is supposed to be the government. Millions of individual voices being adhered to. But what we get is the military-industrial complex controlling our government through propaganda, all mass media, and financial institutions.

You're blending the models of free market and government too much. "Small guys v. Big guys" is not the same when it comes to voters and democracy with its politicians.

And why is government suppose to be "collusion"? Millions of voices being adhered to? What do you think companies who sell to millions have to deal with?

Oh yeah, and it here it comes: The MIC + "media I don't like" + the banksters. Come on...

What is this 'acting in groups' diatribe? "We act as one." How vague can you get?

I say, put your money where your mouth is: let people decide which programs their tax dollars go to.

If I pay 60k in taxes a year, I want it to go to roads, maintaining clean drinking water, schools, ensuring the quality of my food and health care. I don't care about immigration, war, espionage, etc. I don't need or want the government to bail out the banks.

If the government is to be relevant in the coming years, it will only be as the collective moderator of societies indivualized needs, not as the provider, or arbitrator of them. This can be achieved by an open book system and ongoing analysis.

Okay. None of what you said sufficiently addresses my questions. Sure, "let's have people allocate their own taxable income to whatever they want," but that kind of reform won't happen within the current government and the current mentality favorable to the status quo of government. Instead, encouraging people to opt away from national government, thereby making their local governments more important is where you can make that happen.

"Individualized needs"... That implies anything which people conceive of as an 'individual need'--be it security through national armed forces, welfare services, or the socialization of all capital.

With a limited, national government, you can gladly join some community/local government whose policies you like the most--and you can deal with the consequences of such policies.



Your response is scattered and does not really address the questions I posed.

[mrswdk]

I don't need or want the government to bail out the banks.

Ha. Okay. Good luck riding out the collapse of your country's financial system.

[_sabotage_]

I don't need or want the government to bail out the banks.

Ha. Okay. Good luck riding out the collapse of your country's financial system.

My Grandma lost 90% of her pension in a few days in 2008, two of my uncles are still unemployed, many pensions in Canada have been destroyed. Are you suggesting that letting the banks print and gift the money to its friends have helped? I remember talking with my uncle, a staunch Republican, and him suggesting the trickle down effect was all good and sweet. He has since lost complete faith in government.

And BTW, I made quite a bit of money at the time, as I had cash to buy up all the fear shorted assets. Just as the banks had the cash to do from the bailout.

For real? No answers?

Gaining access to what others want. The more that want it, the greater the income. Access is restricted, which in itself is a major industry.

It's not that the lower earners are less motivated than the higher earner's, they are just fishing in a different pond. Or they are fishing in the same pond and another catches the fish.

Growing up in low income areas brings it's own worldview. Is the laziest Rothschild poor? Poor only compared to those the richest of them hang around. But if that is their existence, then they are poor. Thaksin was the leader of a poor country.

Bill Gates came from humble beginnings as did his parents' friend Warren Buffet. Isn't that sweet though, Buffet was one of the initial advisors to Gates. Gates had the right connections and interests to make himself wealthy. On the other hand, there are probably hundreds as capable as him, without the connections. They didn't happen to go to one of the few schools in the country where they could spend all day programming. He got to the top first and those that follow have him as a barrier.

With free markets, this will always be the case: first to the top. In some cases it's first few, who then act as one. This is the case for all hierarchical systems, be it government, business or Oprah.

No, that's not always how it would work nor how it works--even with government collusion in the mix. If being first mattered so much, then the first ones to establish a business in good X would still be here. Obviously, that's not the case. Constant competition requires constant effort.

And no, all markets aren't hierarchical in the sense that all have some hierarchical structure (e.g. Apple controls the smartphone industry and tells other producers what to do). That's not the case; that's incorrect use of that definition. Government is definitely hierarchical because of how the decision rights are established--in a hierarchical fashion. You don't see this with markets because one company does not control the others in the same manner as a government branch dominates the lower branches.

The key is not to ignore the fact that people act in groups, but embrace it and say fine, we act as one and the small guys do it as well. If they are going to collude, why shouldn't we? And that is supposed to be the government. Millions of individual voices being adhered to. But what we get is the military-industrial complex controlling our government through propaganda, all mass media, and financial institutions.

You're blending the models of free market and government too much. "Small guys v. Big guys" is not the same when it comes to voters and democracy with its politicians.

And why is government suppose to be "collusion"? Millions of voices being adhered to? What do you think companies who sell to millions have to deal with?

Oh yeah, and it here it comes: The MIC + "media I don't like" + the banksters. Come on...

What is this 'acting in groups' diatribe? "We act as one." How vague can you get?

I say, put your money where your mouth is: let people decide which programs their tax dollars go to.

If I pay 60k in taxes a year, I want it to go to roads, maintaining clean drinking water, schools, ensuring the quality of my food and health care. I don't care about immigration, war, espionage, etc. I don't need or want the government to bail out the banks.

If the government is to be relevant in the coming years, it will only be as the collective moderator of societies indivualized needs, not as the provider, or arbitrator of them. This can be achieved by an open book system and ongoing analysis.

Okay. None of what you said sufficiently addresses my questions. Sure, "let's have people allocate their own taxable income to whatever they want," but that kind of reform won't happen within the current government and the current mentality favorable to the status quo of government. Instead, encouraging people to opt away from national government, thereby making their local governments more important is where you can make that happen.

"Individualized needs"... That implies anything which people conceive of as an 'individual need'--be it security through national armed forces, welfare services, or the socialization of all capital.

With a limited, national government, you can gladly join some community/local government whose policies you like the most--and you can deal with the consequences of such policies.



Your response is scattered and does not really address the questions I posed.

BS, Apple colludes on certain aspects of their products with other producers. And in a way it does tell other producers what to do, if you got the money, develop smart phones or be gone. If you f*ck with the market, we will gang up and annihilate you. This has been seen too many times.

I never suggested we "act as one". In fact I have suggested the opposite, we recognize that we don't act as one and base our model on it.

Were people to vote with their taxes, ie specify where their taxes were going, this would open broad new channels for democracy. Being part of the 49% would no longer matter as you could potentially have more funding than the 51%. If attacking Syria has a 10% approval, then perhaps it will only be funded by those 10%. If 70% of Californians are against criminalization of a particular plant that was used to create civilization, then this would be reflected in the funding as well.

To suggest that this makes sense, but is unrealistic, makes no more sense than saying free markets should happen. Free markets won't happen with our current government. The collusion, which prevents it, prevents free markets as well.

My response is less scattered than yours.

[mrswdk]

It's an interesting anecdote but it in no way demonstrates that you would have been okay if the government hadn't saved the banks.

[_sabotage_]

Should I get on my knees to praise the government's intervention to help those who hurt my family?

Come save me government! Save the banks so that I may be saved through them!

Are you suggesting that my grandma is now ok? That somehow the bailout has made her ok, whereas she would not have been ok otherwise? They are forecasting a much larger 2009 very soon, maybe we can bail the banks out ahead of their complete and intended failure now, Xmas is on the way, wouldn't it be nice to make sure they have record-breaking bonuses?

[mrswdk]

Were people to vote with their taxes, ie specify where their taxes were going, this would open broad new channels for democracy. Being part of the 49% would no longer matter as you could potentially have more funding than the 51%. If attacking Syria has a 10% approval, then perhaps it will only be funded by those 10%. If 70% of Californians are against criminalization of a particular plant that was used to create civilization, then this would be reflected in the funding as well.

So a rich minority can decide the direction of their country at the expense of the poorer majority? Perfect! That is the perfect way to solve the problem of 'millions of people' being ignored due to the elites controlling the media and financial institutions.

If you're going to try and pass weed off as the 'plant that was used to create civilization' then you definitely have to source.

[mrswdk]

I'm not saying your gran is just as rich as she was before. I'm saying I'm surprised that you think that the bailing out of your country's financial system was of little/no use to you.

[_sabotage_]

Bailing out the country's financial system was of detrimental use to me.

Are you suggesting that the rich minority don't already decide the direction of the country at the expense of the poor minority?

The differences would be:

It would be overt.

Those who do not benefit/support would not be forced into paying for what they don't approve. The military industrial complex could put all their tax dollars towards financing the military, and choose not to access roads, workers, education, etc if they wish. And I and millions upon millions could fund better education, infrastructure and technology.

If you are ignorant of the use of hemp, then providing a source will be of little use to you.

[khazalid]

hemp? bloody useless. not nearly enough d-9THC

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, joining late. Here's what I want out of my federal government (in no particular order):

(1) Public education funding (and some standardization).
(2) Intellectual property protection.
(3) National defense (a standing army, navy, and air force for defense purposes only).

Here's what I want out of my local government (in no particular order):

(1) Public education administration
(2) Police, fire
(3) Transportation maintenance (roads, commuter trains, etc.)

That's probably about it. I'm sure I'll think of other things, but not many more.

[mrswdk]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

[thegreekdog]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to that democracy malarkey you were talking about earlier, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

Far be it from me to defend sabotage here, but it seems to me that bailing out a company for a failure encourages further failure, no? Failure with repurcussions forces folks to fix problems. Failure without repurcussions not only encourages further failure, but takes money from some people and gives it to the people who failed.

As a simpler example, bailing out home owners who paid too much for their homes encourages them to pay too much again in the anticipation of receiving a bail out. Of course, as you put it, the financial ruin of "the banks" would put the entire world in a worse financial crisis (I guess... the same people who predicted that no bailout meant disaster also failed to predict the "Great Recession" in the first place... and they also tend to be people who benefit, indirectly, from a bank bailout).

In any event, I look forward to the next round of bank bailouts and auto manufacturer bailouts in the name of protecting the economy. It will also be interesting to see what happens when younger people realize they will be paying for the lifestyles of the older generation in the near future.

[_sabotage_]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

As it is, a giant pyramid scheme was allowed to extort the entire country and, since the US dollar is the world reserve currency, the world.

Corporations have a vast arsenal in avoiding taxes, for example being able to hire the above tax attorney, move off shore, acquire assets during economic declines to offset profits. As Adam Smith said,
By preferring the support of domestick to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

If you wish to access our markets, keep your money here. If the banks fail, they have no money, they have no taxes, and therefore they cannot "vote" with their taxes. At the moment, everyone is forced to join the system whether they want to or not. As such, large bodies are able to use their influence to secure your money for their ends and not benefit you in any way.

This thread is actually quite interesting, because it is not far off of what paying taxes should be. We have a list of choices, and we can vote to pay for the ones we approve. This would need to be greatly extended, but someone could choose simply to put let's say 5k towards education, or go into the specific details of the proposed education spending and choose a specific kind of education related R+D to fund. Were I thinking of having children, then that would be my choice. In this system, the possibility of receiving funding greatly increases in some areas and decreases in others. Meaning, many smaller and potentially beneficially groups may access our tax dollars if they can sell us, and the US is not in the market for war.

[BigBallinStalin]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

In other words, would fiscal policy have been better? Either way, if the government dumps money into those sectors, then they're still dumping money in those markets--which drives up prices (since they'd be increasing the supply of USD in those sectors--more quickly than in other sectors).

You can't avoid inflation with fiscal policy either...

and then you'd have to weigh the benefits and costs of dumping money into banks or dumping money into particular industries. If more banks were to fail without the bailout, then how would that be counterbalanced by the alternative fiscal policy in infrastructure and so on?

If more large banks failed, how would that have affected people's savings? Would it have been cheaper for the FDIC to dole out its promised $250,000 or so to everyone who lost their money?

[thegreekdog]

My favorite part of the bank bailout was the implication/promise that there would be "tougher regulation" of banks to "prevent" these types of financial crises in the future.

[_sabotage_]

Banks do not need to lend the money out. In lending it they incur a loss. Better to use the money to acquire real wealth while people are panic selling. This is what any individual investor should do, and I wouldn't expect the banks to do otherwise. A recent report suggests that the property market has been artificially inflated through the withholding of foreclosures to the market. A failed bank would have made these available at "true" market value which would have dropped the capital requirement for consumers and provided a societal benefit.

You can avoid inflation by spending what you have and creating a larger resource bank to draw from. This has been continuously avoided and we act like this possibility does not exist. We are a world of scarce resources they maintain in speech and in policy.

Confidence is at the heart of markets. The government can promote confidence without saturating the market. Infrastructure was among a variety of possibilities. The counterbalance is quite simple, if you give a homeless man 5 bucks, then he will spend that $5. If you give me $5, I don't need to spend it. The banks don't need to spend the money and as such the argument that bailing them out fails to add funds to the market, and does not add confidence to a market so ravaged by the banks in the first place. Were the money vouched for other sectors, especially for the small guys in that sector, then both confidence and consumption would be up.

I don't think the government should dole out $250,000 to everyone, but instead could dole out $250,000 to every hundredth person who proposed a means of providing broad domestic benefits with the money, such as employeeing people with it, propping up domestic markets, and revitalizing local production. If the money is then lost, it is lost to other members of the same marketplace.

I believe it is that "local" money goes through the economy 7 times while foreign money circulates only 3 times.

There is no law requiring individuals to pay an income tax to the government, it is voluntary. If it is voluntary, why can't it be directed? Our politicians are supposed to recognize the needs and means of their constituents and direct the means towards the needs to the best of their ability. While a large portion of the population maintains their ongoing failure in this role is due to incompetence, I hold a more sinister view. What happens is what was intended. If we are voluntarily forfeiting a large portion of our market power then we should be purchasing some market influence, but we have given up on the market influence and just expect everything to be cool.

It won't be cool. Volunteer your taxes towards programs that you want, need, or would like to promote. Use the influence of the pool of funds to gain greater market power. Evaluate and allow great domestic competition in the sectors you support. Don't ask someone else to pay for your benefits.

[BigBallinStalin]

None of that addresses the problem of your previously held position about fiscal policy. You're just saying, "well, ignore the consequences of my favored position, and let's make the FDIC act contrary to how it was designed."

The banks don't need to spend the money and as such the argument that bailing them out fails to add funds to the market, and does not add confidence to a market so ravaged by the banks in the first place. Were the money vouched for other sectors, especially for the small guys in that sector, then both confidence and consumption would be up.

Sure, banks can be hesitant to lend, but that's one aspect of the monetary policy. The main purpose of the bailout was to prevent banks from becoming insolvent... [repeat problems of that v. benefits and costs of fiscal policy].

The underlined isn't true. You're still overlooking the failure of that approach during the 1930s in the US. You can't spend your way out of a recession, and on net the multiplier effect is zero--when incorporating the effects over 5 years (see: St. Louis equation, applies to the 1970s). The latest studies I've seen for more recent times is like 0.9 or 1.1--take your pick. It's either counter-productive or hardly productive--given the most dire times of an economy as well.