Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on October 29, 2004, 12:43:49 PM
-
"One obvious solution, of course, is to forbid Congress to spend more than it takes in. While a "balanced budget amendment" to the Constitution has been proposed—and while I support such an amendment—there's no substitute for a chief executive whose veto pen stands ready to shut down any congressional appropriations in excess of revenues.
As your president, I'll veto deficit spending. Period. I expect this to be an easy thing to do, since I'll be slashing the size of the federal government at the same time—so much so that taxes will be slashed as well.
A second solution is to put the American economy back on real money, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money" out of thin air, debasing the value of the "money" in your wallet."
http://badnarik.org/plans_economy.php
That should do it.
Bush = Kerry.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money"
This would be a "very" bad idea...
-
Originally posted by soda72
This would be a "very" bad idea...
Why?
-
It's called Economics bud. Study it.
What bush is doing is right out of the playbook section called, "What to do if in a recession."
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's called Economics bud. Study it.
Okay, please educate me. I think a fiat currency system is worse than one based on actually commodity. It leads to infinate currency expansion and has lead to a massive trade deficit in the US.
The US changed to fiat system in 1974 and look what happend.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
What bush is doing is right out of the playbook section called, "What to do if in a recession."
It's right out of the play book of supply-side economic theory. But how often has the supply-side economic solution to recession been tried? Once under Reagan, and US hasn't even begun to pay off that debt. It's not a solution, it's bandaid and simply shifts the costs of going through the downturn to later generations.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's right out of the play book of supply-side economic theory. But how often has the supply-side economic solution to recession been tried? Once under Reagan, and US hasn't even begun to pay off that debt. It's not a solution, it's bandaid and simply shifts the costs of going through the down turn to later generations. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
Thrawn.....with good intentions.....I ask you what you would have done differently?
Ride out the recession and hope for the best? Keeping in mind we were ina recession when sept 11th happend and Americans lost 2 million jobs in a matter of weeks.
I'm not arguing that the "bandaid" that you speak of was the right course but I'm curious to know the alternatives? It sounds to me like alot more people would be complaining about Jobs/low pay right now without the "bandaid"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thrawn.....with good intentions.....I ask you what you would have done differently?
Ride out the recession and hope for the best? Keeping in mind we were ina recession when sept 11th happend and Americans lost 2 million jobs in a matter of weeks.
I'm not arguing that the "bandaid" that you speak of was the right course but I'm curious to know the alternatives? It sounds to me like alot more people would be complaining about Jobs/low pay right now without the "bandaid"
The first thing I would have realised was that any time the government tries to screw around with the economy they hurt it, it's called "communism". Government regulation of the economy causes the economic problems.
I would also realise that people are going to ***** regardless what you do, especially special interests, even if you policies help the most people.
My solution would have been exactly what Badranik wants to do. The name of the solution is "capitalism". Governement deregulation of the economy will stop the problems.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
My solution would have been exactly what Badranik wants to do. The name of the solution is "capitalism". Governement deregulation of the economy will stop the problems.
Well in Bush's defense he did just that in many areas.....Now he's accused of "catering to big business" "worst environmental president ever" "worst health care president ever" <--last one is mostly after he cancled all the stupid ergonomic laws that clinton signed his last few weeks in office.
Think about it, all things considered the economy could be ALOT worse. I'm not sure if doin nothing at all would have worked....not to mention no way he'd be re-elected...just my views
-
What bush should have done is slash government spending, pulled our troops in from over seas, and cut the **** out of taxes.
Stoped 90% of aid money we send out of the US.
Killed any money wasting program.
disband the ATF and DEA.
Legalise pot and tax it.
Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.
Closed the borders. Stoping ilegal imagration. Kick all ilegals out, and start a work visa program that actualy works. Charge mexico for any medical care given to ilegals.
ETC.
He prolly should not have gone into Iraq.
-
I'm not talking about any complicated economic theories here.
I'm talking about stuff within the first 10 chapters of the "Special" economics class. This stuff is so basic that you can't even bring politics in it.
You have the GDP. There are 4 basic things you can do.
1.) Cut Taxes.
2.) Raise Taxes.
3.) Cut Government Spending.
4.) Raise Government Spending.
It doesn't seem logical to do what you should do in a recession to someone who has never studied economics. But when you consider the numbers it starts to make sense. I'll try to tell you how in my most "I studied this **** that I don't need a year ago" tone.
You have the GDP. It's a general measure of the economy and the nation in general. It basically measures how much money is being spent in the economy.
So in a recession, it's rather low. You want it to be higher. So what do you do? A.) You cut taxes. If more people have more money to spend, the GDP will go up. B.) You Raise government spending. Governmental spending affects the economy too. More spending = Higher GDP.
Both of these things have to be controlled. If you do too much, inflation will rise just as fast as the GDP will. And this is bad, because the Physical Amount of dollars being spent into the GDP isn't worth as much anymore, so the entire effect is negated.
Yes, you will push up the debt when you do this. It's a necessary evil when your economy is brinking on a "Great Depression."
So your country is in an economic boom. What do you do? Well first, because of the economic success inflation is trying to rise as well as the GDP. So what you do is you Raise Taxes. You also cut government spending. While the GDP won't be as boosted as it could be, you're also putting a severe halter on Inflation. Not only that, but your Government is taking more money in than it was. I.E. You're spending less, taxing more. But the economy is in a boon. You can do this without hurting or slowing anything down.
So basically you spend so you can save later on. Sounds wierd, but the numbers add up and with the way the economy is going right now, it's working.
*Just one quick poke in the bellybutton footnote: Regardless of what past politics have said, what Bush is doing would earn him an A on an economics test. However, what Kerry says he would do is directly off of the "Do not do in a recession" page of an economics book. He would earn a D on that same test.
-
Congratulations laser, you just helped Thrawn's argument.
TANSTAAFL. Believe it or not, the deficit still needs to be paid. You can't take out a loan with no intention of paying it back. So making some waves and riding them with taxes isn't a wise idea if there isn't a net gain. Making splashes in the tub, but it's still draining.
No more corporate welfare, ****ty regulations, and .gov subsidies. I remember Vulcan's post about NZ sheep a looong time ago - US regulations were hurting the overall sheep industry more than it helped the US portion. Yeah, they're protecting US businesses that are unable to compete. Why should they remain in business? If a something goes under, you're out. Thanks for playing. Thats capitalism.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What bush should have done is slash government spending, pulled our troops in from over seas, and cut the **** out of taxes.
Stoped 90% of aid money we send out of the US.
Killed any money wasting program.
disband the ATF and DEA.
Legalise pot and tax it.
Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.
Closed the borders. Stoping ilegal imagration. Kick all ilegals out, and start a work visa program that actualy works. Charge mexico for any medical care given to ilegals.
ETC.
He prolly should not have gone into Iraq.
Thats Badnarik again right there. Many who believe the Republican philosophy seem to fit the Libertarian mold better.
Smaller, less bloated government, much less taxes, free, unregulated, market, national defense. Not frickin global defense with American troops in over 120+ countries. Thats not economic ties with all, thats poking these nations with a sharp stick and influencing with military strength. It's kinda obvious why so many are upset with foreign policy.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You have the GDP. It's a general measure of the economy and the nation in general. It basically measures how much money is being spent in the economy.
I would like to explain how velocity of currency circluation withing an economy is any sort of indicator of economic growth. The only useful measure of economic growth is the growth of production. The only way to increase in growth of production is by investing in captial. People buying consumer goods does not lead to economic or production growth. The producers of the consumer goods taking profit from the sales and reinvesting in capital (factories, equipment etc.) makes the economy grow.
Currency circulation velocity is just one fact that the GDP takes into account, but it's pointless. GDP does also take into account capital investments and that is really the only measure that we need to look at to determine grow, so we might as well just toss the GDP.
Governmental spending affects the economy too.
Sure does. Anytime the government spends money they are displacing wealth were the market doesn't demand it. What's more it does damage to the sectors of the economy were the money is spent.
Exp.
There is a special interest in housing because there is a housing shortage. The special interest lobbys and the government decides it's going to build some houses and rents them out cheap. Great, they just under cut all the businesses that rely on rental income. Those business now have to lower price because demand is less. Now they are recieving less profits on thier business and can't afford to invest in building new houses, or at the very least thier is less desire to build new houses because not as much wealth can be made off the investment. Net effect, housing shortage gets worse. Not only that, but during the building of the government houses workforce is displaced were their might be actual higher demand.
There are only two ways the government is going to get the wealth to build these house. One is to tax individuals, thus taking away thier wealth that they could spend on investing in actual business that might make them more wealth. The only thing worse than this is when the government borrows money that they have to pay interest on in non-economically viable projects.
Both of these things have to be controlled.
Why don't you say "these things have to be planned", praise Marx and get it over with. ;)
If you do too much, inflation will rise just as fast as the GDP will. And this is bad, because the Physical Amount of dollars being spent into the GDP isn't worth as much anymore, so the entire effect is negated.
Yes, you will push up the debt when you do this. It's a necessary evil when your economy is brinking on a "Great Depression."
Inflation, the boom/bust cycle and the Great Depression are/were caused by government manipulation of currency.
The Fed was created in 1913 to help bail out banks. They offered below market interest rates, currency was expanded, and low currency reserve policies were set for the banks. And what happened? The banks lent like crazy, people invested on margin. And surprise, surprise everything fell appart. Samething happens now with the Fed screwing around with the interest rate. Up, down, boom, bust.
Regardless of what past politics have said, what Bush is doing would earn him an A on an economics test. However, what Kerry says he would do is directly off of the "Do not do in a recession" page of an economics book. He would earn a D on that same test.
Bush = Kerry.
They just spend money on different special interests.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thrawn
, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money"
Originally posted by soda72
This would be a "very" bad idea...
Originally posted by Thrawn
Why?
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's called Economics bud. Study it.
I noticed you didn't touch on fiat currencey versue commodity backed currency. I look forward on your thoughts on that.
PS: For those of you on the right, that call yourselves captialists (that means you Gunslinger and NUKE ;) ), there is no way in hell I can recommend this book enough. It totally changed my world view (much to the chagrin of all my Canuckian socialist friends ;) ).
It is extremely acessable to the layman with no education in economics, like myself. This short book just kicks the hell out of every major socialist fallacy. I think you will be surprised how my economic views you have aren't capitalist at all.
Economics in One Lesson - by HENRY HAZLITT
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517548232/002-3923488-9253618?v=glance
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What bush should have done is slash government spending, pulled our troops in from over seas, and cut the **** out of taxes.
Stoped 90% of aid money we send out of the US.
Killed any money wasting program.
disband the ATF and DEA.
Legalise pot and tax it.
Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.
Closed the borders. Stoping ilegal imagration. Kick all ilegals out, and start a work visa program that actualy works. Charge mexico for any medical care given to ilegals.
ETC.
He prolly should not have gone into Iraq.
Other than the border part you sound like Badnarik.
-
Thrawn those guys are right BTW. You can stimulate the economic growth (GNP/GDP) with decreased taxes / increased government spending. You learn that in the first week of any Macroeconomics class.
The problem is that despite the short term growth, you get into long term problems with sustained deficit spending.
To me, a balanced budget is not the goal, just a positive result of the larger goal of getting the government out of our wallets and out of our jobs. Let us make our own economic decisions and keep DC out of it.
-
Yes tax cuts are good, but did you even read what I wrote about GDP, government spending and economic growth? Because it doesn't seem like it.
"You can stimulate the economic growth...with increased government spending."
Nope, and I just remembered another reason why. You are forgetting about where the money is coming from, I already discussed why taxes are bad. There is a short term reason why deficit spending is bad. Where is the money coming from? It's coming from banks. If the government didn't offer them a quaraunteed return on investment where would it have gone, it wouldn't have just sat in the bank. It would have been invested commerically-econonomically viable ventures that were meeting a demand (thus stimulating growth), instead of a bull**** government make-work, special interest project. Great, now you have an immediate misallotaction of a ****load of wealth.
"You learn that in the first week of any Macroeconomics class."
Yeah, that's the same economics that got us here today. Specifically in this case supply-side economics. Didn't work for Reagan, the economy didn't do great under him, it did okay. But that was due to the lowering of interest rates at the end of Carter's term. Boom, bust, boom, bust. The only thing you can thank Reagan for economically is a crapload of debt.
"To me, a balanced budget is not the goal, just a positive result of the larger goal of getting the government out of our wallets and out of our jobs."
Unfortunately you will need quite awhile of surplus budget to pay your debt. But the more you payoff your debt, the more you can payoff your debt, because the less you have to service your debt.
Economics in One Lesson - by HENRY HAZLITT
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517548232/002-6740204-9076850?v=glance
-
did you even read what I wrote about GDP, government spending and economic growth?
I tried. When you say things like "GDP does also take into account capital investments and that is really the only measure that we need to look at to determine grow, so we might as well just toss the GDP." I can't follow you. I can think of many ways that business can grow without capital investment.
Yeah, that's the same economics that got us here today. Specifically in this case supply-side economics.
No it's not. The "supply side" idea attributed to Reagan was that reducing tax rates would create so much income growth that tax revenues would increase.
The macroeconomic concept I am referring to is that the definition of GDP means that government spending will increase it and taxation will decrease it.
-
I haven't had a chance to study the more advanced Macro economics yet. However, with my basic stuff, all the things you said you want to do will kill this economy. You want to put a gun to it's head and pull the trigger.
While I agree with you about the government's level of involvement, pulling out everything or doing it all at once will be horrible.
One last thing, I haven't really studied past economics. I have looked at how Clinton and Bush handled themselves during their periods. It's pretty much straight out of the book. Not only that, but it worked. Now, if you want to make the conclusion that the economic principles were the key to success, you can. I definately am.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I tried. When you say things like "GDP does also take into account capital investments and that is really the only measure that we need to look at to determine grow, so we might as well just toss the GDP." I can't follow you. I can think of many ways that business can grow without capital investment.
I'm probably using a more generic definition of capital investment. By capital investment I mean any investment that increases production.
I apologise for my poor explanation, I tend to make it over simplistic because I know what I'm thinking.
The GDP measure takes several indictators into account, most of them are meaningless as far as a measure of production increase is concerned. Because the GDP has meaningless indictators in it, the measure of GDP is itself meaningless. The only meaningful indicator that is used to calucate GDP is capital investment.
Capital investment increases production, wether it be producing goods or services. When people invest in increase in production more goods and services more of these are available at cheaper prices and the standard of living goes up, the country becomes wealthier, and the economy increases.
One of the meaningless (as far as increase in production is concerned) is speed of currency circulation. People spending a little or alot of money in and of itself does not mean the economy is growing. It might mean that companies increase their profits, but if those profits aren't invested back into the company or elsewhere, the economy doesn't grow. If they are invested than the economy grows, but there is no garauntee that they will be. That is why speed of currency circulation is a poor indicator of economic growth.
People spend more money---> companies make more profit---
--> (assumption!)companies invest profit---> economy grows.
People spend more money---> companies make more profit---
--> (assumption!)companies pay dividends---> sharholders
spend money, not invest it.
Both cases are likely. In the first case the economy (production) has grown because of captal investment. But we would measure that anyway and just cut out the preceeding steps. In the second case production capacity hasn't been increased, the economy hasn't grown.
Consumption bad, captial investment good. Consuption does lead to a growing economy, that just leads to increase in speed of currency circulation. Capital investment leads to wealth and increase in production.
No it's not. The "supply side" idea attributed to Reagan was that reducing tax rates would create so much income growth that tax revenues would increase.
You're right, I don't know where he got the idea of spending tons of public cash. According to supply-side economics, "To the supply side economist, reallocation away from consumption to private investment, and most especially from public investment to private investment, will always yield superior economic results".
The macroeconomic concept I am referring to is that the definition of GDP means that government spending will increase it and taxation will decrease it.
I think I have shown that government spending won't increase the economy, but in fact hurt it. If the government spends money, that means either the taxpayer and/or the banks have less money to spend or invest on viable production increaseing ventures that meet demand, or on goods and services market actually demands.
lasersailor184, NP. I'm just being a dick about asking for your response because your, "It's called Economics bud. Study it.", statment pissed me off. Of course I could have not been and ******* and told you it pissed me off at the beginning. My apologies.
It sounds like I'm not explain my arguements very well to you eitherwise you wouldn't say, "However, with my basic stuff, all the things you said you want to do will kill this economy. You want to put a gun to it's head and pull the trigger.".
I urge you to pick up the book I linked above as it explains these issues much more clearly. If you have any specific questions regarding my position, feel free to ask.
-
All the other subjects are debateable, except for this one.
Let me get this straight, you would legalize cocaine, LSD, crystal meth, and heroin?
Volunteer at a hospital, a soup-kitchen, or a inner city youth organization to see what some of these drugs have done to the populace.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Decriminalise the rest of the drugs.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
All the other subjects are debateable, except for this one.
Let me get this straight, you would legalize cocaine, LSD, crystal meth, and heroin?
Yes, it's called freedom, and personal responsibility. Wacky idea, I know.
Volunteer at a hospital, a soup-kitchen, or a inner city youth organization to see what some of these drugs have done to the populace.
Yeah, hard drugs are bad, that's why I have chosen not to do them. I don't see why it's the tax payers responsibility to bail people out of thier stupid choices, or someone elses children out of it because the parents haven't invest time in learning successful parenting skills. Those people made poor decisions and they have to take responibility for them. If I make a poor decision and invest everying in a shoddy business venture should the government bail me out? Of course not.
However if one feels that it's a problem that they personally want to help with, then they are free to chose to donate thier own personal time and wealth to help. They shouldn't be coerced by the government to have to spend wealth on it.
-
If Miko were here still he'd prove ALL of you wrong. he was teh intardnet economics master!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes, it's called freedom, and personal responsibility. Wacky idea, I know.
If I make a poor decision and invest everying in a shoddy business venture should the government bail me out?
Only if you are Chrysler:)
:lol
-
Originally posted by Delirium
All the other subjects are debateable, except for this one.
Let me get this straight, you would legalize cocaine, LSD, crystal meth, and heroin?
Volunteer at a hospital, a soup-kitchen, or a inner city youth organization to see what some of these drugs have done to the populace.
Del from all the gov stats Ive read over the last 30 years the incidence of hard core addiction has remained a stable percentage of the population. So it seems that there will always be addicts and such. But with the money saved by eliminating the DEA and such we would have more than enough $ to provide programs for those that wanted to partake of them.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
If Miko were here still he'd prove ALL of you wrong. he was teh intardnet economics master!
Propably not although he might correct some of my misunderstandings, miko is the one that intruduced me to these economic concepts. More specifically, the Austrian School of economics, which is the foundation for libertarianism.
-
Originally posted by Silat
But with the money saved by eliminating the DEA and such we would have more than enough $ to provide programs for those that wanted to partake of them.
Some of these drugs don't have an 'antidote', like Heroin/Methadone and cause irrepairable damage on the very first dose. How the heck is a program going to fix that?
Look at paint sniffing/huffing for example, legal to buy and its use is on the rise and its the same thing with cold remedy abuse. The only thing legalizing illegal drugs will do is drop the price on the street and lower crime rate at the cost of more lives destroyed.
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes, it's called freedom, and personal responsibility. Wacky idea, I know.
AND
I don't see why it's the tax payers responsibility to bail people out of thier stupid choices, or someone elses children out of it
By your logic, should we abolish speed limits? Again, volunteer somewhere and you'll see what I am talking about.
Can't believe people actually want to legalize drugs...
-
I couldn't give two flying ****s what a drug addict decides to do on his own time. But the moment he steps out of the door under the influence he's on our terf.
His mind is shot and he's lost most of his decision making abilities.
I think I'll give up my freedom for drugs to keep these ****heads from killing people because of their own irresponcibilities.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't see why it's the tax payers responsibility to bail people out of thier stupid choices, or someone elses children out of it because the parents haven't invest time in learning successful parenting skills. Those people made poor decisions and they have to take responibility for them.
Mayday! Mayday!
Republicanism disease has been identified in CANADA!
OOoooOOOoooOOGAH! OOOooooOOOOOooooGGAAAAAH!
RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
First known case appears to be Thrawn!
;)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
By your logic, should we abolish speed limits?
Yes. By libertarian logic there wouldn't be public land, but private land were owners could set whatever speed limits that cause the least amount of hassel/generate the most profits. Delirium, it seems you have an interest in this issue, lets come up with a term for this interest, let's call it a special interest. Now how about people with this special interest form a lobby, steal money from other Americans to fund it...oh wait already been done.
You have a problem with hard drugs, so be it. You go ahead and do what you can to help. But where do you get off making other Americans pay for it as well.
Again, volunteer somewhere and you'll see what I am talking about.
You know, you are making a huge assumption here. That I don't know current/past drug users, abd that I don't know how it effects lives. That assumption is wrong,
Toad, I...I don't want to be a commie anymore. ;)