Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Free Detroit]

The nations that manage social programs are smaller. Hence, government that governs closer to the people, governs best. IN contrast, federal government meddling and regulation has undermined the ability of the states and private individuals and enterprises to address poverty.

This I won't argue with. Like I said, there are other models for social welfare. For example, Minnesota had a great (and *gasp* profitable) public health care program before Tim Pawlenty dismantled it for his own political ambitions. It was cheap - even single white males could get coverage for under $30 per month, including dental, psych, and eyeglasses - and provided top-notch care.

Indeed,non-profit private charity provides far more bang for the buck when compared with the profit seeking government solutions.

Possibly, though this is pretty shaky without hard evidence. A big problem is that non-profit charities are notoriously unstable and unreliable. In addition, they rely on private donations, which unfortunately will not meet all social needs. The other big problem is that the regular rules of supply and demand don't apply to private charity; because money is assigned arbitrarily, you end up with exactly the same problems of mal-distribution as in a command economy.

And if you are naive enough to think that the trillions spent on welfare and health care are not making politicians and politically connected crony capitalists rich --- I got a bridge to sell you in the East River.

I am not so naive, by a long shot. But, I got a bucketful of cliches you might be interested in acquiring...

And I can destroy you government argument with two words --- people mover.

Well, that was certainly a move by a "close to the people" government too, so mind the double edge there. However, compare the mass transit systems of any state in the US - hell, compare any transportation system in the US - to the (government funded) transportation infrastructure of developed countries in Europe or Asia, and the joke's on you. The comparison of the US's finest airports to those in Tehran or Delhi are not off mark.

For another example, I just rode a governemnt-owned high speed train from Taipei to Kaohsiung to visit family for the (Lunar) New Year in absolute luxury... for $40 USD (maybe $60 USD if we adjust for income and cost-of-living differences). Taiwan ain't rich compared to the US, and they have a hell of a lot more people to take care of with the money they've got. Still, tey can provide cheap, effective, and very comfortable public transit systems

tens of millions in federal matching dollars to fund a demonstrably stupid and wasteful crony capitalist boondoggle and you and other progressive talk about the poor !!??

I am the poor, always have been. I am also solidly against crony capitalism, and inefficient government welfare programs. What's your point?

How does wasting hundreds of billions on government spending help anyone?

Hmm? How does wasting money help? Shit, you stumped me.

And the following is just health care whose waste will continue and continue until the nation is bankrupt and no social program however necessary will be funded:

In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments.

Yep, our social welfare system is broken. I argued that from the start. Again, you're not making advances with me here.

In contrast, when a private sector firm fails to this degree, the managers of this waste are removed from their control of vital labor, capital and wealth to the benefit of society.

This is not the reality of how private sector firms work, nor how the engage with the rest of society. Perhaps, if they were so heavily in debt and losing money like our government, someone would pull the plug to save their own pocketbook. Sure, I'll grant you that. However, the fact is that private sector firms cannot be committed to social welfare; it is utterly against the nature of private industry. The private sector works despite public welfare, and we have ample historical evidence to show that capitalism tend to have a deleterious effect on public welfare unless it is rigorously regulated by some kind of governing body.

What you don't understand is that you are not arguing with "the other progressives" - you're arguing with me. I have no illusions about government as a solution to our problems; in fact, I am opposed to most forms of government and agree with you entirely on the issue of local governance. However, as I do not believe that the federal government is capable of effectively regulating the private sector, which, as I've said, does have a deleterious effect on quality of life for most people due to its imperative to concentrate wealth amongst few elites at the expense of the masses, I propose an entirely different order than either capitalism or state socialism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Congratulations. You've offically lost any and all possible credibility. I, for one, fail to see how the robber barons, the racial bigotry, segregation, and other forms of inequality that practically defined that period are 'managing fine'.

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

http://www.academia.org/bankrupt-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists

http://mises.org/daily/2317

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

"...show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking..."

...and then posts a load of ideological spoonfeeding.

[Neo Art]

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

http://www.academia.org/bankrupt-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists

http://mises.org/daily/2317

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

"...show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking..."

...and then posts a load of ideological spoonfeeding.

TECHNICALLY he posted the load of ideological spoonfeeding THEN told you to be objective.

I mean, it's still fucking pathetic, but at least let's get the order of operations correct.

edit: jesus christ, I waste my 10,000th post on THAT?

[Grave_n_idle]

"...show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking..."

...and then posts a load of ideological spoonfeeding.

TECHNICALLY he posted the load of ideological spoonfeeding THEN told you to be objective.

I mean, it's still fucking pathetic, but at least let's get the order of operations correct.

It just made me think of:

[Conserative Morality]

It just made me think of:

(Image)

Sadly, xkcd went from making fun of those people to becoming the embodiment of those people.

[Hungaristan]

Anarchy 2016!

[Neo Art]

It just made me think of:

(Image)

Sadly, xkcd went from making fun of those people to becoming the embodiment of those people.

wow. That's, like, hipster squared. That should earn some kind of fucking medal.

[Grassroots (Ancient)]

The United States government is broke, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. Is it time to downsize this unyeilding, "too big to fail" behemoth that is as unresponsive as it is detached from Main Street?

Wouldn't it be far better to transfer in totality the responsibilities for taxing and regulating transportation, health care, retirement, education, etc. to the individual states and leave national defense to the Federal government?

The benefit of transferring power to the individual state capitals:

1) government that governs closest to the people, governs best.

2) government that is decentralized among the individual states represents less a threat to civil, political and economic freedoms than a strong central government.

3) Fifty disparate and competing ongoing civil, political and economic experiments in governance instead of inefficient and unresponsive one-size fits all solutions emanating from Washington. Hence, society can learn from other's mistakes without those mistakes negatively impacting the rest of society.

4) corruption is easier to uncover and identify when it is perpetrated from a smaller population group. For example, corrupt policies in Washington are barely perceptible because of the highly concentrated benefits and the highly dispersed costs associated with the large population it is servicing.

5) a collection of largely sovereign states is not 'too big to fail' when contrasted with the central government in Washington that has accumulated over $100 trillion in unfunded debt by many estimates.

6) if a citizen rejects the size, scope and direction of taxation and regulation within a particular state -- it is far easier to voice your displeasure by moving to an adjacent state with different policies than to immigrate from the United States.

7) individual states will be competing against each other for societal capital and labor -- hence this competition will inspire more responsive government -- in contrast, the Federal government recognizes that it has no competition, hence their callous attitude is 'if you don't like, get out'.

8 ) demographics and geography are different from region to region and state to state -- hence, developing a one-size fits all policy in Washington in not practical or efficient. Allowing individual states to govern their own unique conditions and affairs is far more efficient.

9) Today only 500+ politicians control trillions of dollars in wealth by tax and regulatory powers that represents the greatest concentration of economic power (monopoly status) in the history of the world. I believe that never have so few, control so much, as the politicians in Washington today. However, by decentralizing this power to the individual states, the allure of corruption will be significantly less because those in political power will have less wealth to redistribute at their disposal.

These are a few of the positives (admittedly, many overlapping) that would result from decentralizing power from a too big to fail behemoth that forces a one-size fits all policy on the rest of the nation in a distant largely unresponsive and opaque government that has demonstrated it is manifestly inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt:

Survival level threat to the Republic

If you're gonna list the pros of this idea...why not also show the cons? Nothing in life is one-side, you know.

Except Obama.

[YellowApple]

Sadly, xkcd went from making fun of those people to becoming the embodiment of those people.

wow. That's, like, hipster squared. That should earn some kind of fucking medal.

[Death Metal]

It just made me think of:

(Image)

Sadly, xkcd went from making fun of those people to becoming the embodiment of those people.

Really though, it never wasn't. But don't tell the fanbois that.

[Obamacult]

I am sorry, but your personal opinion presented ad nauseam and fallaciously as a 'vast array of evidence', while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable evidence.

The unreliability of the scholarship of von Mises, and his fanclub is not a personal opinion. It's an objective fact; it's why they form their little ideological circlejerk and don't publish in peer reviewed journals. It's why their "scholarship" is not cited by people working in the academic disciplines. It is not worth the paper it is printed on.

You keep pretending that people haven't presented arguments, data, or valid evidence against you. You should really stop that, because it's pretty transparent.

Indeed, if you challenge the problem of economic calculation proposed by Mises, Hayek, et al -- then present your argument absent the ad hominems.

Why should I? We've already done this once, and you didn't even understand von Mises's economic calculation argument, or how it was a) vastly different from Hayeks b) relied upon pseudoscience or c) isn't really considered a good argument against planning by academic economists, regardless of their ideological affiliation.

It would be greatly appreciated.

No it wouldn't. Stop lying.

Bullshit. You haven't refuted anything I have offered in your last comment, this thread, or any other thread, much less refuted the economic calculation problem associated with command economies.

Indeed, your last post is representative of virtually all of your previous posts --- completely devoid of any objective factual, logical or empirically supported evidence -- it is simply more of the same -- your personal opinion.

For example, provide your argument refuting the inability of a command economy managed by a cabal of bureaucrats to efficiently and timely determine price and production quotas.

You can't, because they can't -- the aggregate machinations of a peaceful, voluntary, dynamic and free market can best allocate societal resources in real time thereby correctly determining prices and supply. While never perfect, this system is the most efficient known to man and since the advent of capitalism in the 18th century, mankind has seen a marked improvement in living standards and life expectancy (at least in regions and states where capitalism is most practiced).

INdeed, the former Soviet Union had more engineers per capita than most Western nations and more trees than any other nation -- yet couldn't make enough toilet paper to wipe their collective asses. Yet, ironically we still have statists on this forum and others who naively sing the praises of government mismanagement of societal resources.

Lastly, we are approaching the endgame of this coercive and inefficient folly --- and the young who are victims of generational theft will be those most effected -- and ironically many of these same young are helping tie the knot that will be cast over their collective heads within our lifetime.

Your noose

[Obamacult]

"...show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking..."

...and then posts a load of ideological spoonfeeding.

TECHNICALLY he posted the load of ideological spoonfeeding THEN told you to be objective.

I mean, it's still fucking pathetic, but at least let's get the order of operations correct.

edit: jesus christ, I waste my 10,000th post on THAT?

Refute away, then.

Otherwise, your personal opinion devoid of any factual, logical and empirically supported evidence just confirms my views or in the very least does nothing to refute them.

[Stanisburg]

So the proposal is to turn the US into the EU (common currency and central bank, open borders, no centralized regulatory system)?

What could go wrong?

(Hint--the South is Greece)

Bullshit. Indeed, Greece's economy would have collapsed with or without membership in the EU. And the consequences to Europe would have been the same whether the EU existed or not.

Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that individual states can be expected to go bankrupt, hence, in contrast to the debacle in Europe, the US government could more easily step in and address this financial collapse and restructure the offending state's government and debt.

See previous posts.

This is preferable to a central government collapsing. Moreover, by surrendering many economic responsibilities to the states or individual citizens -- the federal government will become far less vulnerable to economic collapse associated with unsustainable entitlement spending that today represents over $100,000,000,000,000 in unfunded debt.

In addition, a federal government devoted primarily to protecting life, liberty and private property will be far less subject to corruption and influence peddling than the present government that has its corrupt fingers in virtually every industry.

This distraction undermines the true and beneficial role of a central government.

In sum, we have states that can manage many of the economic and social issues that the federal government now manages to the detriment and distraction of more critical responsibiilties of a federal government, namely those outlined above -- preserving and promoting life, liberty and private property.

The EU prevents Greece from setting its own monetary and trade policies. Without it, they could respond to domestic economic conditions by adjusting their money supply, revaluing their currency, or using tariffs to offset trade imbalances. All of that, however, would have negative effects on overall European trade and hence economic growth in Greece itself, which is presumably why they joined the EU in the first place.

Trouble is, now they've got a major trade deficit problem, and there's basically nothing they can do about it. That (aside from rampant tax evasion) is the real reason they don't have the money to pay off their public debt. They could default and exit the euro, but the Germans are unlikely to let that happen because something like 70% of German manufacturing is production for export, and economies like Greece, Spain, and Ireland are their best customers. Importing from a country with a stronger currency is more expensive than consuming your own domestic production, so Greece going back on a severely weakened drachma would actually mean the Germans losing a major benefit of being in a currency union with a weaker economy. This would promote economic stability in Greece at the expense of slower overall growth in European markets.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 for everyone. Contrary to Austrian School ideological fantasies, unregulated markets don't magically correct every single problem that they produce. (In the real world, I mean, which tends to be messier than the simplistic universe described by any utopian model of a theoretical society.) One such problem that tends to entrench itself rather than correct itself is the increase in debt which happens when richer people trade with poorer people, or less productive economies trade with more productive ones. (Keynes was far from infallible, but he was correct in diagnosing this problem.) The producers need the consumers to keep consuming, so they tend to extend credit in order to stem the gap in consumers' ability to pay. This is very bad from a macroeconomic perspective, but entirely consistent with classical microeconomic incentives. (Federal housing policy probably helped the mortgage crisis happen, but it would likely have happened anyway because without an expansion of the mortgage market, stagnating incomes would have caused a slow decline in housing sales from the 1970's on, making the Reagan pseudo-Recovery impossible.) Hence, unregulated markets characterized by pronounced wealth disparities are prone to instability, particularly in the form of debt bubbles. I'm aware that neoclassical ideologues like Friedman and Hayek say otherwise, but the facts don't agree with them. This is why you're about to resort to a "no true Scotsman" argument to rebut this--Hayekian economies only exist in Hayek's head, and the heads of his followers.

Luckily, there is an alternative way around this problem, which is how the U.S. currently handles economic disparities between richer and poorer states--tax the wealthier segments of the market (New York/Germany) and use the money to underwrite the infrastructure expenses and cost of living for the poorer segments of the market (Greece/Alabama). This serves to stem the gap between supply and demand without resorting to the expansion of a debt market which will eventually create a default crisis.

(And here's where I point out that our public debt problem has an important attribute in common with Greece's--it has tended to grow as we become a net importer, and China, the most significant exporter in this process, is increasingly interested in lending our government money. We were able to fund a huge welfare state just fine when we were a major industrial exporter, and Germany is doing just fine funding their even huger welfare state now.)

Unfortunately for the EU, they have no federal body empowered to do things like that, so they're kind of up shit creek for the time being. The Germans can either lose money forgiving Greece's debts, or lose money forgoing Greek consumption of their exports via either a Greek exit from the euro or the effects of Greek austerity policies.

This is what you want for us? (More or less--I mean, how is federal intervention after states go bankrupt all that different from federal interventions designed to keep them solvent in the first place? Not that the feds are doing that very effectively now--on the question of present federal competence, I can agree with you.)

[Trotskylvania]

Bullshit. You haven't refuted anything I have offered in your last comment, this thread, or any other thread, much less refuted the economic calculation problem associated with command economies.

Technically true, because you haven't offered anything to this thread to refute but unfalsifiable gibberish.

Indeed, your last post is representative of virtually all of your previous posts --- completely devoid of any objective factual, logical or empirically supported evidence -- it is simply more of the same -- your personal opinion.

No. My personal opinion didn't enter into it one bit. I was summarizing academic opinion. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to go to your local university library and take a look at the peer reviewed journals for yourself.

For example, provide your argument refuting the inability of a command economy managed by a cabal of bureaucrats to efficiently and timely determine price and production quotas.

I don't have to, because I never made any such proposition. No one did. What I did was demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of your own argument. You didn't even know that Hayek and Mises' economic calculation arguments were two completely different arguments, and treated them like one. Further, you haven't once demonstrated you even understand what the economic calculation argument is. You just cite it because you're lazy, not understanding why either of them were arguing.

And for the record, Mises argument is shit compared to Hayek. Mises's calculation problem was, like all of his work, admittedly anti-empiricist because he believed that economics was like math, and knowable through pure reason.

Hayek's argument, on the other hand, based on the difficulties of collecting and processing the level of information necessary for a command economy to function, were compelling. He just had a habit of overstating his argument, and failing to recognize that centrally planned functions that governments undertook at present occurred in sectors were there could be no competitive market anyway, so the whole point about relative efficiency was moot.

You can't, because they can't -- the aggregate machinations of a peaceful, voluntary, dynamic and free market can best allocate societal resources in real time thereby correctly determining prices and supply. While never perfect, this system is the most efficient known to man and since the advent of capitalism in the 18th century, mankind has seen a marked improvement in living standards and life expectancy (at least in regions and states where capitalism is most practiced).

There are no, never have been, and never will be "peaceful, dynamic, voluntary free markets". You live in a fairy tale realm, ignore the fact that in all historical epochs, markets have always been institutions guided and planned by interventionist states. And yet our epoch has been one of relative prosperity, so clearly you're overselling the whole free market aspect. Because there have been no free markets; only planned economies with varying degrees of planning, central or otherwise.

INdeed, the former Soviet Union had more engineers per capita than most Western nations and more trees than any other nation -- yet couldn't make enough toilet paper to wipe their collective asses. Yet, ironically we still have statists on this forum and others who naively sing the praises of government mismanagement of societal resources.

You keep putting up this straw man, when no one in this thread is arguing for Soviet command economy. More proof of your complete and utter lack of scruples.

Lastly, we are approaching the endgame of this coercive and inefficient folly --- and the young who are victims of generational theft will be those most effected -- and ironically many of these same young are helping tie the knot that will be cast over their collective heads within our lifetime.

Your noose

Proving once against that you haven't been listening. People keep buying US public debt even though the real interest rate on treasury bonds is negative. Seriously, if you don't understand this, then there's no hope for you. If the value of the money you have to pay back is going to be, even with the compounding interest, than the value of the money you borrowed, it's actually disadvantageous to not undertake in borrowing. Not just disadvantageous, but suicidal to the economy. This saves tax payer money, and improves creditworthiness, all which are vital to economic recovery.

[Obamacult]

Technically true, because you haven't offered anything to this thread to refute but unfalsifiable gibberish.

Enjoy, the ‘derth’ of ‘gibberish’ I have presented in just the last few pages of the thread as raw data, empirical research or commentary (from left-leaning sources in many cases) that contain heavy doses of raw data – in contrast, the only 'evidence' you have presented is your personal opinion supported by vitriol, horseshit and not much else:

http://lessonsforus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Poverty_Rate_Falling_Until_War_on_Poverty.jpg

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-409T

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby00/former.php

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-esePOlDt6S8/U ... ng.cms.png

http://www.frumforum.com/author/edward_pinto/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc

viewtopic.php?p=12926303#p12926303

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... state.html

http://globalgrind.com/news/7000-black- ... ks-details

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162- ... ecipients/

viewtopic.php?p=12917947#p12917947

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

http://www.cohenandsteers.com/images/si ... 50x229.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... =all&_r=1&

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/ ... origin.jpg

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/ ... xk8d4zn-en

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum ... 257744.php

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... ome/nSLMW/

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

No. My personal opinion didn't enter into it one bit. I was summarizing academic opinion. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to go to your local university library and take a look at the peer reviewed journals for yourself.

Horseshit.

Then present your ‘objective and factual' sources as I have done and subject them to scrutiny, or more likely amusement and ridicule.

You didn't even know that Hayek and Mises' economic calculation arguments were two completely different arguments, and treated them like one.

Horseshit.

Both Mises and Hayek supported the argument that a command economy did not have the wherewithal to efficiently allocate societal resources anywhere near as effectively as free market mechanisms. Mises’ argument provided the praxilogical or theoretical framework that support Hayek’s empirical argument.

Indeed, the two are intertwined and mutually supporting, even if you can’t see the obvious synergy.

The notion that these two economists were not aligned on this issue is absurd.

Hayek's argument, on the other hand, based on the difficulties of collecting and processing the level of information necessary for a command economy to function, were compelling.

On one hand, you engage in a polemic challenge of the economic calculation argument, while on the other hand above you cite it as ‘compelling’. Indeed, your opinion on this matter carries no weight whatsoever because your argument is neither for or against – it is simply a polemic knee jerk spasm devoid of any substance or consistency.

Moreover, you have engaged in a ridiculous strawman argument by citing the fallacy and myth that government is the only entity that can satisfy certain needs and wants, namely education, health care, retirement, etc. that is bankrupting the Republic and delivering substandard results at the same time. Indeed, it would appear to any rational, objective, and independent thinking person that it is government, not the free market, that is dangerously deficient.

USA debt.

There are no, never have been, and never will be "peaceful, dynamic, voluntary free markets".

This is another one of your bullshit strawman arguments. For example, the oft cited and irrelevant strawman argument that “the free market is a failure because it has never been peaceful, dynamic……”

I got news for you, if the metric is relative, instead of absolute (a social science impossibility), it is central governments, with the most control over individual lives, that have been the most violent, static, brutal, and poverty stricken societies known to man – not Not predominately capitalist societies ruled by representative governments that focused attention on preserving and enhancing civil and political rights, while treading ever so lightly in the economic arena.

Indeed, it is my argument that when a federal government enters the economic arena as a ‘player’ instead of satisfying its role as an impartial referee is when society begins to see a marked decline in growth, standards of living and with it civil and political liberties because government politicians, bureaucrats and their cronies in the private sector are corrupted by the trillions in tax and regulatory power.

And yet our epoch has been one of relative prosperity, so clearly you're overselling the whole free market aspect. Because there have been no free markets; only planned economies with varying degrees of planning, central or otherwise.

Again, this is the bullshit that you have been told. In contrast, the truth is that a government must be established that intentionally decentralizes, balances, limits and makes transparent the elements of armed force and political power in society so as to forestall the emergence of absolutism. What government must never become is a player in the economic game for the reasons I stated above.

Our government for too long has forsaken its role as a defender of life, liberty and private property to plunder societal wealth for itself and a few corrupt cronies in the private sector in a quid pro quo of preferential tax and regulatory policies for special interest votes (tyranny of the majority) and campaign contributions bribes.

You keep putting up this straw man, when no one in this thread is arguing for Soviet command economy. More proof of your complete and utter lack of scruples.

Compare and contrast disparate competing systems is part and parcel of social science argumentation even if you can't recognize the utility of such arguments through your ideological lens -- and convenient those blinders are when the comparisons between societies dominated by excessive government interference in the economy juxtaposed societies with more economic freedom -- all other factors being relatively equal -- see the examples below.

N. Korea – S. Korea, E. Germany – W. Germany, communist China – Taiwan, etc.

Proving once against that you haven't been listening. People keep buying US public debt even though the real interest rate on treasury bonds is negative. Seriously, if you don't understand this, then there's no hope for you.

This is an example of your ideological rigidity and your lack of critical thinking skills. Indeed, the USA is the tallest dwarf in the room, and has benefited from its role as the global currency for generations. However, your inability to see the writing on the wall that virtually every single economist and politician sees as the result of a burgeoning out of control debt and deficit is going to bring an end to this gravy train. But with the EU is disarray and Japan in worse shape than the USA – there is no other place to turn in the short and medium term. However, as a Tea Party member, I am not interested in instant gratification as the progressive politician and his crony in the private sector. I am looking to long-term consequences of our current entitlement regime that represents the most grievous example of generational theft in our nation’s history.

But don't trust me -- how about some more 'unfalsifiable gibberish' in the form of peer reviewed empirical research for you to strawman:

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

If the value of the money you have to pay back is going to be, even with the compounding interest, than the value of the money you borrowed, it's actually disadvantageous to not undertake in borrowing. Not just disadvantageous, but suicidal to the economy. This saves tax payer money, and improves creditworthiness, all which are vital to economic recovery.

In a series of absurd, ill-informed and dangerous rationalizations – this last one is the most palpable. For example, one only needs to examine recent and long term trends to note the folly in your ideological house of cards argument that advocates continued borrowing and spending in a nation whose debt to GDP ratio is on the fast track to 100%:

Here is some more crass ‘unfalsifiable gibberish’ in the form of peer reviewed empirical research for you to strawman at your leisure:

The empirical results suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth…..There is some evidence of nonlinearity with higher levels of initial debt having a proportionately larger negative effect on subsequent growth.

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. ...... A string of recent empirical papers broadly validates this threshold value.

You stand corrected, yet again.

[Choronzon]

I'm actually completely open to the argument that smaller polities result in more effective and representative government.

When its presented honestly and rationally of course, without all the ant-public institutions and Randian bullshit attatched.

[Obamacult]

Bullshit. Indeed, Greece's economy would have collapsed with or without membership in the EU. And the consequences to Europe would have been the same whether the EU existed or not.

Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that individual states can be expected to go bankrupt, hence, in contrast to the debacle in Europe, the US government could more easily step in and address this financial collapse and restructure the offending state's government and debt.

See previous posts.

This is preferable to a central government collapsing. Moreover, by surrendering many economic responsibilities to the states or individual citizens -- the federal government will become far less vulnerable to economic collapse associated with unsustainable entitlement spending that today represents over $100,000,000,000,000 in unfunded debt.

In addition, a federal government devoted primarily to protecting life, liberty and private property will be far less subject to corruption and influence peddling than the present government that has its corrupt fingers in virtually every industry.

This distraction undermines the true and beneficial role of a central government.

In sum, we have states that can manage many of the economic and social issues that the federal government now manages to the detriment and distraction of more critical responsibiilties of a federal government, namely those outlined above -- preserving and promoting life, liberty and private property.

The EU prevents Greece from setting its own monetary and trade policies. Without it, they could respond to domestic economic conditions by adjusting their money supply, revaluing their currency, or using tariffs to offset trade imbalances. All of that, however, would have negative effects on overall European trade and hence economic growth in Greece itself, which is presumably why they joined the EU in the first place.

Trouble is, now they've got a major trade deficit problem, and there's basically nothing they can do about it. That (aside from rampant tax evasion) is the real reason they don't have the money to pay off their public debt. They could default and exit the euro, but the Germans are unlikely to let that happen because something like 70% of German manufacturing is production for export, and economies like Greece, Spain, and Ireland are their best customers. Importing from a country with a stronger currency is more expensive than consuming your own domestic production, so Greece going back on a severely weakened drachma would actually mean the Germans losing a major benefit of being in a currency union with a weaker economy. This would promote economic stability in Greece at the expense of slower overall growth in European markets.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 for everyone. Contrary to Austrian School ideological fantasies, unregulated markets don't magically correct every single problem that they produce. (In the real world, I mean, which tends to be messier than the simplistic universe described by any utopian model of a theoretical society.) One such problem that tends to entrench itself rather than correct itself is the increase in debt which happens when richer people trade with poorer people, or less productive economies trade with more productive ones. (Keynes was far from infallible, but he was correct in diagnosing this problem.) The producers need the consumers to keep consuming, so they tend to extend credit in order to stem the gap in consumers' ability to pay. This is very bad from a macroeconomic perspective, but entirely consistent with classical microeconomic incentives. (Federal housing policy probably helped the mortgage crisis happen, but it would likely have happened anyway because without an expansion of the mortgage market, stagnating incomes would have caused a slow decline in housing sales from the 1970's on, making the Reagan pseudo-Recovery impossible.) Hence, unregulated markets characterized by pronounced wealth disparities are prone to instability, particularly in the form of debt bubbles. I'm aware that neoclassical ideologues like Friedman and Hayek say otherwise, but the facts don't agree with them. This is why you're about to resort to a "no true Scotsman" argument to rebut this--Hayekian economies only exist in Hayek's head, and the heads of his followers.

Luckily, there is an alternative way around this problem, which is how the U.S. currently handles economic disparities between richer and poorer states--tax the wealthier segments of the market (New York/Germany) and use the money to underwrite the infrastructure expenses and cost of living for the poorer segments of the market (Greece/Alabama). This serves to stem the gap between supply and demand without resorting to the expansion of a debt market which will eventually create a default crisis.

(And here's where I point out that our public debt problem has an important attribute in common with Greece's--it has tended to grow as we become a net importer, and China, the most significant exporter in this process, is increasingly interested in lending our government money. We were able to fund a huge welfare state just fine when we were a major industrial exporter, and Germany is doing just fine funding their even huger welfare state now.)

Unfortunately for the EU, they have no federal body empowered to do things like that, so they're kind of up shit creek for the time being. The Germans can either lose money forgiving Greece's debts, or lose money forgoing Greek consumption of their exports via either a Greek exit from the euro or the effects of Greek austerity policies.

This is what you want for us? (More or less--I mean, how is federal intervention after states go bankrupt all that different from federal interventions designed to keep them solvent in the first place? Not that the feds are doing that very effectively now--on the question of present federal competence, I can agree with you.)

Dude, this is one of the most confused and convoluted pile of ideological horse shit arguments I have read since Mavorpen tried to sell the absurdity that (0.0000001) is equal to (1/120,000,000).

I am going to tell you a little secret regarding the debt in both Greece and the USA that has apparently been hidden from progressive all these years (which doesn't surprise me considering the waste and inefficiency of the public school system).

Debt is caused by government spending more money than it collects.

That's it!

The unfortunate part of the profligate spending in Greece and now the USA is that this spending has not amounted to a hill of beans in increased growth and standards of living because the economically sustainable and disciplined societal actors that create wealth, growth and living standards have been undermined by this government regulation, taxation and spending that has largely crowded out productive private sector investment in favor of politically motivated spending designed to get politicians reelected.

In sum, the monstrous levels of debt that the USA has accumulated is simply a function of government waste, inefficiency and corruption that has seen this spending translate into more societal wealth being flushed down the toilet so politicians can get reelected in a quid pro quo of preferential tax and regulatory policies for special interest votes and campaign contributions bribes.

[Trotskylvania]

Enjoy, the ‘derth’ of ‘gibberish’ I have presented in just the last few pages of the thread as raw data, empirical research or commentary (from left-leaning sources in many cases) that contain heavy doses of raw data – in contrast, the only 'evidence' you have presented is your personal opinion supported by vitriol, horseshit and not much else:

You seem to think a bunch of unvetted links to blogs on the internet constitutes a substitute for academic research. You are sorely mistaken.

I told you were you could find what you're looking for. The fact that you haven't cited a single peer reviewed paper in any of the social science disciplines is rather telling. And until you actually choose to deal with vetted research rather than propaganda, you're going to be treated like the petulant little child that you are.

Horseshit.

Then present your ‘objective and factual' sources as I have done and subject them to scrutiny, or more likely amusement and ridicule.

Start reading

You'll find how well your Austrian school voodoo is accepted by actual working scientists in the field of economics.

Horseshit.

Both Mises and Hayek supported the argument that a command economy did not have the wherewithal to efficiently allocate societal resources anywhere near as effectively as free market mechanisms. Mises’ argument provided the praxilogical or theoretical framework that support Hayek’s empirical argument.

Indeed, the two are intertwined and mutually supporting, even if you can’t see the obvious synergy.

You are emphatically mistaken.

If you had read any of the relevant literature, you'd have realized how absolutely wrong they were, and how Mises' provides absolutely no intellectual framework for Hayek. Hayek and Mises approached the argument from very different ways; Mises relied upon praxeology. Hayek focused on the knowledge problem. These are different arguments.

On one hand, you engage in a polemic challenge of the economic calculation argument, while on the other hand above you cite it as ‘compelling’. Indeed, your opinion on this matter carries no weight whatsoever because your argument is neither for or against – it is simply a polemic knee jerk spasm devoid of any substance or consistency.

My argument is that you're an intellectual hack who doesn't understand the arguments you're putting forth. Hence, why I'm going through this ridiculous exercise with you. That's because I live in the real world, and I don't demand that the world conform to a concise ideological narrative.

Moreover, you have engaged in a ridiculous strawman argument by citing the fallacy and myth that government is the only entity that can satisfy certain needs and wants, namely education, health care, retirement, etc. that is bankrupting the Republic and delivering substandard results at the same time. Indeed, it would appear to any rational, objective, and independent thinking person that it is government, not the free market, that is dangerously deficient.

Except that's not true in the slightest. Try reading someone who actually studies these issue, not Austrian school ideologues. You could, you know, enroll in an economics or political science program at a local university.

This is another one of your bullshit strawman arguments. For example, the oft cited and irrelevant strawman argument that “the free market is a failure because it has never been peaceful, dynamic……”

I got news for you, if the metric is relative, instead of absolute (a social science impossibility), it is central governments, with the most control over individual lives, that have been the most violent, static, brutal, and poverty stricken societies known to man – not Not predominately capitalist societies ruled by representative governments that focused attention on preserving and enhancing civil and political rights, while treading ever so lightly in the economic arena.

Guess who creates private property and markets, genius? The fucking government. They protect contracts and private property, and establish the ground rules and infrastructure without which commerce would be impossible.

And historically, you're simply wrong. In the West, governments have never shied away from interfering in the realm of economics. In the US, they supplied free land and development grants to industrialists. In Britain, they built captive markets in their colonies to support their manufacturing interests at home. In Germany and France, the state itself heavily financed and directly controlled industrial production, as has been the case of the Asian tiger economies, particularly Japan.

Compare and contrast disparate competing systems is part and parcel of social science argumentation even if you can't recognize the utility of such arguments through your ideological lens -- and convenient those blinders are when the comparisons between societies dominated by excessive government interference in the economy juxtaposed societies with more economic freedom -- all other factors being relatively equal -- see the examples below.

N. Korea – S. Korea, E. Germany – W. Germany, communist China – Taiwan, etc.

Even a cursory look at wikipedia will tell you that West Germany, South Korea and Taiwan have never been respecters of free markets. They heavily planned economic production and supported their native capitalists. In the latter two cases, it was through a deliberate plan of export oriented industrialization, supported by government grants, technology and patent sharing forced by the economic ministries, and currency manipulation to make their exports more competitive.

This is an example of your ideological rigidity and your lack of critical thinking skills. Indeed, the USA is the tallest dwarf in the room, and has benefited from its role as the global currency for generations. However, your inability to see the writing on the wall that virtually every single economist and politician sees as the result of a burgeoning out of control debt and deficit is going to bring an end to this gravy train. But with the EU is disarray and Japan in worse shape than the USA – there is no other place to turn in the short and medium term. However, as a Tea Party member, I am not interested in instant gratification as the progressive politician and his crony in the private sector. I am looking to long-term consequences of our current entitlement regime that represents the most grievous example of generational theft in our nation’s history.

But don't trust me -- how about some more 'unfalsifiable gibberish' in the form of peer reviewed empirical research for you to strawman:

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

My ideological rigidity?

Look in the fucking mirror boy. And while you're at it, look at the current inflation rate, and then compare it to the current interest rate on US treasuries. You'll find that that former is bigger than the latter, so there is literally no reason to not borrow. Far from being generational theft, it's a boon to future generations, who will pay less on these bonds than the value of the infrastructure, goods, or services purchased by them.

In a series of absurd, ill-informed and dangerous rationalizations – this last one is the most palpable. For example, one only needs to examine recent and long term trends to note the folly in your ideological house of cards argument that advocates continued borrowing and spending in a nation whose debt to GDP ratio is on the fast track to 100%:

Inflation is higher than the interest rate on US t-bills, your argument is invalid.

Here is some more crass ‘unfalsifiable gibberish’ in the form of peer reviewed empirical research for you to strawman at your leisure:

The empirical results suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth…..There is some evidence of nonlinearity with higher levels of initial debt having a proportionately larger negative effect on subsequent growth.

The economics profession seems to increasingly endorse the existence of a strongly negative nonlinear effect of public debt on economic growth. ...... A string of recent empirical papers broadly validates this threshold value.

You stand corrected, yet again.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Indeed, high public debts occur in epochs of low economic growth. Not vice versa. If there is a causal relationship, it's opposite. Poor economic times cause high public debts.

[Grenartia]

"...show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking..."

...and then posts a load of ideological spoonfeeding.

TECHNICALLY he posted the load of ideological spoonfeeding THEN told you to be objective.

I mean, it's still fucking pathetic, but at least let's get the order of operations correct.

edit: jesus christ, I waste my 10,000th post on THAT?

This is getting sigged.

Sadly, xkcd went from making fun of those people to becoming the embodiment of those people.

wow. That's, like, hipster squared. That should earn some kind of fucking medal.

What if I told you that being a hipster is so mainstream that everybody who isn't a hipster actually IS a hipster?

[Death Metal]

What if I told you that being a hipster is so mainstream that everybody who isn't a hipster actually IS a hipster?

Ah, but if that's true, then the people-who-are-not-hipsters-that-become-hipsters, being hipsters now, are part of the mainstream because being hipster is mainstream.

Then actual-hipsters really ARE like everyone else, because EVERYONE is now a hipster.

[Grenartia]

What if I told you that being a hipster is so mainstream that everybody who isn't a hipster actually IS a hipster?

Ah, but if that's true, then the people-who-are-not-hipsters-that-become-hipsters, being hipsters now, are part of the mainstream because being hipster is mainstream.

Then actual-hipsters really ARE like everyone else, because EVERYONE is now a hipster.

HIPSTERCEPTION.

[Adan27]

Obama offer jobs to show that they are working on reducing the unemployment but the jobs he offer have low income.On the main while he gave citizenship to that person who are illegally migrated which rises the unemployment rate.If you can make government by voting you have a right to dissolve it.

[The Social Spectacle]

Obama offer jobs to show that they are working on reducing the unemployment but the jobs he offer have low income.On the main while he gave citizenship to that person who are illegally migrated which rises the unemployment rate.If you can make government by voting you have a right to dissolve it.

...What?

Granting amnesty to migrant workers rises unemployment how? Providing jobs is a bad thing because they aren't $20 an hour?

[Obamacult]

Your entire post is rife with fallacious nonsense, hence I will proceed to expose and debunk your bullshit in detail, one at a time, starting with your first fallacious comment (it didn't take long for the horseshit to begin piling up):

You seem to think a bunch of unvetted links to blogs on the internet constitutes a substitute for academic research. You are sorely mistaken.

I told you were you could find what you're looking for. The fact that you haven't cited a single peer reviewed paper in any of the social science disciplines is rather telling. And until you actually choose to deal with vetted research rather than propaganda, you're going to be treated like the petulant little child that you are.

Bullshit. While you have yet to post a single substantive, factual and empirically supported argument -- I posted the following peer reviewed economic research in the VERY POST that you fallaciously attacked!

See below:

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Indeed, this research was posted in one of the economic journals you cited no less!

Source: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?search_mode=t

Moreover, the other links I provided contained either objective and substantive raw data, empirical research, government sources, and articles that cited more raw data and empirical evidence many from left leaning sources no less.

http://lessonsforus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Poverty_Rate_Falling_Until_War_on_Poverty.jpg

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-409T

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby00/former.php

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-esePOlDt6S8/U ... ng.cms.png

http://www.frumforum.com/author/edward_pinto/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc

viewtopic.php?p=12926303#p12926303

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... state.html

http://globalgrind.com/news/7000-black- ... ks-details

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162- ... ecipients/

viewtopic.php?p=12917947#p12917947

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

http://www.cohenandsteers.com/images/si ... 50x229.gif

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world ... =all&_r=1&

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/ ... origin.jpg

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/ ... xk8d4zn-en

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum ... 257744.php

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... ome/nSLMW/

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

The hypocrisy and irony in all this is that when you are presented with peer reviewed research (Reinhart & Rogoff study), your typically vitriolic and illogical response absent any objective and substantive citation of your own was:

My ideological rigidity?

Look in the fucking mirror boy. And while you're at it, look at the current inflation rate, and then compare it to the current interest rate on US treasuries. You'll find that that former is bigger than the latter, so there is literally no reason to not borrow. Far from being generational theft, it's a boon to future generations, who will pay less on these bonds than the value of the infrastructure, goods, or services purchased by them.

More bullshit.

What you are incapable of recognizing through your clouded ideological lens is that the following:

1)The money that government is borrowing is not being used to pay down the existing debt -- hence the debt is getting larger and larger while the likelihood of far higher interest rates to pay down this debt, much less fund future government expenditures, is increasing.

2) The money that the government is borrowing is crowding out far more productive and beneficial private sector enterprises and investments that are grounded in economic sustainability, competition, peaceful, mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. In contrast, the resources that this borrowed money government spends are taken by coercive means and used to fund politically motivated schemes in a quid pro quo of preferential tax and regulatory policies for special interest votes and campaign contributions bribes.

The former operates under the strict laws of financial discipline or faces bankruptcy, the latter makes no pretense to operate under any such laws since it can plunder at will the wealth of more responsible actors in the free market (at least until the golden goose is bled dry).

3) The money that government is borrowing is being spent on enterprises that wouldn't see the light of day within a free market framework or even by voters if these wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt enterprises had to be funded by increases in taxes or reductions in other goods and services provided by government. Hence, borrowing is a corrupt, dishonest, and destructive scheme perpetrated by self-serving politicians to pass the costs onto future generations.

4) The money government borrows is first dispensed to politically connected interests with hardly a shred of transparency or accountability. Moreover, when the destructive effects of inflation rear its ugly head by undermining the costs of living for the poorest in our society, the borrowed money and its benefits will already have been used up by revolving door of politically connected elites on Wall Street and Washington.

A fact that incredibly divergent groups like the Occupy Movement and Tea Party both recognize, even if you can't.

In sum, when government exploits lower borrowing costs behind closed doors at the Fed without a shred of accountability or oversight in order to fund cronyism and pandering for special interest votes that no self-respecting citizen of either party would vote for with trade-offs of existing programs or higher taxes -- the scheme becomes an unsustainable and destructive ponzie scheme that will significantly reduce future growth rates and living standards of the next generation.

The raw data, facts, logic and peer reviewed empirical research from objective and substantive sources I have presented throughout the thread confirms this, even if your vitriolic unsupported personal opinion does not.

I only responded to your first comment in a post rife with more bullshit. I will respond to the balance of your unsubstantiated nonsense in subsequent posts contingent on your predicted issuance of strawman arguments and outright fallacies in response to this post.

You and your ideological house of cards stand corrected, yet again.

[Obamacult]

Obama offer jobs to show that they are working on reducing the unemployment but the jobs he offer have low income.On the main while he gave citizenship to that person who are illegally migrated which rises the unemployment rate.If you can make government by voting you have a right to dissolve it.

Amen bro.

Indeed -- a government by the people, voted on by the people, can be dissolved by the people.

However, that most likely will not be necessary -- the federal government will either have to significantly reduce in size and scope or collapse of its own volition under a mountain of debt within our lifetime.

My guess is that when the federal government collapses or fails to deliver on promises made -- the individual states will fill the void and the hypothesis offered by my OP will be realized.