Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Death Metal]

bullshit.

The north had the overwhelming advantage in manufacturing output and population. Despite that fact, the south very nearly won, if not for the stand by the 20th Maine in July of 1863.

A victory at Gettygsburg in no way guarantees a southern victory. Vicksburg still falls out west, Grant comes east and takes command of the northern army, Sherman marches across Georgia, and boom. Virginia is protected, but Texas still tries to secede from the south, as does Georgia, and eventually the deep south gets sick of the Virginia focus by the government, and the Confederacy breaks up. Davis had to coordinate with 11 state governments, all of whom had competing demands, and it severely curtailed the efficiency of the Southern military machine.

Not to mention if Lee was actually stupid enough to give up an advantageous position to make what was essentially a suicide charge... a charge that his second in command told him to his face was fucking moronic... he was bound to fuck up eventually.

[Obamacult]

Re: Externalities: The negative big one is the environment. I cannot realistically conceive of any infrastructure that can be implemented between states where you'd have one state willing to bear more costs than others, when on state levels you have this unwillingness.

The federal government adjudicates disputes between the individual states regarding cross-state pollution or any other externalities. I presume this is the same legal procedure that occurs today.

Hence, the only difference between the mechanism of governance today and tomorrow is that the federal government would no longer mismanage and corrupt the myriad social and economic programs that it does today that are best left to the states or civil society -- health care, education and retirement being the biggest examples of waste.

Re: Economies of Scale: But that inherently favours the 'have' states. As oversimplistic as this'll seem, but ultimately some states just aren't as good as other states at balance and production, and I question an individual state's ability to balance its budgeting. Are there cases that would show disintegration would lead to budgeting?

True, and why is it advantageous for a society to chase good money after bad money by forcing more efficiently run states to subsidize bankrupt states run by corrupt and self-serving politicians?

Moreover, I provide a list of the nation-states with the highest GDP per capita (PPP) earlier in the thread and virtually all of these (except the USA and further down the list Germany) were nations or protectorates that had populations and sizes that were very similar to American states.

Hence, the richest per capita states on the geopolitik are generally the smallest -- hence, government that governs closest to the people governs best -- empirical evidence seems to support this, or in the very least does not refute it.

So the problem with inefficient or broken states is not the function of SIZE, it is a function of poor governance as demonstrated by the fact that the richest states are usually small hence these states have the best chance for providing its citizens the highest living standards if governed responsibly.

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

Re: Opportunity Cost: That would work, but you'd need to restructure the rating agencies that already exist. If we look at Indonesia in 1997, for example, declaring bankruptcy and then forcibly restructuring has the potential to do irrevocably irreversible damage. It can take years before it has sufficient credit ratings that investors would want to inject funds back into a specific state.

Indonesia is not a small state -- it has/had a population significantly higher than even California. Perhaps Indonesia would have recovered more quickly if government was not centralized in the capital amongst so many islands occupied by tens of millions of distant and diverse citizenry. I am asserting that allowing these small islands to take the responsibility to manage their own economic and social issues themselves -- instead of waiting for and depending on Jakarta is an example of decentralized governance in the economic realm that is more efficient when done closer to home.

Of course, Indonesia would still be responsible for law and national security throughout these islands -- but again a local and knowledgeable constabulary would also be of assistance in adjudicating legal issues unique to each island.

Re: Finance: I'm unsure how this can be rectified by state management. This sounds like great talking points, but the problem is that this is a structure that requires considerable decoupling, and states don't have that because they can't draw upon credit as efficiently as the federal government.

The federal government's abuse irresponsibility and inefficiency in borrowing, printing and spending is the main reason why the states must assume governance over many economic and social policies.

Hence, we don't want to give power to governments either large or small to fund self-serving politically motivated and unsustainable schemes that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day if the taxpayer was supposed to pay for these upfront. However, I don't have a problem with the federal government or the state governments borrowing money or issuing bonds. Note that if the states become insolvent, then these creditors would lose their shirts as well as those in power in the state capitals. Indeed, all of the citizens who previously benefitted from unsustainable programs would face losses under restructuring by the federal government.

In sum, handing over the power of government bureaucrats and politicians the ability to recklessly borrow, spend and print in order to buy special interest votes and campaign contributions bribes so they can win the next election at the expense of our kid's future living standards represents generational theft and all those responsible should be forced to have a seat at the lunch table next to Bernie Maddof.

But the Federal Government and its immense deficit provides the scaffolding upon which states can support key industries through cheaply available credit. Balancing a budget takes immense amounts of time, and if we end up having them declare bankruptcy, then they'll face a scenario not that different to Japan or Thailand. When you say that the Feds have to step in in a bad scenario is in fact happening right now - they are stepping in, and while it looks grim, we have to remember that it takes time for investments of this magnitude to have any considerable return.

The era of low interest rates will be ending -- indeed, the only reason it is low is that we are the tallest dwarf in the room. However, if you look at the price of gold and other non-dollar assets, these are increasing in value relative to the dollar.





The USA had significant growth prior to the era of big government spending in social and economic issues of the last century -- the only difference is that the earlier growth was not funded by the massive levels of structural debt that is present today. INdeed, the growth that has been funded today is not without tremendous cost because it was essentially gained using the societal 'credit card' in a manner unparalleled in American history -- for example, no other government or period of expansion was coupled with expanding long term structural deficits as the case today.

For example, government was not involved in health care, retirement, education, etc to the extent that it is today -- the only times when government was dangerously indebted was as a result of wars. Conflict is not open ended, once the war is over, the expenses stop. In contrast, entitlement programs have no end -- they are perpetual and as a result this responsibility has severely compromised the ability of the US government to act effectively, efficiently and legally to other more important issues like impartial governance, national security, disaster relief, etc.

American financial hegemony has depended on credit. That's how it's always functioned. The astronomical debt is a mix of the crisis and that dependency on credit. It's not something to do with mismanagement (that's a related, but albeit different subject). The states, additionally, depend on this credit. If you take them off this credit, it's a cutting a potential means of life support.

Only recently. This wasn't the case prior to the 1930's. Prior to the 1930's, the US debt was not related to health care, retirement, education, etc.

Today these responsibilities are enduring and by any objective measure dangerously inefficient. The difference is that when the central government responsible for running these fails -- we are all screwed because this failure impacts more essential roles of the federal government in protecting life, liberty and private property.

Lastly, I don't have anything against borrowing or credit when those doing the borrowing are risking their own necks --- for example, we have a system of borrowing that enables corrupt politicians to fund projects designed to get them reelected without any risk to themselves -- essentially they are borrowing on the credit of the future taxpayer and lending to special interest voting blocs.

In the free market, both the creditors and debtors are directly involved in the transaction. In contrast, you are not going to have a safe and responsible system of lending and borrowing when the borrowers are facing no direct risk and/or the risk will be realized when these corrupt politicians are long removed from office and sitting on the beach somewhere in the south of France while the younger generation has to pay the interest on these debts.

It is a wholly corrupt system that enables politicians to fund crap that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day by an informed and diligent citizenry and taxpayers. For example, most wars and economic programs would never be funded unless for the unaccountable government ability to print money or borrow off the living standards of future generations.

The scheme has worked because the USA had accumulated a tremendous amount of capital and trust from a largely limit government structure that nurtured capitalism for much of our history -- however, we have recently open a national credit card and given it to the most corrupt and inefficient cronies in society and the effects of this 'party' will soon be apparent.

Indeed, we are already paying over $400,000,000,000 a year in interest payments alone and that number is expanding.

The numbers are big and scary, but debt =/= lost jobs, wages, or businesses.

We shall see, but a harbinger of the future is in Greece, Argentina, Spain, Italy, etc.

Moreover, you correctly and astutely identified Japan as an example of how large debt effects long term growth -- indeed Japan has been mired in long term economic malaise.

Lastly, the more serious concern is that if the greatest engine of economic growth in the history of mankind veers socialist or to a more European style governance then the USA will no longer be able to carry the rest of the world with improved technologies, huge export markets, or guarantee the relative stability, freedom and security in Europe, the Asian Pacific Rim and Western Hemisphere that has been funded wholly by US capitalism.

If I was a young person, I would be livid at seeing my future pissed away by politicians handing out favors to special interest voters and campaign contributors with my future earnings and living standards.

But, the old adage applies, if you don't do your homework and learn the truth of this dynamic -- you get what you pay for.

Sorry for the lengthy post, feel free to comment on only those arguments that you feel are least supported at your leisure.

[Indira]

Sorry for the lengthy post, feel free to comment on only those arguments that you feel are least supported at your leisure.[/quote]

It would help if every time I see someone shoot you down with hard facts, you would actually listen, instead of screaming strawman all the time

[Obamacult]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

1. All that tells me is the debt. Not how the money was spent.

We have little to show for this expenditure. Indeed, the federal government has added over $6 trillion to the national debt for mostly cheap service industry jobs (over $1,000,000 borrowed per job created) and anemic European style economic growth moving forward.

The only thing that happens when government borrows recklessly is that societal resources get diverted to corrupt, inefficient, wasteful and economically unsustainable political uses rather than voluntary, efficient and economically sustainable uses selected by consumers in a competitve and peaceful marketplace.

2A. Source?

You need a source for the fact that 120 million people voted in the last election, hence your vote in a national election is worth 1/120,000,000?

Or do you need a source that poorly run companies fail -- and that 99% of them eventually do ?

IN contrast, a behemoth central government can be managed inefficiently corruptly and wastefully in near perpetuity. While 50 state governments would operate within an environment of considerably more competition -- hence they would have to work more efficiently to attract 'customers' (tax-paying citizens)

2B. Said monopoly is owned by everybody. Thus, it represents everybody's interests.

If you think your puny vote or lack of lobbyist in Washington buys you anything substantive you are not familiar with the mechanisms guiding Washington.

The primary beneficiaries of federal government largesse are those who represent large voting blocs or special interest groups and huge corporations that can bribe politicians with votes and bribes.

And most Americans are outside this loop, unless you include the biggest and most destructive boondoggle that are entitlements and those that will be paying this program with significantly higher taxes, lower growth, and decreased living standards over the previous generations -- are in college or haven't even been born yet.

3A. Using your logic, all that would do, however, is give the states that monopoly.

NO dude, a monopoly is not represented by 50 disparate and competing states.

3B. No, not everybody is able to move away to a state they like better, besides, there are certain aspects of a state's culture, or climate, or physical environment that somebody may like and not be able to enjoy in another state. I live in the anti-LGBT hellhole of Tennessee, for instance. Sure, I'd move to a more LGBT-friendly state if I could. But I can't. Because I have NO MONEY to move halfway across the country. Neither do I desire to live in a colder state (hell, compared to my previous residence of Louisiana, TN is the fucking North Pole), nor one that has a constant geological Sword of Damocles hanging over it. I really fucking miss going to Mardi Gras, and fishing on the bayou, but I can't move back to Louisiana, either, namely due to, again my LACK OF MONEY, and the fact that its also very anti-LGBT (though admittedly less so than Tennessee).

It is all relative, no government is perfect, government is a necessary evil in that we must find a way to create a system that intentionally limits, decentralizes, balances and makes transparent the elements of armed force and coercion in society to forestall the emergence of absolutism.

Hence, we all throw our political power and battleships in the pot at the beginning of the Republic and pass out what we think is necessary to establish order and trust among the central government, state government and civil society.

But it is far easier for you to move from state to state than it is to move from nation to nation.

Sorry, i don't have a utopian system for you --perhaps you should move to North Korea or Cuba.

4A. And if you were born there? Or dragged there by your parents?

See above

4B. Now you're pulling shit out of your ass.

What that central governments are the biggest monopoly ??!!

Hypocrisy, you even claimed yourself in this post that the federal government was a monopoly and you stated that it had to be a monopoly.

Of course they are, including the USA, whose tax and regulatory power have by far the greatest effect on the economy and dominate said economy by coercive means.

There is not a single company or industry except the central government that can dip its greedy inefficient and corrupt little fingers into every single one of your transactions and pay check and force you to buy their 'products' or you go to jail.

Your living in the Mother of all oppressive monopolies and it has nothing to do with capitalism.

Sadly, those on the Left are clueless to this dynamic and indeed support it while not understanding the mechanisms.

4C. You say statist like you don't support ANY government. And yet you seem to love state government so much. The problem, though, to address your point, is that private-sector monopolies DON'T represent everybody. There is always internal competition within a democratically elected government. Besides, a government, BY DEFINITION, must have a monopoly on power. If a government did not have any internal competition, then I would indeed agree with you that it is bad like private sector monopolies. But our government DOES, and is therefore, not comparable to corporate monopolies.

Incredibly your advocating for the central government to assume the very thing that you fear ?!!!

Bullshit,there has never been a private sector monopoly that has amounted to anything more than a temporary nuisance. And indeed most of them became monopolies by offering valued goods and services at a very fair price -- hence they out performed their competitors and the consumer was the primary beneficiary.

Indeed, the primary anti-trust legislation came about was from whining outperformed competitors lobbying corrupt government officials to save them from more efficient better priced competition.

If your open minded, read this:

Anti-trust, Anti-truth

5. Taxes are payments for the services government provides. Things like roads, the post service, protection from hostile forces both inside and outside our borders, education, assistance for the needy, NASA, etc. These things are ALL necessities, and must be paid for. Regulation is a GOOD THING. Regulation is what allows you to pick up a pound of beef at your local grocery store, cook it, eat it, and not worry about whether or not you'll get sick from it. And source on the government's "participation in economic endeavors"?

Bullshit, regulation generally is an illusion -- for example, food inspectors inspect around 1% of the food facilities in the nation. You want protection from malacious or negligent private sector actors -- take them to court and throw them in jail if they are found guilty.

In contrast, we have system of regulation that has been captured by the industries that are being regulated in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential or mild regulation for future jobs in the industry or bribes in the form of campaign contributions.

The system managed by the Federal government is manifestly corrupt on many levels. At least by decentralizing to the states, we can easily identify those governments that are less corrupted and better managed.

Nobody is dying of food poisoning or bad roads in Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, etc.

6. Because, historically, the federal government has enforced a system that is best. The federal government forced ALL the states to abolish slavery. The federal government forced ALL the states to legalize interracial marriage. The federal government forced ALL the states to integrate and stop treating black people like second class citizens. And the federal government forced ALL the states to stop enforcing their sodomy laws.

Also, I never said anything about 'too much centralization'. Nice strawman, though.

This is a bullshit strawman.

I have always stated that the Federal government would continue to enforce the Bill of Rights. Indeed, nothing changes with the Constitution, the only difference is that the federal government no longer manages many social and economic programs that it have led to over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt.

Indeed, what government at the federal level does do well is protect those civil and political rights that you mentioned, hence you should favor a system that removes the corrupting influence of economic policy from the central government that is so critical at focusing on civil and political rights.

7B. From your source:

The survey revealed which types of regulations affect manufacturers the most:

• Worker Health and Safety regulations, including OSHA, accounted for one-third the cost of compliance
• Regulations governing employee benefits ranked second, making up 27% of the cost of compliance
• Civil rights, labor standards, and labor-management relations regulations each made up about 10% of the cost of compliance

Boohoo. Corporations are having to pay to comply with commonsense regulations that prevent workplace accidents, provide a decent standard of living for employees, and to not discriminate while hiring.

Regulations are in place to PREVENT people from fucking each other over. Anybody who complains about them can ONLY want to fuck other people over. They deserve no sympathy.

Dude, you fail to understand that these regulations are not enforced. They are simply window dressing. The true mechanism behind regulations is done between lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats behind closed doors in Washington in a quid pro quo of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back'

The real 'regulations' occur in a peaceful and competitive free market by consumers picking winners and losers -- hence, if someone eats something from taco bell and they die -- then it is a pretty good guess that taco bell would be able to sell many burritos going forward. Moreover, if someone suffer an accident at a factory because a dangerous working conditions then the pay will have to increase to entice workers or the offending management official who was negligent or malicious is charge and brought to trial.

Hence, the courts can deal with corruption in the private industry the responsible manner in a courtroom in the light of day instead of in back room deals between lobbyists and politicians passing regulations that don't get enforced anyway.

Indeed, the biggest offending industries are those most heavily regulated -- pharma (#1 cause of accidental death) , health care (100,000 patients die from mistakes), transportation (#2 cause of accidental death), banking and finance (do I need to go into the number of regulations and not surprisingly the number of scandals involving the revolving door of lobbyist and politician?)

8. If there isn't that much money in the world then its impossible for somebody to owe that much.

Amen bro, your probably right -- but that is the unfunded debt that your beloved central government has promised to pay retirees and those needing health care.

You think that promise kept to you is going to be kept ??!!

Do you think the tens of thousands you pay into the system will be a positive return on your investment?!!

9. No it doesn't, as I said, because there are too many people who would be negatively affected and UNABLE to leave. Or do you also believe that all the people in New Orleans post-Katrina actually wanted to stay for the storm?

There is a role for the federal government in disaster relief. However, I think it can't achieve that role to maximum efficiency when it is being diverted and distracted by the myriad bullshit pork and cronyism that currently overwhelms the federal government that is best left to the individual states

11A. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't stop slavery, didn't stop segregation in the South, and didn't stop the sodomy laws.

Are you serious dude?

The only time sodomy laws get enforced is when some dude is trying to screw a duck in the town square. Nobody gives a rats ass if you want to screw someone -- just keep it in the privacy of your own home.

As for slavery -- we have a bill of rights and the federal government would move in since it still has all the guns and gavels so your argument is a strawman.

As for segregation, nobody is stopping you from living in a community of sodomites. If that is your wish, then more power to you. But don't force me to pay for your policy or surrender my personal freedoms to fund and support your social goals.

Remember, the federal government must protect life, liberty and private property -- not tell people what you must do with your private property -- think protect, not manage or force.

thats where the folks on the Left get confused, they think that the federal government role in protecting private property equates to managing it.

11B. I'd like a source for every single one of those claims.

You need a source for this:

essentially the Federal government has become the most prolific thief in the history of the world. Plundering fair gotten societal wealth simply because a simple majority of a fraction of the registered voters that further represent a fraction of the population vote for politicians to pass laws that plunder private wealth for personal gain.

This is tyranny of the majority and it should not be practiced to steal the civil, political or economic rights of the individual so some politician can remain in power by buying votes with redistributive policies.

The sad joke is that these policies actually undermine the very living standards of the very people that they purport to assist -- case in point poverty is at decades high levels despite trillions in social spending.

The federal government exerts more control over your personal life than any other entity, period.

Moreover, your direct role in this process essentially represents 1/120,000,000 of the voting public.

And yes, poverty has increased despite $6 trillion in added debt to programs that you and your 1/120,000,000 vote has absolute zero impact on swaying.

You have no economic rights when dealing with the federal government -- they tell you what, where, how much and when -- whether you like it or not.

In contrast, when I am not satisfied in a free market transaction -- I can tell the offending vendor to fuck off because I will never return. And most likely they will go bankrupt in short order if my experience was not an anomaly.

With the federal government, you don't get to choose and generally when they are inefficient, this gives them an excuse for greater plunder and power.

12. Lets break down this list.

3 of those countries on the list are in the Middle East. Obviously their citizens are going to be filthy fucking rich, as they're almost literally swimming in one of the most expensive liquids on Earth.

Another, Brunei, a Southeast Asian country, ALSO makes most of its GDP through petroleum.

The US falls in at #8. Obviously, the federal government's doing a somewhat decent job if we're #8.

Then you have the 3 Scandinavian countries, countries with lots of regulations and taxes (how the fuck are they high on this list if regulations and taxes are bad things?).

Next we have Singapore, which makes most of its money because it has the 5th largest port in the world (and most of its small landmass is a fucking city).

Finally, we have Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Austria. All known for the financial industry. Essentially, they're all giant banks.

So some states (namely the coastal ones, and ones with access to various natural resources) will certainly be better off than others. But many other states will be shitholes, because they have next to nothing (I'm thinking namely AZ, KS, ND, SD, MT, ID, UT,etc.) And, as I keep saying to you, a lot of people in those states will be stuck there, because they can't afford to move away.

Bullshit strawman and totally lacking in any shred of critical thinking rigor.

First, not all oil rich states are rich --many of the larger ones are poverty stricken -- or example, nigeria, libya, venezuala, mexico, russia, etc. Even iran and iraq were poor before they started fighting wars in 1980.

Indeed, it is obvious that smaller oil rich states are richer.

Bullshit #2, to assert that switzerland, ireland, netherlands, austria, etc are rich because of their financial industries is poor bullshit. All of these nations have diverse and productive industries and services besides finance.

Bullshit #3 the scandanavian nations have significant economic freedoms relative to most other nations, moreover they are smaller hence the waste associated with managing social and economic programs is far less than the waste, corruption and inefficiency of managing the same programs in a huge nation like the USA.

Again, thank for supporting my argument that small and decentralized is better.

As for the city-state, you bring up a good point. Namely, might it be better still to bring management to smaller size than our traditional state governments ?

The bottom line is that your examples support the view that governments are more effective when they are closer and more intimate to the people.

I'm not going to typo this crap. Read it and respond at your leisure -- but do me a favor and only respond to what you think is the least effective argument.

[Frisivisia]

snip

Obamacult posting a half-page post with the words "Bullshit strawman" as the main theme? AND it's vapid, uninteresting, and still doesn't prove anything?

How unusual.

[Priory Academy USSR]

snip

Obamacult posting a half-page post with the words "Bullshit strawman" as the main theme? AND it's vapid, uninteresting, and still doesn't prove anything?

How unusual.

Bullshit strawman.

Your argument shows a complete lack of empirical, scientifically backed evidence to show why your evil socialist views won't destroy The Glorious United States.

I refuse to debate further unless you show me some clear, unbiased, objective evidence.

[Obamacult]

Pure polemic unsupported bullshit.

Nonetheless, I will reward your effort by commenting on a few of the offensive and ridiculous fallacious statements.

So let me translate this:

"TEH DEBT WILL EAT UR CHILDREEEN AND KEEL US ALL BECAUSE IT EXISTS!"

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) were the first to point out that a public debt-to-GDP ratio higher than 90% of GDP is associated with considerably lower economic performance in advanced and emerging economies alike

This is called peer reviewed empirical research. I would recommend that you peruse it from time to time, it carries more weight than your personal opinion unsupported by fact or logic or empirical research.

This is a hilarious straw man. Please tell me who has argued this and why they represent the entirety of those who are "left wing?"

I am simply challenging you to respond to the following theory:

The problem of economic calculation by government.

Indeed, when confronted with facts, logic and empirical research you go into a tirade of personal invective and accusations without answering the questions or challenges I pose.

Well yes, downsizing the banks would be a good thing. I'm not sure why comparing it to the government negated that fact. This is what's called a Red Herring, which is ironically, you guessed it, a logical fallacy! The fact the banks should be downsized has nothing to do with the government itself.

Also, with respect to:

"Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues."

...I have this to say:

Your personal opinion devoid of a shred of objective and substantive facts, logic, and empirically supported evidence is noted, appreciated and telling.

Not quite true, banks are an economic enterprise and when government engages itself in the economy and accumulates debt and resources, it too, becomes an economic enterprise and thus subject to the same consequences and effects on society at large. So essentially you favor decentralization of one economic entity, but not the other ?!!

Moreover, I think it is self-evident that the federal government is indeed larger than the state governments, hence if/when it fails the consequences to civil society will indeed be more deleterious than if a single isolated state government became insolvent.

No shit it does. But why now when we have economic problems that we need to address?

I don't follow your logic, or lack thereof, in this statement. You need to clean it up and clarify.

No it won't. The reason that we are losing capital and talent is due to our horrendous infrastructure. It has jack shit to do with taxes. I'm also going to need this suppose quote by Obama as well as why it supports your claim.

We do have a problem with offshore tax abuses, but that's a different discussion.

This is really pure unsupported horseshit because the USA has spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure in the last four years.

Since your the 'expert' on infrastructure then can you cite a figure in dollars of how much more we need to spend?

And please tell me what sectors of the private economy your going to plunder to fund this improved infrastructure?

Hence, I am sure your smart enough to know that when government taxes, borrows, prints and spends money that there are opportunity costs associated with transferring capital, labor and other resources from these industries into improving infrastructure.

Lastly, are you aware of the Japanese experience spending and borrowing hundreds of billions improving infrastructure?

Read this and respond with your thoughts (I know this is from the rightwing tea party NYTimes, but forgive me, it was all I had):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... d=all&_r=0

What? Borrowing doesn't cause a decrease in credit. What causes a decrease in credit is showing that the country has the political or economic incapability of paying that money back.

Sweetheart, society does not have unlimited resources, hence when credit is extended to certain public schemes and enterprises then the resources, labor, and capital employed by the use of that credit is denied to private sector actors.

That is where the shortages come into play.

Aaand I've refuted this at least 4 times.

Refuting my empirically supported arguments with your personal opinion (no matter how many times) while appreciated is not considered valid and reliable.

Last time I checked, 77% is not "nowhere close."

Last time I checked, receiving 77% return on original investment is called the "fast track to bankruptcy".

Last time I checked.

Anyone that payed attention in government courses in High School and knows that the Anti-Federalists used this argument and lost horrendously due to the fact that they are just plain fucking wrong to state that the solution to this is to have an extremely decentralized federal government.

Winning in the political arena doesn't imply that your economic policies are sound. Indeed, history is rife with examples of excellent political operatives gaining power only to squander and lose it because of unsound economic policies.

We already do allow states to handle a myriad of issues such as education and healthcare.

Under the umbrella of significant economic and political meddling from the federal government. Hence, the federal government should be removed from this coercive and destructive regulatory and funding role and focus on responsibilities that it does best and are more critical -- namely protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

Indeed, federal government meddling on both funding and what is taught in the schools is a bane on quality education taking away considerable autonomy from states, teachers, parents and students by forcing us all to adopt an inefficient and restrictive 'one size fits all' solution.


Note that using your implied 'logic' that the states handle health care and retirement is exposed as ridiculous by the fact that the federal government has accumulated over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt that for these 'state managed' enterprises.

ou've STILL never backed this silly claim that the states would manage things better. You have ONLY constantly whined and complained about the federal government. Your entire rant relies on the axiom that the states are inherently better at doing the job of the federal government, with no evidence to back it up, instead choosing to constantly complain about the federal government. It's like saying that cars are too polluting, therefore we should go back to horses

Please explain why the overwhelming majority of nation-states that have the highest GDP per capita are about the size of US states?

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

This list shows that growth and living standards can be achieved within a small governing framework. Hence, you don't need a huge state to gain wealth, in fact the opposite may be true in that large states are more difficult to govern.

No. Fuck that. I'm not risking my state going to shit simply because of your fetish with Thomas Jefferson and your idiotic and unsupported belief that the states will do a better job.

In contrast, you want the whole of society, instead of a single state, to risk going to shit on your fetish with Marx and Lenin?!!??!

Nice.

Nope, it's not absurd because it's based in reality.

You know, your wonderful and elegant opinion while appreciated is not valid and reliable. Hence, you need to support your insight with at least a shred of fact, logic and empirically supported evidence.

It may not be the way they adjudicate things in leftwing academia, pop culture or the main stream media -- but in the academic, professional and scientific community where I hang out -- we require logic, facts, and empirical evidence.

Then there's reality, where there is a significant and very vocal minority of people who share your views. Keeping one's head up one's head will blind them not only to their opponents, but to their allies as well. You're not special.

My point was that I am constantly being accused of being intolerant and close-minded despite the fact that I am an active participant in a decidedly leftwing echo chamber.

Amusingly, these accusations are the very definition of hypocrisy -- even if you cannot recognize this fact through your clouded ideologically based lens.

By definition the vote matters. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many people are voting.

No, actually your personal opinion on this matter, while greatly appreciated, doesn't make sense.

Namely your vote in the last presidential election had the effect of 1/120,000,000 and not much else.

Moreover, you picked a candidate who manifestly did not share your views in totality and once elected you have virtually no sway on what is legislated beyond that of any other voter. The real drivers of government economic policy are special interest voting blocs, large corporations and heavily funded PACs.

Hence, Washington has become a market for corruption --open to the highest bidder in cash, private sector jobs after politics or special interest votes.

Which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what the Founding Fathers wanted and what the Federalists (y'know, the ones who actually supported the Constitution) argued against. Jesus, try reading the Federalist Papers.

Rote memorization of what is contained in the Federalist papers without a corresponding ability to engage in critical thinking is your downfall. Moreover, your fallacious assertion that you have a monopoly on understanding the ideological motivations of the founding fathers is both arrogant and ludicrous at best.

For example, the founding fathers, you, me, all of us want to create a system of governance that forestalls the emergence of a despot or absolutist. The best way to achieve this end is to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of political and military force in society.

We both disagree on the means to safeguard political and military force --- I assert that the federal government has gotten too big and corrupted by economic responsibilities that have been dramatically increased over the last 80 years managing economic and social affairs that none of our founding fathers would have approved.

Hence, I support the following formula because I see the federal government as far too large and far too suspitable to corruption precisely because it controls far too much money that invites corruption.

ME: bleed economic power (not political or legal) from Washington back to the states because I trust civil society and 50 smaller and disparate states more than I trust the central government..

YOU: Washington isn't big enough, bleed ever more power from the civil society and states to the federal government because you trust the central government and you don't trust the people and states

I see your view as manifestly naive and dangerous because it is the federal government that is already the largest, most indebted entity that already possessed most of the political and military power in society. Moreover, our nation did just fine for over 150 years growing from a largely primitive agrarian economy to the greatest economic juggernaut in history without incurring massive levels of structural debt in the process.

And then there's reality, where states such as Texas, which has a growing poverty rate, yet has a growing economy and a legislature dominated by big business. Oh, and you're honestly arguing that more third parties will have chances, when in states such as Texas, they can't even have TWO competing parties? Get a clue.

Actually this is bullshit. You know that type of bullshit that can be passed on to citizens lacking in objective critical thinking skills.

Texas outperforms California regarding poverty

The poverty rate fell by 1 percentage point in Texas, within the margin of error.

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

It would help if you both supported your personal opinion with sources and you purged your critical thinking skills of ideological bias to help you identify bogus, misleading or incomplete statistics when you see them.

Indeed, it is the larger states that are dominated by inefficient governments whose citizens are suffering the most. Then again, you should welcome competition between the states if you really believe your ideological framework of command economies is beneficial. The world could see first hand the efficacy of your ideology of choice juxtaposed more limited governments in neighboring states.

For example, this from the Census Bureau:

In 2009, an interagency group asked the Census Bureau, in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to develop a new, supplemental measure to allow for an improved understanding of the economic well-being of American families and how federal policies affect those living in poverty.

“There are several important differences between the official and supplemental poverty measures,” said Kathleen Short, a U.S. Census Bureau economist and the report's author. “For instance, the supplemental measure uses new poverty thresholds that represent a dollar amount spent on a basic set of goods adjusted to reflect geographic differences in housing costs. The official poverty thresholds are the same no matter where you live.”

And this,

For another 26 states, supplemental rates were lower than the official statewide poverty rates: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Rates in the remaining 10 states were not statistically different using the two measures.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

Moreover, it appears that it is the larger states that are having the most difficulty further supporting my hypothesis that government closest to the people, governs best.

And yes, third party candidates can pool there resources and isolate individual states. When this occurs, politics in the nation will be more competitive and dynamic and we can see first hand whether a minarchist or libertarian or green or socialist, etc. party can lead more effectively.

So this serves no practical sense, and it's just so that you can jerk off to the idea that your vote holds more weight? No thank you.

It is plainly clear that your vote in an election among a few thousand carries far more weight than the same vote in an election among millions.

Moreover, it is plainly clear that your tax money invested closer to home carries far more benefits than the same tax dollar invested thousands of miles from home.

If you can't surmount this basic self-evident logical hurdle, then it is useless to debate you further.

We can agree to disagree and you can take your ideologically jaded invective and unsupported fallacious personal opinion to another thread.

I am done with you for now.

[Hurdegaryp]

Christ! If there ever was a message that fully deserves the good old TL;DR condemnation, it's that one!

[Mavorpen]

Christ! If there ever was a message that fully deserves the good old TL;DR condemnation, it's that one!

I like how he started it off with his trademark, "oh you want evidence for claimX? I'll give you evidence for claim Y!"

[Mavorpen]

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) were the first to point out that a public debt-to-GDP ratio higher than 90% of GDP is associated with considerably lower economic performance in advanced and emerging economies alike

This is called peer reviewed empirical research. I would recommend that you peruse it from time to time, it carries more weight than your personal opinion unsupported by fact or logic or empirical research.

You seem to have a problem with understanding what "claims" are and how to address claims. On nearly every single post, when someone asks for evidence for claim X, you give them evidence for claim Y. You can't go one post without a straw man, can you? You've provided me with evidence for the claim, "debt doesn't matter at all and does not ever bring negative effects on the economy. Which of course wasn't my claim at all. I'll post it again for you, in the hope that you learn from this that making straw man does not move this discussion along:

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

In other words, I'm not talking about debt in general, but specially OUR debt (ie the debt of the United States). Furthermore, in your quest to prove me wrong with a straw man, you seem to have admitted that the debt is not destroying our economy. If your source is indeed correct and at 90% debt to GDP ratio decreases economic growth considerably, our current debt is doing no such thing since our public debt to GDP ratio is currently at around 73%.

I am simply challenging you to respond to the following theory:

The problem of economic calculation by government.

Indeed, when confronted with facts, logic and empirical research you go into a tirade of personal invective and accusations without answering the questions or challenges I pose.

Hilarious. You claim I am not answering your questions or challenges... so you do the exact same fucking thing and refuse to show me where anyone of any meaning has argued this. I'm not going to answer your stupid "challenges" if they're straw man to begin with. Tell me who is arguing this, explain to me what this has anything to do with me, and THEN we can move along.

Not quite true, banks are an economic enterprise and when government engages itself in the economy and accumulates debt and resources, it too, becomes an economic enterprise and thus subject to the same consequences and effects on society at large. So essentially you favor decentralization of one economic entity, but not the other ?!!

That's not how governments work. Governments aren't economic enterprises. They exist to solve collective action problems. Governments can MANAGE economic enterprises, but it cannot be one itself.

Moreover, I think it is self-evident that the federal government is indeed larger than the state governments, hence if/when it fails the consequences to civil society will indeed be more deleterious than if a single isolated state government became insolvent.

You don't seem to understand the phrase, "the benefits outweigh the costs." I mean, that's one of the basics behind economic thought.

I don't follow your logic, or lack thereof, in this statement. You need to clean it up and clarify.

Or you can stop foaming at the mouth and read it.

This is really pure unsupported horseshit because the USA has spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure in the last four years.

Since your the 'expert' on infrastructure then can you cite a figure in dollars of how much more we need to spend?

About $2 trillion over 5 years. I'm confused on what you're arguing here. I claimed that the United States has a shitty infrastructure and you think citing it has spent billions on it refutes that? Sorry, but our infrastructure is in fact, horrendous.

Hence, I am sure your smart enough to know that when government taxes, borrows, prints and spends money that there are opportunity costs associated with transferring capital, labor and other resources from these industries into improving infrastructure.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I cannot grant you the same, as you do not seem to understand that in fact, poor infrastructure is a no no for a growing economy. The question is HOW MUCH spending at once we should do as well as where we should focus the most.

Lastly, are you aware of the Japanese experience spending and borrowing hundreds of billions improving infrastructure?

Read this and respond with your thoughts (I know this is from the rightwing tea party NYTimes, but forgive me, it was all I had):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... d=all&_r=0

I love how your own source proves me right.

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Sweetheart, society does not have unlimited resources, hence when credit is extended to certain public schemes and enterprises then the resources, labor, and capital employed by the use of that credit is denied to private sector actors.

That is where the shortages come into play.

Thank you for not even addressing my point at all.

Last time I checked, receiving 77% return on original investment is called the "fast track to bankruptcy".

Last time I checked.

I just LOVE your backtracking. You stated that people would not get not even half if any of their returns on Social Security. 77% is in fact LARGER than half. Furthermore, if you actually read what I provided, the return would drop only THREE points over a period of 49 years. That's NOWHERE near "fast track to bankruptcy."

Winning in the political arena doesn't imply that your economic policies are sound. Indeed, history is rife with examples of excellent political operatives gaining power only to squander and lose it because of unsound economic policies.

Which is why it's important to note that you've lost BOTH the political argument and the economic argument.

Under the umbrella of significant economic and political meddling from the federal government. Hence, the federal government should be removed from this coercive and destructive regulatory and funding role and focus on responsibilities that it does best and are more critical -- namely protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

And you've still never formulated an argument for this backed up with evidence. Rather, you've thrown links at us about numbers concerning the federal government, never substantiating your claim that the states can handle it better. But it's good to know that you admit the states handle a good number of issues already.

Indeed, federal government meddling on both funding and what is taught in the schools is a bane on quality education taking away considerable autonomy from states, teachers, parents and students by forcing us all to adopt an inefficient and restrictive 'one size fits all' solution.

Yeah, no. That's the fault of individual states, not the federal government. In fact, the federal government has been lately reforming funding to bring higher results, where states have been lazy and unwilling to reform education themselves. I sure as hell cannot fathom how you can blame something that is up to the states on the federal government. You've obviously never been to Texas.

Note that using your implied 'logic' that the states handle health care and retirement is exposed as ridiculous by the fact that the federal government has accumulated over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt that for these 'state managed' enterprises.

Are you saying that states take no part in healthcare? That's possibly the sillies thing I've read yet.

Please explain why the overwhelming majority of nation-states that have the highest GDP per capita are about the size of US states?

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

Please explain what this actually says about the efficiency of the states in the United States? You've thrown this out over and over without EVER establishing that it would ever apply to our states. Do you have any empirical evidence or not?

This list shows that growth and living standards can be achieved within a small governing framework. Hence, you don't need a huge state to gain wealth, in fact the opposite may be true in that large states are more difficult to govern.

Source?

In contrast, you want the whole of society, instead of a single state, to risk going to shit on your fetish with Marx and Lenin?!!??!

Nice.

You do know that I'm not a Marxist, right? If I've ever quoted Marx to support my stance, then please show me. Otherwise, this is a hilariously bad Red Herring.

You know, your wonderful and elegant opinion while appreciated is not valid and reliable. Hence, you need to support your insight with at least a shred of fact, logic and empirically supported evidence.

I'd appreciate if you did so, and actually address my claims.

It may not be the way they adjudicate things in leftwing academia, pop culture or the main stream media -- but in the academic, professional and scientific community where I hang out -- we require logic, facts, and empirical evidence.

Source this.

My point was that I am constantly being accused of being intolerant and close-minded despite the fact that I am an active participant in a decidedly leftwing echo chamber.

You are in fact close-minded. So I'm not sure what the problem here is. Your argument was that you are somehow special and are somehow an Übermensch because you're a "lone wolf" right winger going up against the left wing.

No, actually your personal opinion on this matter, while greatly appreciated, doesn't make sense.

Namely your vote in the last presidential election had the effect of 1/120,000,000 and not much else.

Which means that your vote mattered. I'm not sure why you cannot understand why .0000001 is not 0.

Moreover, you picked a candidate who manifestly did not share your views in totality and once elected you have virtually no sway on what is legislated beyond that of any other voter. The real drivers of government economic policy are special interest voting blocs, large corporations and heavily funded PACs.

Which was how the Founding Fathers designed the government. I just love how your insistent whining is against what the Founding Fathers wanted, while seemingly believing them to be angels.

Rote memorization of what is contained in the Federalist papers without a corresponding ability to engage in critical thinking is your downfall. Moreover, your fallacious assertion that you have a monopoly on understanding the ideological motivations of the founding fathers is both arrogant and ludicrous at best.

So basically you HAVEN'T read the Federalist papers? Thank you for admitting this. Please never mention the Founding Fathers again if you do not even have basic knowledge of the arguments used to defend the Constitution.

For example, the founding fathers, you, me, all of us want to create a system of governance that forestalls the emergence of a despot or absolutist. The best way to achieve this end is to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of political and military force in society.

No. The Founding Fathers exposed this route as being completely idiotic and counterproductive. Instead, they limited government in its application of powers (though it does have a limit on its power overall as well).

We both disagree on the means to safeguard political and military force --- I assert that the federal government has gotten too big and corrupted by economic responsibilities that have been dramatically increased over the last 80 years managing economic and social affairs that none of our founding fathers would have approved.

Who gives a shit if they would have approved. THEY HAD NEVER SEEN A CAR BEFORE. No shit individuals from 200 years ago wouldn't understand why the government has expanded at first. I'm sure that once explained to them though, they would laugh you out of the room for espousing an ideology the almost the complete opposite of what they had.

ME: bleed economic power (not political or legal) from Washington back to the states because I trust civil society and 50 smaller and disparate states more than I trust the central government..

YOU: Washington isn't big enough, bleed ever more power from the civil society and states to the federal government because you trust the central government and you don't trust the people and states

Quote me saying any of that or stop with the straw men.

I see your view as manifestly naive and dangerous because it is the federal government that is already the largest, most indebted entity that already possessed most of the political and military power in society. Moreover, our nation did just fine for over 150 years growing from a largely primitive agrarian economy to the greatest economic juggernaut in history without incurring massive levels of structural debt in the process.

Which is of course horse shit. We lagged behind economically and couldn't even create a substantial industry before the Gold Rush. Considering that the nation grew bigger, technology changed, by necessity the government also had to grow. You can live in your bubble where somehow 1850=2013 and where you ignore factors such as technology and population if you want. I'll continue living in the real world.

Actually this is bullshit. You know that type of bullshit that can be passed on to citizens lacking in objective critical thinking skills.

Texas outperforms California regarding poverty

Sorry, but a blog is not evidence. Try again.

The poverty rate fell by 1 percentage point in Texas, within the margin of error.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

It would help if you both supported your personal opinion with sources and you purged your critical thinking skills of ideological bias to help you identify bogus, misleading or incomplete statistics when you see them.

Yes, I identified misleading or incomplete statistics in your post. Maybe you should try that.

Indeed, it is the larger states that are dominated by inefficient governments whose citizens are suffering the most. Then again, you should welcome competition between the states if you really believe your ideological framework of command economies is beneficial. The world could see first hand the efficacy of your ideology of choice juxtaposed more limited governments in neighboring states.

Thank you fort this straw man. Can you quote me saying that I support a command economy? I support a efficient planned economy. I'm not surprised you don't know the definition between command and planned economy when you don't even know what "statism" means.

Moreover, it appears that it is the larger states that are having the most difficulty further supporting my hypothesis that government closest to the people, governs best.

That doesn't support your hypothesis at all, considering you've made an entire list of assumptions that are quite frankly laughably asinine. You have yet to actually bring empirical evidence supporting this. You've only given me sources that dance around this claim.

It is plainly clear that your vote in an election among a few thousand carries far more weight than the same vote in an election among millions.

To be quite honest, you haven't even explained why this is a better system.

Moreover, it is plainly clear that your tax money invested closer to home carries far more benefits than the same tax dollar invested thousands of miles from home.

Complete and utter bullshit. I would rather my shitty state not have even more control over taxes thank you. I prefer our poor not be fucked over even more.

If you can't surmount this basic self-evident logical hurdle, then it is useless to debate you further.

I am done with you for now.

[/quote]
How cute. You're running away.

[Obamacult]

@ Mavopren,

Predictably, since your post is rife without misinformation, semantic diversions, out right fallacies and pure bullshit -- I will have to dissect, dismantle and dispose of them in detail starting with your first fallacious statement below:

You posted this challenge:

So let me translate this:

"TEH DEBT WILL EAT UR CHILDREEEN AND KEEL US ALL BECAUSE IT EXISTS!"

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

I posted this peer reviewed empirical research in response to your challenge:

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) were the first to point out that a public debt-to-GDP ratio higher than 90% of GDP is associated with considerably lower economic performance in advanced and emerging economies alike

In typical fashion, you posted this unsupported bullshit with a strawman kicker:

In other words, I'm not talking about debt in general, but specially OUR debt (ie the debt of the United States). Furthermore, in your quest to prove me wrong with a straw man, you seem to have admitted that the debt is not destroying our economy. If your source is indeed correct and at 90% debt to GDP ratio decreases economic growth considerably, our current debt is doing no such thing since our public debt to GDP ratio is currently at around 73%.

The following is my response to your bullshit assertion that the public debt to GDP ratio is 'currently at around 73%'.

From the Treasury Department Total outstanding public debt = 16,487,564,297,892.03

From the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 0.5 percent, or $18.0 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $15,829.0 billion. In the third quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 5.9 percent, or $225.4 billion.

Allow me to do the math for you:

$16,487,000,000,000/$15,829,000,000,000 = 104 % Debt to GDP Ratio.

In sum, your bullshit has been called out and exposed.

You stand corrected, yet again.

I eagerly await how you spin this with more bullshit and thus digging yourself into an ever deeper hole.

[Namor]

Well, if we were to break up the Federal Government, we should do it by ideology. For example, the Republicans can get their own republic and the Democrats their own republic. It's only logical.

But still, breaking up the US wouldn't do good for the entire good. Sure, their interventionist foreign policy drives people nuts, but if the US collapses it would be a domino effect, making the economies of China, Europe and elsewhere collapse as well. I say we wait for another hundred years and talk about this.

[Mavorpen]

@ Mavopren,

Predictably, since your post is rife without misinformation, semantic diversions, out right fallacies and pure bullshit -- I will have to dissect, dismantle and dispose of them in detail starting with your first fallacious statement below:

Predictably, you ignored the majority of my post, as you've done several other times so far. I'll repost it for you since I'm a nice guy like that.

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) were the first to point out that a public debt-to-GDP ratio higher than 90% of GDP is associated with considerably lower economic performance in advanced and emerging economies alike

This is called peer reviewed empirical research. I would recommend that you peruse it from time to time, it carries more weight than your personal opinion unsupported by fact or logic or empirical research.

You seem to have a problem with understanding what "claims" are and how to address claims. On nearly every single post, when someone asks for evidence for claim X, you give them evidence for claim Y. You can't go one post without a straw man, can you? You've provided me with evidence for the claim, "debt doesn't matter at all and does not ever bring negative effects on the economy. Which of course wasn't my claim at all. I'll post it again for you, in the hope that you learn from this that making straw man does not move this discussion along:

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

In other words, I'm not talking about debt in general, but specially OUR debt (ie the debt of the United States). Furthermore, in your quest to prove me wrong with a straw man, you seem to have admitted that the debt is not destroying our economy. If your source is indeed correct and at 90% debt to GDP ratio decreases economic growth considerably, our current debt is doing no such thing since our public debt to GDP ratio is currently at around 73%.

I am simply challenging you to respond to the following theory:

The problem of economic calculation by government.

Indeed, when confronted with facts, logic and empirical research you go into a tirade of personal invective and accusations without answering the questions or challenges I pose.

Hilarious. You claim I am not answering your questions or challenges... so you do the exact same fucking thing and refuse to show me where anyone of any meaning has argued this. I'm not going to answer your stupid "challenges" if they're straw man to begin with. Tell me who is arguing this, explain to me what this has anything to do with me, and THEN we can move along.

Not quite true, banks are an economic enterprise and when government engages itself in the economy and accumulates debt and resources, it too, becomes an economic enterprise and thus subject to the same consequences and effects on society at large. So essentially you favor decentralization of one economic entity, but not the other ?!!

That's not how governments work. Governments aren't economic enterprises. They exist to solve collective action problems. Governments can MANAGE economic enterprises, but it cannot be one itself.

Moreover, I think it is self-evident that the federal government is indeed larger than the state governments, hence if/when it fails the consequences to civil society will indeed be more deleterious than if a single isolated state government became insolvent.

You don't seem to understand the phrase, "the benefits outweigh the costs." I mean, that's one of the basics behind economic thought.

I don't follow your logic, or lack thereof, in this statement. You need to clean it up and clarify.

Or you can stop foaming at the mouth and read it.

This is really pure unsupported horseshit because the USA has spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure in the last four years.

Since your the 'expert' on infrastructure then can you cite a figure in dollars of how much more we need to spend?

About $2 trillion over 5 years. I'm confused on what you're arguing here. I claimed that the United States has a shitty infrastructure and you think citing it has spent billions on it refutes that? Sorry, but our infrastructure is in fact, horrendous.

Hence, I am sure your smart enough to know that when government taxes, borrows, prints and spends money that there are opportunity costs associated with transferring capital, labor and other resources from these industries into improving infrastructure.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I cannot grant you the same, as you do not seem to understand that in fact, poor infrastructure is a no no for a growing economy. The question is HOW MUCH spending at once we should do as well as where we should focus the most.

Lastly, are you aware of the Japanese experience spending and borrowing hundreds of billions improving infrastructure?

Read this and respond with your thoughts (I know this is from the rightwing tea party NYTimes, but forgive me, it was all I had):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... d=all&_r=0

I love how your own source proves me right.

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Sweetheart, society does not have unlimited resources, hence when credit is extended to certain public schemes and enterprises then the resources, labor, and capital employed by the use of that credit is denied to private sector actors.

That is where the shortages come into play.

Thank you for not even addressing my point at all.

Last time I checked, receiving 77% return on original investment is called the "fast track to bankruptcy".

Last time I checked.

I just LOVE your backtracking. You stated that people would not get not even half if any of their returns on Social Security. 77% is in fact LARGER than half. Furthermore, if you actually read what I provided, the return would drop only THREE points over a period of 49 years. That's NOWHERE near "fast track to bankruptcy."

Winning in the political arena doesn't imply that your economic policies are sound. Indeed, history is rife with examples of excellent political operatives gaining power only to squander and lose it because of unsound economic policies.

Which is why it's important to note that you've lost BOTH the political argument and the economic argument.

Under the umbrella of significant economic and political meddling from the federal government. Hence, the federal government should be removed from this coercive and destructive regulatory and funding role and focus on responsibilities that it does best and are more critical -- namely protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

And you've still never formulated an argument for this backed up with evidence. Rather, you've thrown links at us about numbers concerning the federal government, never substantiating your claim that the states can handle it better. But it's good to know that you admit the states handle a good number of issues already.

Indeed, federal government meddling on both funding and what is taught in the schools is a bane on quality education taking away considerable autonomy from states, teachers, parents and students by forcing us all to adopt an inefficient and restrictive 'one size fits all' solution.

Yeah, no. That's the fault of individual states, not the federal government. In fact, the federal government has been lately reforming funding to bring higher results, where states have been lazy and unwilling to reform education themselves. I sure as hell cannot fathom how you can blame something that is up to the states on the federal government. You've obviously never been to Texas.

Note that using your implied 'logic' that the states handle health care and retirement is exposed as ridiculous by the fact that the federal government has accumulated over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt that for these 'state managed' enterprises.

Are you saying that states take no part in healthcare? That's possibly the sillies thing I've read yet.

Please explain why the overwhelming majority of nation-states that have the highest GDP per capita are about the size of US states?

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Please explain what this actually says about the efficiency of the states in the United States? You've thrown this out over and over without EVER establishing that it would ever apply to our states. Do you have any empirical evidence or not?

This list shows that growth and living standards can be achieved within a small governing framework. Hence, you don't need a huge state to gain wealth, in fact the opposite may be true in that large states are more difficult to govern.

Source?

In contrast, you want the whole of society, instead of a single state, to risk going to shit on your fetish with Marx and Lenin?!!??!

Nice.

You do know that I'm not a Marxist, right? If I've ever quoted Marx to support my stance, then please show me. Otherwise, this is a hilariously bad Red Herring.

You know, your wonderful and elegant opinion while appreciated is not valid and reliable. Hence, you need to support your insight with at least a shred of fact, logic and empirically supported evidence.

I'd appreciate if you did so, and actually address my claims.

It may not be the way they adjudicate things in leftwing academia, pop culture or the main stream media -- but in the academic, professional and scientific community where I hang out -- we require logic, facts, and empirical evidence.

Source this.

My point was that I am constantly being accused of being intolerant and close-minded despite the fact that I am an active participant in a decidedly leftwing echo chamber.

You are in fact close-minded. So I'm not sure what the problem here is. Your argument was that you are somehow special and are somehow an Übermensch because you're a "lone wolf" right winger going up against the left wing.

No, actually your personal opinion on this matter, while greatly appreciated, doesn't make sense.

Namely your vote in the last presidential election had the effect of 1/120,000,000 and not much else.

Which means that your vote mattered. I'm not sure why you cannot understand why .0000001 is not 0.

Moreover, you picked a candidate who manifestly did not share your views in totality and once elected you have virtually no sway on what is legislated beyond that of any other voter. The real drivers of government economic policy are special interest voting blocs, large corporations and heavily funded PACs.

Which was how the Founding Fathers designed the government. I just love how your insistent whining is against what the Founding Fathers wanted, while seemingly believing them to be angels.

Rote memorization of what is contained in the Federalist papers without a corresponding ability to engage in critical thinking is your downfall. Moreover, your fallacious assertion that you have a monopoly on understanding the ideological motivations of the founding fathers is both arrogant and ludicrous at best.

So basically you HAVEN'T read the Federalist papers? Thank you for admitting this. Please never mention the Founding Fathers again if you do not even have basic knowledge of the arguments used to defend the Constitution.

For example, the founding fathers, you, me, all of us want to create a system of governance that forestalls the emergence of a despot or absolutist. The best way to achieve this end is to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of political and military force in society.

No. The Founding Fathers exposed this route as being completely idiotic and counterproductive. Instead, they limited government in its application of powers (though it does have a limit on its power overall as well).

We both disagree on the means to safeguard political and military force --- I assert that the federal government has gotten too big and corrupted by economic responsibilities that have been dramatically increased over the last 80 years managing economic and social affairs that none of our founding fathers would have approved.

Who gives a shit if they would have approved. THEY HAD NEVER SEEN A CAR BEFORE. No shit individuals from 200 years ago wouldn't understand why the government has expanded at first. I'm sure that once explained to them though, they would laugh you out of the room for espousing an ideology the almost the complete opposite of what they had.

ME: bleed economic power (not political or legal) from Washington back to the states because I trust civil society and 50 smaller and disparate states more than I trust the central government..

YOU: Washington isn't big enough, bleed ever more power from the civil society and states to the federal government because you trust the central government and you don't trust the people and states

Quote me saying any of that or stop with the straw men.

I see your view as manifestly naive and dangerous because it is the federal government that is already the largest, most indebted entity that already possessed most of the political and military power in society. Moreover, our nation did just fine for over 150 years growing from a largely primitive agrarian economy to the greatest economic juggernaut in history without incurring massive levels of structural debt in the process.

Which is of course horse shit. We lagged behind economically and couldn't even create a substantial industry before the Gold Rush. Considering that the nation grew bigger, technology changed, by necessity the government also had to grow. You can live in your bubble where somehow 1850=2013 and where you ignore factors such as technology and population if you want. I'll continue living in the real world.

Actually this is bullshit. You know that type of bullshit that can be passed on to citizens lacking in objective critical thinking skills.

Texas outperforms California regarding poverty

Sorry, but a blog is not evidence. Try again.

The poverty rate fell by 1 percentage point in Texas, within the margin of error.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

It would help if you both supported your personal opinion with sources and you purged your critical thinking skills of ideological bias to help you identify bogus, misleading or incomplete statistics when you see them.

Yes, I identified misleading or incomplete statistics in your post. Maybe you should try that.

Indeed, it is the larger states that are dominated by inefficient governments whose citizens are suffering the most. Then again, you should welcome competition between the states if you really believe your ideological framework of command economies is beneficial. The world could see first hand the efficacy of your ideology of choice juxtaposed more limited governments in neighboring states.

Thank you fort this straw man. Can you quote me saying that I support a command economy? I support a efficient planned economy. I'm not surprised you don't know the definition between command and planned economy when you don't even know what "statism" means.

Moreover, it appears that it is the larger states that are having the most difficulty further supporting my hypothesis that government closest to the people, governs best.

That doesn't support your hypothesis at all, considering you've made an entire list of assumptions that are quite frankly laughably asinine. You have yet to actually bring empirical evidence supporting this. You've only given me sources that dance around this claim.

It is plainly clear that your vote in an election among a few thousand carries far more weight than the same vote in an election among millions.

To be quite honest, you haven't even explained why this is a better system.

Moreover, it is plainly clear that your tax money invested closer to home carries far more benefits than the same tax dollar invested thousands of miles from home.

Complete and utter bullshit. I would rather my shitty state not have even more control over taxes thank you. I prefer our poor not be fucked over even more.

If you can't surmount this basic self-evident logical hurdle, then it is useless to debate you further.

I am done with you for now.

How cute. You're running away.[/quote]

You posted this challenge:
In typical fashion, you posted this unsupported bullshit with a strawman kicker:

Thank you for yet again showing my you don't know what a straw man is. I in fact WAS specifically talking about the debt of the United States, not debt in general. I was specifically telling you to show me that OUR debt RIGHT NOW is destroying our economy. You failed to do so.

The following is my response to your bullshit assertion that the public debt to GDP ratio is 'currently at around 73%'.

From the Treasury Department Total outstanding public debt = 16,487,564,297,892.03

From the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 0.5 percent, or $18.0 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $15,829.0 billion. In the third quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 5.9 percent, or $225.4 billion.

Allow me to do the math for you:

$16,487,000,000,000/$15,829,000,000,000 = 104 % Debt to GDP Ratio.

In sum, your bullshit has been called out and exposed.

You stand corrected, yet again.

I eagerly await how you spin this with more bullshit and thus digging yourself into an ever deeper hole.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over being right.

Now that you've shown us you don't know the difference between public debt and Gross government debt as % of GDP, I think you can understand why no one wants to take you seriously.

But since I'm a nice guy, I'll even anticipate your imminent bullshit where you pretend that you're still right, and provide the explanation for you:

The ratio is higher if the total national debt is used, by adding the "intragovernmental debt" to the "debt held by the public." For example, on 10 January 2013, debt held by the public was approximately $11.577 trillion or about 73% of GDP. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $4.855 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.432 trillion. U.S. GDP in 2012 was approximately $15.6 trillion, for a total debt to GDP ratio of approximately 105%

When "public debt" is talked about, we usually mean debt held by the public, while external debt is the total public and private debt which includes intragovernmental and sub-national public debt.

Yet again, you stand corrected in your so-called "correction."

[Hurdegaryp]

Christ! If there ever was a message that fully deserves the good old TL;DR condemnation, it's that one!

I like how he started it off with his trademark, "oh you want evidence for claimX? I'll give you evidence for claim Y!"

The walls of text just continue and continue and continue. I'm starting to believe somebody forgot to take his medication!

[Mavorpen]

I like how he started it off with his trademark, "oh you want evidence for claimX? I'll give you evidence for claim Y!"

The walls of text just continue and continue and continue. I'm starting to believe somebody forgot to take his medication!

PEELZ HERE

[Azentinia]

Forget abolition of the Federal Government. I would prefer the destruction of the electoral college. The electoral system in the United States is terrible, with an electoral college that makes the vote of a Californian five times less than that of a Vertmontian.We are not in the 18th century and the big bad government is not going to come and get us. Get over your near medieval farce at forming a decent electoral system and get rid of the electoral college.

[Obamacult]

@ Mavopren,

I post data from the US government itself regarding the latest TOTAL public debt and GDP and predictably you engage in a fallacious attempt to subdivide this debt to a level that suits your fallacious argument with a selective wiki link no less.

Note that your argument essentially discounts intergovernmental holdings, including the Social Security Trust Fund, by not including them in the calculation of total debt despite the fact that these obligations owed to the American people must be met by the same financial mechanisms of all debt, namely taxes, borrowing and/or printing money.

From your source:

Debt held by government accounts or intragovernmental debt includes non-marketable Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government that are owed to program beneficiaries, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Debt held by government accounts represents the cumulative surpluses, including interest earnings, of these accounts that have been invested in Treasury securities.

What you apparently don't understand is that the taxpayer monies that have been paid into this fund have already been spent, hence the $2.7 trillion in the fund can only be reimbursed to retirees by one of the three methods previously listed --- taxes, borrowing, and/or printing money -- the same for all debt. Essentially, the only 'asset' backing this intergovernmental debt is the faith and credit of the US government, again that means that the money has already been spent and the trust fund and other intergovernmental holdings represent tangible debt that undermines economic growth going forward. Indeed, Social Security is already a drag on the economy since it was funded by monies from the general fund last year. So much for your Trust Fund.

Hence, this total public debt is the standard by which the empirical research I presented calculates risk that you have fallaciously tried to discount and reject. Indeed, if you can provide evidence from the research that refutes this fact, then have at it.

In sum, your fallacious notion that obligations by the federal government that must be satisfied by taxation, borrowing or printing is manifestly ridiculous and indicative of another one of your transparent two-step diversions.

You stand correct once again.

[Mavorpen]

I post data from the US government itself regarding the latest TOTAL public debt and GDP and predictably you engage in a fallacious attempt to subdivide this debt to a level that suits your fallacious argument with a selective wiki link no less.

No, you only predictably attacked a straw man. When we talk about public debt, we usually talk about debt held by the public. Your failure to understand this is is not my problem.

Note that your argument essentially discounts intergovernmental holdings, including the Social Security Trust Fund, by not including them in the calculation of total debt despite the fact that these obligations owed to the American people must be met by the same financial mechanisms of all debt, namely taxes, borrowing and/or printing money.

No, considering it wasn't an argument. It was a claim. A claim that you took and constructed a straw man based upon it.

What you apparently don't understand is that the taxpayer monies that have been paid into this fund have already been spent, hence the $2.7 trillion in the fund can only be reimbursed to retirees by one of the three methods previously listed --- taxes, borrowing, and/or printing money -- the same for all debt. Essentially, the only 'asset' backing this intergovernmental debt is the faith and credit of the US government, again that means that the money has already been spent and the trust fund and other intergovernmental holdings represent tangible debt that undermines economic growth going forward. Indeed, Social Security is already a drag on the economy since it was funded by monies from the general fund last year. So much for your Trust Fund.

What the fuck does ANY of this have to do with my post? Since when did this turn from your inability to distinguish between external debt and public debt turn into me making an argument about Social Security?

Hence, this total public debt is the standard by which the empirical research I presented calculates risk that you have fallaciously tried to discount and reject. Indeed, if you can provide evidence from the research that refutes this fact, then have at it.

Source this.

In sum, your fallacious notion that obligations by the federal government that must be satisfied by taxation, borrowing or printing is manifestly ridiculous and indicative of another one of your transparent two-step diversions.

You stand correct once again.

I just love how you ignored the fact that you don't know the difference between public and external debt, and chose to construct several straw men in one post. Quote me saying anything about Social Security in my post and quote me saying anything about, "obligations by the federal government that must be satisfied by taxation, borrowing or printing." Either stay on topic and stop dancing around your failure to distinguish between types of debt or don't reply. You also ignored most of my post. I'll post it yet again for you.

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) were the first to point out that a public debt-to-GDP ratio higher than 90% of GDP is associated with considerably lower economic performance in advanced and emerging economies alike

This is called peer reviewed empirical research. I would recommend that you peruse it from time to time, it carries more weight than your personal opinion unsupported by fact or logic or empirical research.

You seem to have a problem with understanding what "claims" are and how to address claims. On nearly every single post, when someone asks for evidence for claim X, you give them evidence for claim Y. You can't go one post without a straw man, can you? You've provided me with evidence for the claim, "debt doesn't matter at all and does not ever bring negative effects on the economy. Which of course wasn't my claim at all. I'll post it again for you, in the hope that you learn from this that making straw man does not move this discussion along:

Fantastic circular logic. Your argument is essentially that the debt is a big problem...because debt is bad. Care to show us how it's destroying our economy?

In other words, I'm not talking about debt in general, but specially OUR debt (ie the debt of the United States). Furthermore, in your quest to prove me wrong with a straw man, you seem to have admitted that the debt is not destroying our economy. If your source is indeed correct and at 90% debt to GDP ratio decreases economic growth considerably, our current debt is doing no such thing since our public debt to GDP ratio is currently at around 73%.

I am simply challenging you to respond to the following theory:

The problem of economic calculation by government.

Indeed, when confronted with facts, logic and empirical research you go into a tirade of personal invective and accusations without answering the questions or challenges I pose.

Hilarious. You claim I am not answering your questions or challenges... so you do the exact same fucking thing and refuse to show me where anyone of any meaning has argued this. I'm not going to answer your stupid "challenges" if they're straw man to begin with. Tell me who is arguing this, explain to me what this has anything to do with me, and THEN we can move along.

Not quite true, banks are an economic enterprise and when government engages itself in the economy and accumulates debt and resources, it too, becomes an economic enterprise and thus subject to the same consequences and effects on society at large. So essentially you favor decentralization of one economic entity, but not the other ?!!

That's not how governments work. Governments aren't economic enterprises. They exist to solve collective action problems. Governments can MANAGE economic enterprises, but it cannot be one itself.

Moreover, I think it is self-evident that the federal government is indeed larger than the state governments, hence if/when it fails the consequences to civil society will indeed be more deleterious than if a single isolated state government became insolvent.

You don't seem to understand the phrase, "the benefits outweigh the costs." I mean, that's one of the basics behind economic thought.

I don't follow your logic, or lack thereof, in this statement. You need to clean it up and clarify.

Or you can stop foaming at the mouth and read it.

This is really pure unsupported horseshit because the USA has spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure in the last four years.

Since your the 'expert' on infrastructure then can you cite a figure in dollars of how much more we need to spend?

About $2 trillion over 5 years. I'm confused on what you're arguing here. I claimed that the United States has a shitty infrastructure and you think citing it has spent billions on it refutes that? Sorry, but our infrastructure is in fact, horrendous.

Hence, I am sure your smart enough to know that when government taxes, borrows, prints and spends money that there are opportunity costs associated with transferring capital, labor and other resources from these industries into improving infrastructure.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I cannot grant you the same, as you do not seem to understand that in fact, poor infrastructure is a no no for a growing economy. The question is HOW MUCH spending at once we should do as well as where we should focus the most.

Lastly, are you aware of the Japanese experience spending and borrowing hundreds of billions improving infrastructure?

Read this and respond with your thoughts (I know this is from the rightwing tea party NYTimes, but forgive me, it was all I had):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... d=all&_r=0

I love how your own source proves me right.

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Sweetheart, society does not have unlimited resources, hence when credit is extended to certain public schemes and enterprises then the resources, labor, and capital employed by the use of that credit is denied to private sector actors.

That is where the shortages come into play.

Thank you for not even addressing my point at all.

Last time I checked, receiving 77% return on original investment is called the "fast track to bankruptcy".

Last time I checked.

I just LOVE your backtracking. You stated that people would not get not even half if any of their returns on Social Security. 77% is in fact LARGER than half. Furthermore, if you actually read what I provided, the return would drop only THREE points over a period of 49 years. That's NOWHERE near "fast track to bankruptcy."

Winning in the political arena doesn't imply that your economic policies are sound. Indeed, history is rife with examples of excellent political operatives gaining power only to squander and lose it because of unsound economic policies.

Which is why it's important to note that you've lost BOTH the political argument and the economic argument.

Under the umbrella of significant economic and political meddling from the federal government. Hence, the federal government should be removed from this coercive and destructive regulatory and funding role and focus on responsibilities that it does best and are more critical -- namely protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

And you've still never formulated an argument for this backed up with evidence. Rather, you've thrown links at us about numbers concerning the federal government, never substantiating your claim that the states can handle it better. But it's good to know that you admit the states handle a good number of issues already.

Indeed, federal government meddling on both funding and what is taught in the schools is a bane on quality education taking away considerable autonomy from states, teachers, parents and students by forcing us all to adopt an inefficient and restrictive 'one size fits all' solution.

Yeah, no. That's the fault of individual states, not the federal government. In fact, the federal government has been lately reforming funding to bring higher results, where states have been lazy and unwilling to reform education themselves. I sure as hell cannot fathom how you can blame something that is up to the states on the federal government. You've obviously never been to Texas.

Note that using your implied 'logic' that the states handle health care and retirement is exposed as ridiculous by the fact that the federal government has accumulated over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt that for these 'state managed' enterprises.

Are you saying that states take no part in healthcare? That's possibly the sillies thing I've read yet.

Please explain why the overwhelming majority of nation-states that have the highest GDP per capita are about the size of US states?

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Please explain what this actually says about the efficiency of the states in the United States? You've thrown this out over and over without EVER establishing that it would ever apply to our states. Do you have any empirical evidence or not?

This list shows that growth and living standards can be achieved within a small governing framework. Hence, you don't need a huge state to gain wealth, in fact the opposite may be true in that large states are more difficult to govern.

Source?

In contrast, you want the whole of society, instead of a single state, to risk going to shit on your fetish with Marx and Lenin?!!??!

Nice.

You do know that I'm not a Marxist, right? If I've ever quoted Marx to support my stance, then please show me. Otherwise, this is a hilariously bad Red Herring.

You know, your wonderful and elegant opinion while appreciated is not valid and reliable. Hence, you need to support your insight with at least a shred of fact, logic and empirically supported evidence.

I'd appreciate if you did so, and actually address my claims.

It may not be the way they adjudicate things in leftwing academia, pop culture or the main stream media -- but in the academic, professional and scientific community where I hang out -- we require logic, facts, and empirical evidence.

Source this.

My point was that I am constantly being accused of being intolerant and close-minded despite the fact that I am an active participant in a decidedly leftwing echo chamber.

You are in fact close-minded. So I'm not sure what the problem here is. Your argument was that you are somehow special and are somehow an Übermensch because you're a "lone wolf" right winger going up against the left wing.

No, actually your personal opinion on this matter, while greatly appreciated, doesn't make sense.

Namely your vote in the last presidential election had the effect of 1/120,000,000 and not much else.

Which means that your vote mattered. I'm not sure why you cannot understand why .0000001 is not 0.

Moreover, you picked a candidate who manifestly did not share your views in totality and once elected you have virtually no sway on what is legislated beyond that of any other voter. The real drivers of government economic policy are special interest voting blocs, large corporations and heavily funded PACs.

Which was how the Founding Fathers designed the government. I just love how your insistent whining is against what the Founding Fathers wanted, while seemingly believing them to be angels.

Rote memorization of what is contained in the Federalist papers without a corresponding ability to engage in critical thinking is your downfall. Moreover, your fallacious assertion that you have a monopoly on understanding the ideological motivations of the founding fathers is both arrogant and ludicrous at best.

So basically you HAVEN'T read the Federalist papers? Thank you for admitting this. Please never mention the Founding Fathers again if you do not even have basic knowledge of the arguments used to defend the Constitution.

For example, the founding fathers, you, me, all of us want to create a system of governance that forestalls the emergence of a despot or absolutist. The best way to achieve this end is to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of political and military force in society.

No. The Founding Fathers exposed this route as being completely idiotic and counterproductive. Instead, they limited government in its application of powers (though it does have a limit on its power overall as well).

We both disagree on the means to safeguard political and military force --- I assert that the federal government has gotten too big and corrupted by economic responsibilities that have been dramatically increased over the last 80 years managing economic and social affairs that none of our founding fathers would have approved.

Who gives a shit if they would have approved. THEY HAD NEVER SEEN A CAR BEFORE. No shit individuals from 200 years ago wouldn't understand why the government has expanded at first. I'm sure that once explained to them though, they would laugh you out of the room for espousing an ideology the almost the complete opposite of what they had.

ME: bleed economic power (not political or legal) from Washington back to the states because I trust civil society and 50 smaller and disparate states more than I trust the central government..

YOU: Washington isn't big enough, bleed ever more power from the civil society and states to the federal government because you trust the central government and you don't trust the people and states

Quote me saying any of that or stop with the straw men.

I see your view as manifestly naive and dangerous because it is the federal government that is already the largest, most indebted entity that already possessed most of the political and military power in society. Moreover, our nation did just fine for over 150 years growing from a largely primitive agrarian economy to the greatest economic juggernaut in history without incurring massive levels of structural debt in the process.

Which is of course horse shit. We lagged behind economically and couldn't even create a substantial industry before the Gold Rush. Considering that the nation grew bigger, technology changed, by necessity the government also had to grow. You can live in your bubble where somehow 1850=2013 and where you ignore factors such as technology and population if you want. I'll continue living in the real world.

Actually this is bullshit. You know that type of bullshit that can be passed on to citizens lacking in objective critical thinking skills.

Texas outperforms California regarding poverty

Sorry, but a blog is not evidence. Try again.

The poverty rate fell by 1 percentage point in Texas, within the margin of error.

I actually lol'd. You're celebrating over a decrease in 1 percentage point of the poverty rate? Did you even read past that?

Still, Texas had the sixth highest rate among states. About 4.5 million Texans, or 17.4 percent, lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, a figure that included nearly 1.8 million children, or 25.8 percent of all Texas children.
"Poverty is a serious problem that we cannot afford to ignore," Celia Cole with the Texas Food Bank Network said in a statement. "Our food banks are serving record numbers of families struggling to put food on the table, but we cannot do it alone. We need everyone and every resource at the table to tackle poverty and its symptoms."

Note that the Census.gov has developed a more accurate and substantive poverty index that takes into account differences in cost of living from state to state -- hence, the poverty numbers previously cited for states like Texas that have significantly lower costs of living have declined while states that have high costs of living like California have increased.

Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 2-215.html

I lol'd.

The only states that have higher Supplemental poverty rates are Hawaii, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Mississippi, and Arizona (D.C. also has a higher rate). This means that Texas is in the top 10 for highest supplemental poverty rates.

It would help if you both supported your personal opinion with sources and you purged your critical thinking skills of ideological bias to help you identify bogus, misleading or incomplete statistics when you see them.

Yes, I identified misleading or incomplete statistics in your post. Maybe you should try that.

Indeed, it is the larger states that are dominated by inefficient governments whose citizens are suffering the most. Then again, you should welcome competition between the states if you really believe your ideological framework of command economies is beneficial. The world could see first hand the efficacy of your ideology of choice juxtaposed more limited governments in neighboring states.

Thank you fort this straw man. Can you quote me saying that I support a command economy? I support a efficient planned economy. I'm not surprised you don't know the definition between command and planned economy when you don't even know what "statism" means.

Moreover, it appears that it is the larger states that are having the most difficulty further supporting my hypothesis that government closest to the people, governs best.

That doesn't support your hypothesis at all, considering you've made an entire list of assumptions that are quite frankly laughably asinine. You have yet to actually bring empirical evidence supporting this. You've only given me sources that dance around this claim.

It is plainly clear that your vote in an election among a few thousand carries far more weight than the same vote in an election among millions.

To be quite honest, you haven't even explained why this is a better system.

Moreover, it is plainly clear that your tax money invested closer to home carries far more benefits than the same tax dollar invested thousands of miles from home.

Complete and utter bullshit. I would rather my shitty state not have even more control over taxes thank you. I prefer our poor not be fucked over even more.

If you can't surmount this basic self-evident logical hurdle, then it is useless to debate you further.

I am done with you for now.

How cute. You're running away.[/quote]

[Obamacult]

@Mavopren,

I have always asserted and proved that government taxation and spending in the economy undermines economic growth and with it living standards that are dependent on growth.

I produce the following theory as one of the arguments that explain the empirical truths stated above:

I am simply challenging you to respond to the following theory:

The problem of economic calculation by government.

Indeed, when confronted with facts, logic and empirical research you go into a tirade of personal invective and accusations without answering the questions or challenges I pose.

Predictably, you have ran and hid from my challenge to respond to the economic calculation problem facing government intrusion into the economy.

Hilarious. You claim I am not answering your questions or challenges... so you do the exact same fucking thing and refuse to show me where anyone of any meaning has argued this. I'm not going to answer your stupid "challenges" if they're straw man to begin with. Tell me who is arguing this, explain to me what this has anything to do with me, and THEN we can move along.

This is pertinent because it provides one of many logical arguments to explain the empirical knowledge that shows that increases in government taxation and debt undermines economic growth.

I eagerly await another one of your two-step fallacious and semantic diversions.

[Mavorpen]

I have always asserted and proved that government taxation and spending in the economy undermines economic growth and with it living standards that are dependent on growth.

You haven't proven anything.

I produce the following theory as one of the arguments that explain the empirical truths stated above:

Predictably, you have ran and hid from my challenge to respond to the economic calculation problem facing government intrusion into the economy.

Ah, I see. I think I finally understand. You're using straw men, KNOWING that I'll call them out and that I'll just ignore your "challenges," then you shit on the board and fly away proclaiming yourself the winner. What an interesting method of debating.

This is pertinent because it provides one of many logical arguments to explain the empirical knowledge that shows that increases in government taxation and debt undermines economic growth.

No, it isn't. It isn't pertinent to ANYTHING that was said in the post that you had responded to. Your challenges should be pertinent to my arguments and my posts. If they aren't, they're silly straw men that I'm not going to take seriously.

I eagerly await another one of your two-step fallacious and semantic diversions my destruction at your hand by pointing out my silly straw men.

[/quote]
Fixed.

[Obamacult]

With respect to this bullshit "data mining" exercise in which you disingenuously cited the ONLY positive statement in the entire article
to your fallacious assertion that infrastructure spending is the causal mechanism to the current economic malaise.

Here are the paragraphs that came after the contextual disinformation that your posted:

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Moreover, it matters what gets built: Japan spent too much on increasingly wasteful roads and bridges, and not enough in areas like education and social services, which studies show deliver more bang for the buck than infrastructure spending.

“It is not enough just to hire workers to dig holes and then fill them in again,” said Toshihiro Ihori, an economics professor at the University of Tokyo. “One lesson from Japan is that public works get the best results when they create something useful for the future.”

In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office. The spending peaked in 1995 and remained high until the early 2000s, when it was cut amid growing concerns about ballooning budget deficits. More recently, the governing Liberal Democratic Party has increased spending again to revive the economy and the party’s own flagging popularity.

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

Red = the bullshit you posted.

Blue = the findings that you didn't post.

In sum, I cited a demonstrably leftwing source to support my assertions, and predictably you have disengeniously taken a snippet of the article and tried to present this contextually dishonest fraction as indicative of the entire thrust of the article.

Or in the very least, you have again engaged in a bullshit practice of data mining a fraction of the whole to dismiss the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports a complete opposite conclusion.

I eagerly await another fallacious data mining exercise

[Obamacult]

I have always asserted and proved that government taxation and spending in the economy undermines economic growth and with it living standards that are dependent on growth.

You haven't proven anything.

I produce the following theory as one of the arguments that explain the empirical truths stated above:

Ah, I see. I think I finally understand. You're using straw men, KNOWING that I'll call them out and that I'll just ignore your "challenges," then you shit on the board and fly away proclaiming yourself the winner. What an interesting method of debating.

This is pertinent because it provides one of many logical arguments to explain the empirical knowledge that shows that increases in government taxation and debt undermines economic growth.

No, it isn't. It isn't pertinent to ANYTHING that was said in the post that you had responded to. Your challenges should be pertinent to my arguments and my posts. If they aren't, they're silly straw men that I'm not going to take seriously.

I eagerly await another one of your two-step fallacious and semantic diversions my destruction at your hand by pointing out my silly straw men.

Fixed.[/quote]


I am not trying to prove anything by challenging you for the 3rd time to respond to one of the logical argument that supports and explains the empirical evidence that increases in government taxation and debt undermine economic growth.

Hilariously, you are claiming a question/challenge is not pertinent. Of course, it is. It is fundamental to my assertions that profligate government debt and spending undermines growth.

If you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to respond to a simple challenge -- admit it and move on -- but this diversion and evasion to a simple challenge reflects negatively on your standing since it indicates a manifest inability to both understand and challenge the logical foundation upon which my positions are supported.

[Mavorpen]

Red = the bullshit you posted.

Blue = the findings that you didn't post.

In sum, I cited a demonstrably leftwing source to support my assertions, and predictably you have disengeniously taken a snippet of the article and tried to present this contextually dishonest fraction as indicative of the entire thrust of the article.

Actually, no. The entire point was that you completely ignored the part of the article where it stated that infrastructure spending can be very beneficial. One of my main arguments is that public spending can improve economic outcomes. Your source admits this.

I ALSO acknowledged that Japan's experience showed us that you need to know what to spend on and that you need to spend your money wisely.

Read your sources please. I have not argued that we should just throw money at infrastructure. We need to plan smart.

Or in the very least, you have again engaged in a bullshit practice of data mining a fraction of the whole to dismiss the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports a complete opposite conclusion.

Only if you haven't been reading my posts, which it seems you haven't been.

I eagerly await another fallacious data mining exercise you exposing my failure to read your posts or understand your arguments.

Fixed.

[Mavorpen]

I am not trying to prove anything by challenging you for the 3rd time to respond to one of the logical argument that supports and explains the empirical evidence that increases in government taxation and debt undermine economic growth.

And I'm telling you for the third time that I don't respond to straw men. Make your own fucking argument.

Hilariously, you are claiming a question/challenge is not pertinent. Of course, it is. It is fundamental to my assertions that profligate government debt and spending undermines growth.

And it has jack shit to do with anything I've argued or anything to do with the post that I made that you replied to. If you reply to my post, you should reply to my post.

If you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to respond to a simple challenge -- admit it and move on -- but this diversion and evasion to a simple challenge reflects negatively on your standing since it indicates a manifest inability to both understand and challenge the logical foundation upon which my positions are supported.

If you don't have the intellectual honesty to understand that your ranting has utterly nothing to do with my posts, don't reply to me.

[Obamacult]

Amusingly, or perhaps tragically, you cite findings from the American Society of Civil Engineers as your go to source to support your fallacious and ridiculous assertion that the US infrastructure is deficient ??!!

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Did it ever occur to you that a professional organization that makes its living on building infrastructure might have a little bias associated with their findings that assert the need for additional funding ?????

Just asking, so don't be hatin'.