patrick.net

Bap33 says

Our FF did not want the Gov mandated and carried out welfare/wealth transfers between voting citizens either. Expressly. Agreed?

I am not so sure about this. I just did a quick search an it seems like Thomas Paine (a founding father) thought that "welfare" was a "right" for unlanded persons. Is there evidence that any of the other founding fathers actively opposed these "wealth transfers"?

http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.txt

Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

Bap33 says

I agree, my writting skills are not on par with most regualr posters on here. I am over 40.

I don't think you are the only one here over 40. I would not worry too much about your writing skills as long as you can be understood.

Bap33 says

ummmm ... leo, care to explain "most benefit"?

People who have more wealth are getting more benefit from our society.

I think that Elizabeth Warren sums it up quite well:

I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

if the current way has all of the differences in wealth and concentrations that you wish to avoid, why would you want to just to more of the same thing?

I don't want more of the same. I want Clinton tax levels back. Or even better--1950s levels. You seem to run into problems when you assume what liberals want--maybe it's best you don't do that...

Yep, that is a "me too" for me. Not so much more of the same, just what we know has worked.

leoj707 says

Yep, I remember the first time a flat tax was described to me I thought that it sounded unfair. It has always been so strange to me that others call it the "fair tax". What is fair about a system that assures a majority of people will slowly be driven to poverty, while a few become kings?

That's a good argument for the land-value tax. I think it still may be true that the majority of wealth is land.

Taxing productive income derived from actual work inhibits work.

Taxing simple land-owner rent-seeking inhibits exploitation.

tatupu70 says

I don't want more of the same. I want Clinton tax levels back. Or even better--1950s levels. You seem to run into problems when you assume what liberals want--maybe it's best you don't do that...

Yeah, at least Clinton levels would be useful -- that is basically the Obama plan. The 1950s levels wouldn't be bad, but are probably a bit aggressive. The 60s levels post-Kennedy are probably better. And broadening the tax base like Reagan did would probably be useful too to clean out the special interest handouts that Congress likes to dole out.

Taxing productive income derived from actual work inhibits work.

That I agree.

Taxing simple land-owner rent-seeking inhibits exploitation.

How is rent-seeking based on land different from rent seeking based on money (i.e. interest income)? or dividend income from stocks? or license fee from Patents/Copyright? In fact, since it's been repeated over and over again on this very site that renting has lower monthly payment than buying . . . that means rent from housing (land plus structure) is lower than rent on money and rent owed to town (property tax). In other words, rent from housing is a negative economic rent; i.e. an economic subsidy to renters.

If you want less rent-seeking, the solution is not enabling more rent-seeking by government officials (collecting more property tax or land tax to give to their friends and families) but relaxing land use restrictions so that more vendors can provide housing service (both residential and commercial) to consumers.

By the way, in my example I was referring to marginal rates. So that increase to 45% would only be on income above some level (not the entire 800K)

marcus says

Let me try with an example.

So in your example, if Couple A managed their lives frugally and can save $25k a year out of their $125k combined income (and invest wisely), whereas if Couple B had cancer and need very expensive pain killers or are just plain simple heroin addicts and have to blow $800k a year on drugs . . . you'd suggest we tax the lower income family more because Couple B would blow it all to allegedly stimulate the economy? No wonder our society is near-bankruptcy if we enshrine such spend-thriftiness in coercive laws.

wtf ?

Thanks for reminding me to put you back on ignore.

Sadly, that gibberish might be just enough to prevent Bap from considering reality for more than a few seconds.

Hey, that's kind of ironic since the dbs name is Reality.

marcus says

wtf ?

Thanks for reminding me to put you back on ignore.

Sadly, that gibberish might be just enough to prevent Bap from considering reality for more than a few seconds.

Hey, that's kind of ironic since the dbs name is Reality.

Hey, don't blame me. You were the one coming up with the example, and justified higher taxation by:

(1) they wouldn't spend money as fast;

(2) they don't need the money.

I was merely applying your logic.

Bap33 says

one nation
one vote
one tax
one God
one language
one culture

so ?
bs
bs
bs
bs

one love

the FF were against gov taking from citizens to give to other citizens is what I said

corntrollio says

You are wrong

So, you now must read this:
One example is the general welfare clause in Article One, Section Eight, Clause One. This is where we are told that Congress has the authority to tax and spend for three purposes: one is for the common defense, two is to pay debts and three is to promote the general welfare. Now that is a grant of power, but it's also a limitation of power. Why did they say general welfare instead of just welfare? Because they meant it was not to tax and spend for the specific welfare of regions, individuals, or soci-economic groups.

and then read this, please:
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

Bap33 says

Because they meant it was not to tax and spend for the specific welfare of regions, individuals, or soci-economic groups.

Any time you have to interpret what the FF meant, then your argument is worthless. I could just as easily write an essay saying they meant the exact opposite. That by general welfare, they meant that no groups should be forgotten. We should not become an aristocracy. Who's to say what they "meant"? They're dead and have been so for 200 years.

Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4112936

We're probably lucky it's not seen that way though, because big money would probably control it.

Reality says

OTOH, in our kleptocracy, political coercive power is used by some to get rich, including your example of central bankers and their friends.

Kleptocracy...but you don't thnk increasing tax rates on the wealthy would be beneficial? What are were arguing here?

All I know is we have the greatest income stratification right now since before the great depression. We also have the worst economy since the great depression...the lowest top marginal tax rates since before the great depression...and all the while our economy continues to grow while tax receipts fall...these were things set in motion back in the 1960s and accelerated in the 80s. Why is it that back in the 1960s a family could exist in the middle class on one teachers salary? Single income families then were the norm but now a single income family that is prosperous is a rarity.

I am sort of done with this because your arguments are so disjointed I can't really even follow and don't want to argue 20 different things at once...we go from a specific argument about North Korea flight to China to now talking about the Soviets... Calling me a wannabe Fascist doesn't hurt my feelings because you don't really even know what a Fascist is..all you know is that is what the Nazis were and since Rush uses it on his radio show about anyone who thinks that higher taxes on the rich would actually help our economy you use it on me. Just because the Nazis were awful demons and terrible in most areas doesn't mean their ideas on economics were wrong. After all they did transform Weimar Germany (one of the worst economies in the world) to a global superpower that had the economic output to almost conquer all of Europe, Asia, and Africa nearly singlehandedly, and they did it in less than 20 years.

Read the 14 charateristics of Fascism and tell me if it sounds more like a progressive or conservative agenda in this country today.

You are so brainwashed - but it isn't your fault - the propoganda machine is good.

tatupu,
THat is not my quote, I found it on the web site from the guy who re-wrote the FP into today's lingo

At any rate, you think that when we have to interpret what the FF wrote, our argument is worthless?? Really? lmao. Ever hear of Davy Crockett? Care to read this?: http://givingupcontrol.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/davy-crockett-advises-the-candidates-%E2%80%9Cnot-yours-to-give%E2%80%9D/

I dunno, the Constitution was about 40 years old or so when that happened ... but, you're not into old papers from dead guys ... like John, for example, so never mind. lol

david1 says

Kleptocracy...but you don't thnk increasing tax rates on the wealthy would be beneficial? What are were arguing here?

You are missing the link between government spending and kleptocracy: government spending is controlled by the kleptocracy! We have the highest (peace-time) government spending as percentage of GDP right now! In your mind, taxation is deciding whose lamb gets sacrificed (or ox getting gored) to appease the gods . . . whereas in reality, the sacrificial offering is only the beginning; the real action is in who gets to eat the sacrificed choicest lamb behind the closed curtains! In the absence of taxation, 3,000,000 people would be deciding how the same money is spent if we talk about tax on the top 1%, 150,000,000 people get to decide how the money is spent if we talk about the 50% who do pay income tax, and over 200,000,000 people if we talk about all people who have jobs and therefore subject to payroll tax. After tax, the control of the resources is passed into the hands of about 3,000-30,000 or so lawmakers, their assistants and lobbyists. That's 1000-fold concentration of power! That's where kleptocracy grabs power.

All I know is we have the greatest income stratification right now since before the great depression. We also have the worst economy since the great depression...

That's the natural result of the government spending accounting for the highest percentage of GDP in peace time. The Kleptocracy is deciding how the nation's resources (including labor as well as natural resources) is spent. The result is concentration of wealth and power, and economic stagnation and decline . . . just like the soviet economies and North Korea.

the lowest top marginal tax rates since before the great depression...

Top marginal tax rate is irrelevant because few paid that when it was high as they restructured pay packages to avoid it. The real issue is government spending (i.e. monopolistic resource allocation) as per centage of the economy; Economy in a free market should see competition forcing constant improvement, but that progress stops in a bureaucratic monopolistic system.

and all the while our economy continues to grow while tax receipts fall...

The economy has stopped growing long time ago. Even the GDP number has been falling despite the BLS inflation GDP-adjuster being grossly under-estimating inflation thereby grossly over-stating GDP growth. Because GDP counts every dollar that government wastes as a dollar of GDP, the real economy is much smaller than the GDP number. The real per capita income on a long-term basis may well have been declining since the late 60's and early 70's.

these were things set in motion back in the 1960s and accelerated in the 80s. Why is it that back in the 1960s a family could exist in the middle class on one teachers salary? Single income families then were the norm but now a single income family that is prosperous is a rarity.

Because when one spouse stays home, her/his (latter in the case of house-husband, rare but just to be gender-neutral) effort to improve the family's living conditions is untaxed! Making both spouses go outside the family to work was a nefarious scheme to tax them both. An even more important reason for the long-term decline is the long-term government deficit spending that started with LBJ's Vietnam War and War on Poverty, with Nixon closing gold window shortly after that to enshrine long-term government deficit spending on top of high taxes. The result is government monopolistic resource allocation by the kelptocracy taking up a greater and greater share of the economy. Any wonder the living standards of average Americans have been declining? The availability of cheaper substitute goods imported from overseas somewhat alleviated the immediate pain from the 1970's to the 2000's (cheap Japanese goods first, then Korean, Taiwanese/Malaysian/Indonesia/Mexican, then Chinese/Indian, etc.) as government kleptocracy bid up the wage level of kleptocratic enforcers to more than double that of the competitive economy where all goods and services have to be produced if not imported.

Calling me a wannabe Fascist doesn't hurt my feelings because you don't really even know what a Fascist is..all you know is that is what the Nazis were

Fascist and Nazis are two different concepts. Fascism is the advocacy of government-corporate joint cartelization of the economy, to displace free market and in the process displacing personal liberty too. Nazis add a big wallop of genocidal racism on top of that. Fascists are not necessarily Nazis, although as the economy inevitably collapses under fascism, regimes would have no choice but to embrace nationalism and racism too if racial scapegoats can be found. BTW, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Jeffrey Rush.

Just because the Nazis were awful demons and terrible in most areas doesn't mean their ideas on economics were wrong. After all they did transform Weimar Germany (one of the worst economies in the world) to a global superpower that had the economic output to almost conquer all of Europe, Asia, and Africa nearly singlehandedly, and they did it in less than 20 years.

That's typical misguided Nazi apologism. The real score was very different: the Nazi's fascist economic program did not help German economy / standards of living. For example, the much vaunted Volkswagen program attempting to copy Ford's success in a free market was such a colossal failure that VW never delivered a single production car to a single private German consumer spending his own money. The Nazi functionaries running the government-controlled factories, like their later soviet counterparts, simply could not keep up with the dynamic and innovative private sector entrepreneurs. In fact, the Nazis were so hind-bound that by the time Hitler launched VW to emulate Ford, Ford had already been in decline for some time due to competition from GM and ceded leadership in the industry to the latter. Yes, the Nazis copied a model that was already obsolete by about a decade when they started. Even as no people's car was delivered to the people, the other half of the Nazi's fascist economic agenda, autobahn building continued. So Germans had a gleaming road network with very few cars running on them . . . until the Allies arrived in American-made Jeeps and trucks. So in a way, the Autobahn did bring salvation to the Germans, as in de-nazification! Probably not what the Nazis had in mind. So what did the Nazis do as VW turned into an albatross under their management? Why, government contracts of course! That's how VW switched from a company founded to produce cars for the people to a company that made cars for the German military exclusively before the end of war and de-nazification. People do not go to wars when they are living well. Nazis went to war because their economy was rapidly falling behind those of their neighbors even as they devoted more and more resources to wasteful government spending, especially the military spending (that in turn is due to the fact that government-corporate cartels do not deliver the productivity and bang-for-the-buck that private companies do, so military becomes their only customer). Yes, it is a sad human nature that people become war-like when they are impoverished, and then try to loot others. When people are doing well with their own lives, they don't join goose-stepping thuggish parades. The spectacles of Nuremberg Rally were simply earlier previews of the finely choreographed morbid North Korean stadium shows with starving serfs/subjects.

Read the 14 charateristics of Fascism and tell me if it sounds more like a progressive or conservative agenda in this country today.

I agree with you that Fascism is much closer to the "Progressive" agenda in this country, as opposed to classical-liberal/paleo-conservative agenda. That's why I call "Progressives" wannabe-Fascists; most of them are only too ignorant to realize that they are in fact advancing the Fascist agenda. BTW, neo-conservatives are also wannabe-Fascists.

Yawn. So government spending is what has caused income and wealth disparity in your opinion.

You could have just said that.

Government spending is not the largest component of GDP.

david1 says

Yawn. So government spending is what has caused income and wealth disparity in your opinion.

You could have just said that.

I have been saying for a long time that government spending exacerbate wealth disparity.

Government spending is not the largest component of GDP.

Government spending as per centage of GDP has grown dramatically in the last 40+ years. That's the reason why wealth disparity has increased dramatically since the early 70's, while the economy, especially real per person income, stagnated for the same 40+ years.

It is also important not to conflate GDP with the real economy. GDP counts all government waste dollar for dollar. The real economy is much smaller than the GDP number. A much closer approximation of the real economy is:

GDP - government spending (G)

The ratio of government spending as percentage of the real economy then becomes G / (GDP -G)

That has increased from about 20-25% in the 1960's to 50-65% today

Reality says

GDP - government spending (G)
The ratio of government spending as percentage of the real economy then becomes G / (GDP -G)
That has increased from about 20-25% in the 1960's to 50-65% today

This is a complete lie. According to the BLS, GDP in 1965 was $687B, government spending was $118B. This leaves a ratio of Goverment spending to GDP less goverment spending of 20.8%. In 2008, before the one time stimulus and TARP programs, GDP was $14.4T and goverment spending was $3T. This ratio is 26.1%.

So yes, there is more goverment spending now than 1965. By about 5.3%. Net of interest on the debt it is 23.4% vs. 19%, or 4.4% more. Most of that is in Medicare(which didn't exist) and Social Security. Net of Medicare and Social Security the ratio of goverment spending to gdp - goverment spending has declined from 17.1% to 15.9%.

Fail.

david1 says

This is a complete lie.

Whoah there pal, if a Freeper REALLY BELIEVES something, it's not a lie. It's just a "truthy" fact.

david1 says

This is a complete lie. According to the BLS, GDP in 1965 was $687B, government spending was $118B. This leaves a ratio of Goverment spending to GDP less goverment spending of 20.8%. In 2008, before the one time stimulus and TARP programs, GDP was $14.4T and goverment spending was $3T. This ratio is 26.1%.

You are perpetrating a lie yourself:

1. Even the BLS number for 2008 is $3.1T; why round to $3 when you are giving 3-digit significance to GDP number?

2. Why stop at 2008?, The current 2011 federal budget is $3.8T! while the real economy has shrunk since 2008.

3. Why not include TARP and other programs? You are cooking numbers like Enron was doing by discarding those allegedly one-off charges that are unavoidable in the way the institution is run.

4. These budget numbers do not include black ops and other hidden budgets

5. The GDP number is sequentially derived from each preceding year by sampling and adjusted by BLS inflation GDP-deflator. Since the introduction of hedonic adjustment during Clinton years a decade and half ago, the GDP-deflator has been understating inflation by about 1% each year! So the GDP number is over-stated by about 15-20% after cumulative error over a decade and half.

BTW, an increase from 20.8% economy to 26.1% economy is not a 5.3% increase in relative size but a 25% increase in relative size!

Vicente says

Whoah there pal, if a Freeper REALLY BELIEVES something, it's not a lie. It's just a "truthy" fact.

You do realize that you are standing shoulder to shoulder with someone who just expressed admiration for the Nazi's economic central planning program, right?

Reality says

You are perpetrating a lie yourself:

Yeah don't let facts get in your way.

These are nominal GDP numbers and nominal budget numbers. Any conspiracy theory you have about understating inflation and hedonics doesn't apply when I am comaring a RATIO. Nominal to Nominal ratio. The spreadsheet I downloaded says 2008 is 2,980,544,000,000. Rounds to 3.0 if I remember my 2nd grade math. But even at 3.1 the story doesn't change.

You are deluding yourself into thinking that I am cooking the numbers. TARP, the stimulus, and the current economic downturn are not business as usual..and even if they were, you know as well as I that wealth and income disparoity didn't start in 2009.

Black ops and other hidden budgets. LOL!

Look bud, you are obviously a pretty well read guy and pretty smart. You are just misinfomred. I used to be where you are back in 2007, getting excited about neo-classical economics, Monetarism, Milt Freidman, and Ron Paul. Well I kept reading, did some research for myself, and here I am. You'll get there and you will probably be an asset for the good guys when you do because you are obviously passionate about what you believe.

david1 says

Yeah don't let facts get in your way.

That's because you can not differentiate between facts vs. statistics published by government.

These are nominal GDP numbers and nominal budget numbers. Any conspiracy theory you have about understating inflation and hedonics doesn't apply when I am comaring a RATIO. Nominal to Nominal ratio. The spreadsheet I downloaded says 2008 is 2,980,544,000,000. Rounds to 3.0 if I remember my 2nd grade math. But even at 3.1 the story doesn't change.

3.1 (3.098 to be exact) is the number when I last checked BLS website for 2008. In any case, is your downloaded spreadsheet "God-breathed"? Facts are not religious scriptures. If you want to find out the facts, you dig into the statistical methodology involved to get the number. BLS is not the only place where GDP numbers are published. BLS is only one source, and happens to be a source funded by the same entity that has to pay out inflation adjustment on social security and pension payouts as well as TIPS.

You are deluding yourself into thinking that I am cooking the numbers. TARP, the stimulus, and the current economic downturn are not business as usual..and even if they were, you know as well as I that wealth and income disparoity didn't start in 2009.

TARP money represented that which had already been wasted/stolen in the system but waiting to be acknowledged . . . just like one-time write-off's at Enron. The actual theft had taken place in the years prior to the write-off's.

Look bud, you are obviously a pretty well read guy and pretty smart. You are just misinfomred. I used to be where you are back in 2007, getting excited about neo-classical economics, Monetarism, Milt Freidman, and Ron Paul. Well I kept reading, did some research for myself, and here I am. You'll get there and you will probably be an asset for the good guys when you do because you are obviously passionate about what you believe.

So which of them told you that Nazis had a great economic program? You are lying through your teeth. Any one of them would have presented to you the follies in the Nazis' economic program. Every single one of them would have pointed out to you the follies in worshipping Nazis for their allegedly almost world-conquring ways. Almost every single one of them would have pointed out to you that an all-conquring government like that of the Nazis would inevitably be a catastrophy for individual liberty as well as economic well being.

This is my last response and if you respond how you just did you are going on ignore.

I never idealized Nazism. I merely pointed out that the Nazis took Germany from the Weimar Republic to a economic production machine that was almost capable of conquering the world inside of 20 years. Fascist governments like Nazi Germany are detrimental to plutocracies like we have.

As far as the numbers...this is what you have done time and time again during our little discussion...tried to change the argument. Stay on point. The small changes in the numbers (3.1 vs. 3.0) do not change the fact that they support my argument and refute yours. Even if I let you have everything on your numerated reply, the 3.1, 2011 budget, black ops, everything - it still does not support your argument that the GDP to government expenditures ratio is 50-65%. Since it has not increased two to threefold as you argued, your premise that government spending is the reason why wealth and income have become more concentrated at the top 1% (most specifically, top .001%) since the 1960s is pretty flimsy at best.

I am 100% honest on my political leanings and readings in 2007. Good day.

david1 says

This is my last response and if you respond how you just did you are going on ignore.

Don't you wish you had thugs at your beck and call? Just remember the Night of Long Knives mutual slaughter among totalitarians.

I never idealized Nazism. I merely pointed out that the Nazis took Germany from the Weimar Republic to a economic production machine that was almost capable of conquering the world inside of 20 years. Fascist governments like Nazi Germany are detrimental to plutocracies like we have.

Utter hogwash. The Nazis never made Germany into an economic powerhouse . . . any more than Mongol Hordes was an economic powerhouse. The Nazis were never even remotely close to conquering the world. What military successes they did have on about 1% of the planet's surface area (that's what half of Europe amounts to; the other half of Europe being Britain, unconquored soviet territory and the neutrals) was due to military tactics, not economic development. In fact, a big reason for Hitler launching the war was that Germany was economically falling behind the neighbors due to Nazis' own mismanagment, and that became a security issue for him.

Even if I let you have everything on your numerated reply, the 3.1, 2011 budget, black ops, everything - it still does not support your argument that the GDP to government expenditures ratio is 50-65%. Since it has not increased two to threefold as you argued

Okay, here's how the numbers pan out: the current government budget for 2011 (not including black ops and secret items) is $3.8T. The cumulative 1% per year error since early-mid 1990's due to understatement of inflation index has added up to a 20% overstatement of the GDP number, which unlike the budget is not calculated from adding the components up but derived by sampling and applying the inflation adjuster. Take out that 20% from the BLS $14.5T nominal GDP, the revised GDP should be about $11.5T, which would approximate the GDP using BLS methodology before hedonic adjustment introduced in the early 1990's.

$3.8T / (11.5T - 3.8T) = 49%

Remember, this $3.8T does not include black ops and secret budgets or the $1.5T or so state and local government spending.

your premise that government spending is the reason why wealth and income have become more concentrated at the top 1% (most specifically, top .001%) since the 1960s is pretty flimsy at best.

On the contrary. Every time government spends money, it goes to a narrower pool of recipients than the free market place would have sought out. Government exacerbates wealth concentration almost every single time it spends money . . . because unlike the private competitive economy, government spending is monopolistic not competitively search for lower cost at every turn.

I am 100% honest on my political leanings and readings in 2007.

So which one of them, Neoclassical, Friedmanite or Paulian, told you that Nazis had a great economic program? All of them are vehemently against Nazi-style central planning. You either never read them or have serious reading comprehension problems.

Bap33 says

So, you now must read this:

There is not one interpretation of the constitution. People disagreed and compromised. That's why judges publish dissents.

Did no one take an elementary/middle school social studies class? The lower house of Congress (the House of Reps) and the upper house of Congress (the Senate) are direct compromises between populous states and unpopulous states.

The Bill of Rights was a compromise. Some people believed it wasn't necessary because the Constitution already enumerated what the powers were, and stated the people's rights as if they needed to be numerated necessarily made them seem limited when they weren't intended to be. Still, people compromised, so we had the Bill of Rights.

Trying to say the constitution espouses one particular thing is generally a flawed argument. In fact, anyone who is not in a court room or law school and still talking about the constitution is probably making a worthless argument. Most people who have studied constitutional law know it's stupid -- constitutional jurisprudence is far more results-based than principles-based. The people who overemphasize its importance are usually either ideologues or people trying to sell you something. Sending biased ideological links around is more of the same.

Even in the ideological link you sent, it acts like the Federalist Papers were something everyone agreed upon. Not the case.

this from the guy that shared his opinion of what the FF did/said as golden fact?? Really?? I win.

Don't be a sore loser. Have a great night. Thanks for the easy "W" on this one.

Bap33 says

this from the guy that shared his opinion of what the FF did/said as golden fact?? Really?? I win.

Where did I ever say anything about the founding fathers as fact? Here's what I said earlier (look above!):

corntrollio says

You are wrong. There's nothing that indicates the founding fathers believed that. In fact, very few things people say "the founding fathers" believed are true. People constantly forget that the Constitution was a COMPROMISE and that there were people who disagreed vehemently but were able to agree on a minimal set of common principles. Trying to ascribe one particular view to all the founding fathers is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Nice try. :) Seems like you're being intellectually dishonest.

corntrollio says

You are wrong. There's nothing that indicates the founding fathers believed that.

Bap33 said p>this from the guy that shared his opinion of what the FF did/said as golden fact

winning, it's so much fun.

Reality says

which unlike the budget is not calculated from adding the components up but derived by sampling and applying the inflation adjuster.

I know I said I was done, but where did you get this? The nominal GDP is calculated in one of three ways, all of which should give the same result, and none of which incorporate the GDP deflator. Again, Nominal GDP does not use the GDP deflator. Real GDP does.

The simplest nominal GDP calculation is by summing consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports. What I am saying is even if what you say about understated inflation is true, it does not matter because inflation has nothing to do with a nominal to nominal ratio comparison. And not to nit pick here, but even if it did, you still fell short of your 50-65% statement. 49% is close but you were nitpicking 3.0 vs. 3.1, which I am sure you are looking at real budget when again I am looking at nominal budget.

And finally, to answer your question, none of Freidman, Paul, or Smith and Menger or Mises "told" me that the Nazis had a great economic program. I said I was a believer of the above a few years back and that is all. My views have obviously changed, just as your will when you really start to think on your own. I also never said the Nazis had a great economic system - i merely pointed out that their fascist system allowed them to transform their economy from Zimbabwe to South Korea in less than 20 years. I did this after you called me a fascist. Its all up there ^ in case you need reference.

Like I said i think you are a pretty smart guy, you are just making the smart guy mistake of not thinking there may be smarter guys out there than you. Just so you don't get confused there, I am not saying that I am that smarter guy...I am just saying you aren't bringing anything to the table that hasn't been said before here and the data doesn't support it unless you start to believe in conspiracy theories and start pulling numbers out of thin air. Which is exactly what you are doing...which you already know...and when you stop kidding yourself you'll start to come over to the good side. And that is why I said what I said about Paul et al..I know because I have been where you are right now. The are many things that Dr. Paul says that i still believe in..for example..why don't we have a full audit of the federal reserve? If it doesn't matter and there is nothing to see then what is the big deal?

Robert Reich - 7 Lies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

david1 says

The simplest nominal GDP calculation is by summing consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports. What I am saying is even if what you say about understated inflation is true, it does not matter because inflation has nothing to do with a nominal to nominal ratio comparison.

Do you really believe the BLS adds up all the consumption, investment and net exports in this country item by item??? Where would they even get all the numbers to every transaction? Even if you are gullible enough to think they get the numbers from tax filings, how did they get the quarterly data when you file tax annually? BLS has to rely on sampling instead of actual counting to arrive at GDP change from previous time period. It is from this change that the new GDP number is derived. In order to keep this sequential change relevant, the GDP deflator is applied whenever GDP has to be calculated. The understatement in GDP deflator is where the over-statement in GDP comes from, even for nominal GDP. Government spending OTOH is actually counted from itemization, unlike the GDP measurement being derived from integrating changes.

And not to nit pick here, but even if it did, you still fell short of your 50-65% statement. 49% is close but you were nitpicking 3.0 vs. 3.1, which I am sure you are looking at real budget when again I am looking at nominal budget.

As I explicitly pointed out the 49% does not include any budget items that are not line item listed, such as black ops and budgets that require security clearance. Also not included in that 49% is state and local spending.

I said I was a believer of the above a few years back and that is all. My views have obviously changed, just as your will when you really start to think on your own.

That's complete baloney. One does not forget the clearly explained detailed analysis of Nazi and soviet central planning in those books and go back to some sophomoric nonsense that you wrote and continue to write about the Nazi economic program.

i merely pointed out that their fascist system allowed them to transform their economy from Zimbabwe to South Korea in less than 20 years.

The Nazis were only in power for a total of 12 years (1933-1945), the last three of which were in utter tatters as they were losing the war on all fronts. Even the first 9 years' economic record was horrendous. When Nazis came to power in 1933, Germany was nothing like Zimbabwe hyperinflation. The Weimar hyperinflation was over nearly a decade earlier, in the winter of 1923-24! Nazi Germany was also nothing like South Korea. Unlike the highly productive export power house that is South Korea nowadays, Nazi Germany couldn't export squat except for its marauding armies, which was a disaster for the rest of the world and for Germans alike (even to those inside the German military). The fascist government-corporate cartels ensured that production cost in Germany was much higher than the rest of the world. Even German consumers preferred buying Ford.

I am just saying you aren't bringing anything to the table that hasn't been said before here and the data doesn't support it unless you start to believe in conspiracy theories and start pulling numbers out of thin air. Which is exactly what you are doing.

That's really rich for someone who keeps bringing fantasy tales about Nazis that stink of Nazi-apologist. You are indeed an advocate for fascism, just as I suspected. You will do well start reading some of the books that you claim to have read in 2007. Heck, perhaps some writings by Locke, Jefferson and (Adam) Smith before even that.

marcus says

Robert Reich - 7 Lies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

The Truth About Robert Reich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXm4j2ORYcg

The real miserable trickle-down economics is hoping government spending and bailouts would trickle down to the debtors in hock to banksters. It doesn't trickle down because the banksters get the money first, and their speculations distort the economy even further and make the debtors' lives even more difficult.

David1,

If you had actually read the books that you claimed to have read back in 2007, you'd know that GDP/GNP is a very poor indicator of actual well being of the economy/society in question. Even the inventor of GDP/GNP, Simon Kuznets, warned that it is not an indicator of economic well being. Because it counts every dollar (or Mark) of government spending/waste, it is better thought of as an indicator of debt service capacity in the native currency units. John Maynard Keynes' hijacking of the indicator and equating it to real economy is at the very foundation of Keynesian statist folly. Your simplistic assumption in accepting that number as representative of real economy goes to show that you were lying when you said you actually studied Neoclassical, Friedmanite and Paulian/Austrian economics. You are a sophomoric Keynesian through and through.

In the forward to the German edition of his "General Theory" in 1935, Keynes wrote that his policiy recommendations would be easier carried out in a totalitarian state like then existed in Germany than in a western democracy. In other words, Keynes was kissing up to the Nazis. Nazis were already implementing Keynesian policies before he even wrote the book. The run up in GNP/GDP was simply the artifact of Nazi government wasting money overpaying for roads that few had cars to drive on and overpaying even more for military re-armament. None of the goods delivered much benefit to the people, but they added to the GNP/GDP count.

Hey at least I have made the jump from fascist to sophomoric Keynesian.

Reality says

In the forward to the German edition of his "General Theory" in 1935, Keynes wrote that his policiy recommendations would be easier carried out in a totalitarian state like then existed in Germany than in a western democracy.

Do me an honest favor. Go get your German language copy of "General Theory" and make a photocopy of the text. If you have a German copy of "General Theory" lying around I will give in. I suspect you got your information from some right-wing blog somewhere that linked the webpage I just found by typing this subject into google. Perhaps you are the original author of that web article...in which case you read German editions of economics text and I am certainly outmatched.

My point is this: if you didn't read it yourself and only get your information from a website, how is that any different that or better than what I have done in pulling government statistics from goverment websites and believing them to be fact?

I knew enough about Neoclassical Economics and Monetarism to know where I have heard your arguments before...

Kuznets said that the "welfare of a nation can scarcely be determined from a measure of its national income" - welfare is not economic well being only but is more general well being. That is, economic well-being does not include things like destruction of the rain forests to build a coal power plant and how that effects the general well-being.

And I think you mean GDP and GNI, not GNP.

david1 says

Do me an honest favor. Go get your German language copy of "General Theory" and make a photocopy of the text. If you have a German copy of "General Theory" lying around I will give in. I suspect you got your information from some right-wing blog somewhere that linked the webpage I just found by typing this subject into google. Perhaps you are the original author of that web article...in which case you read German editions of economics text and I am certainly outmatched.

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/foregtgm.html

"Trotzdem kann die Theorie der Produktion als Ganzes, die den Zweck des folgenden Buches bildet, viel leichter den Verhältnissen eines totalen Staates angepaßt werden als die Theorie der Erzeugung und Verteilung einer gegebenen, unter Bedingungen des freien Wettbewerbes und eines großen Maßes von laissez-faire erstellten Produktion. Das ist einer der Gründe, die es rechtfertigen, daß ich meine Theorie eine allgemeine Theorie nenne."

Translation into English:

"The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. "

My point is this: if you didn't read it yourself and only get your information from a website, how is that any different that or better than what I have done in pulling government statistics from goverment websites and believing them to be fact?

You are the one mis-construing the statistic numbers to mean God-authenticated size of the economy (whatever that means). The government websites only gave the number and gave the statistic methodology involved. It is your responsibility to figure out what that methodology produces; i.e. what the BLS GDP number means. Of course, the Keynesian brainwashing you experienced earlier in your life did contribute to the leap of faith based on text-string match.

I knew enough about Neoclassical Economics and Monetarism to know where I have heard your arguments before...

So you are retracting from the earlier lie that you read all those books.

Kuznets said that the "welfare of a nation can scarcely be determined from a measure of its national income" - welfare is not economic well being only but also general well being. That is, economic well-being does not include things like destruction of the rain forests and how that affects the general well-being.

And I think you mean GDP and GNI, not GNP.

GDP is derived/evolved from GNP, a concept that Kuznets invented. GDP simply applied GNP to all payments/production within borders regardless ownership of facility. GNI is utter nonsense. Value is subjective. Marginal utility is ordinal not cardinal. It is impossible to aggregate value / well-being across different people to any meaningful degree of precision. Kuznets did not invent GNP/GDP to account for "well being." He invented the concept to calculate a nation/economy's debt servicing capacity in local nominal terms. Keynes was the one mistakenly tried to fudge debt servicing capacity into some kind of aggregate "well being." As for GNI, it's even more non-sensical as it tries to refine measurement of a non-cardinal phenomenon while throwing a bunch of subjective values of the authors themselves.

O sweet Lord...ok if you must site economic conditions post/during/after world war two then I suggest examining Tragedy & Hope. It's about 1300 pages long....this does have a index but not a chart/graphic index (not that there's much for graphics)

If you want to talk about wholesale price indices they are on page 341.

Relative to 1913 prices did inflate during the 20's but to suggest it was zimbabwe would be a mistake. France and Italy had much higher inflation.

But out of US, UK, France, Italy and Germany US, UK and Germany price wise by 1937 germany fared the best in that it was only up 6%

then again it went form 97 in '33 to 106 in '37 so the leap was maybe 10% or so..

This has to be a world record for Strawman arguments.

Reality says

So you are retracting from the earlier lie that you read all those books.

Not anywhere did I say I read any book. Here is what I said first:
david1 says

I used to be where you are back in 2007, getting excited about neo-classical economics, Monetarism, Milt Freidman, and Ron Paul. Well I kept reading, did some research for myself, and here I am.

Then I said:
david1 says

And finally, to answer your question, none of Freidman, Paul, or Smith and Menger or Mises "told" me that the Nazis had a great economic program. I said I was a believer of the above a few years back and that is all.

In short, I claimed to read no books. No books claimed to be read, no lie about reading them.

Then there is the "Nazi-apologist" strawman you have used.
Again, what you argue against is not what I said.

You have been trying for two days to get me into some kind of flame war; labeling me a Fascist, calling me sophmoric, etc., etc. I know you are smart enough to know that you can get your point across without this...and I utterly refuse to go down to your level.

Lets just use a little algebra here and see if you can explain this to me.

The GDP deflator (D) is Nominal GDP/Real GDP.
Here are your words for how the GDP is derived by the BLS:

Reality says

BLS has to rely on sampling instead of actual counting to arrive at GDP change from previous time period. It is from this change that the new GDP number is derived. In order to keep this sequential change relevant, the GDP deflator is applied whenever GDP has to be calculated.

So from this statement you say Nominal GDP = sampling1 * D + sampling2 * G +...
This is Nominal GDP = (sum of samplings) * G.
Now by substitution in the GDP deflator formula, G = ((sum of samplings) * G) / Real GDP

So Real GDP = sum of samplings.

Hmm..I always thought it was the other way around, that Nominal GDP is the sum of the samplings and Real GDP is GDP in constant dollars.

I am going to let you have the last word here..It's pretty clear this horse is dead and we aren't bringing it back on the merits of the argument and the only way it goes from here is more personal attacks. You are clouded by belief in some large scale government conspiracy to conceal its true power in our economy through statistical manipulation. I'm not even going to bring up the fact that during the 30s when government spending was reigned in economic output and unemployment soared once again and did not recover until demand was increased by the governments need to arm in WW2. The data just doesn't back the theories you claim and the only way you can resolve it is to come up with some conspiracy about black ops spending and misrepresented inflation...even though it is pretty clear that nominal GDP is not affected by inflation...

Bye.