Balancing the Federal budget

pstrbrc wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Here's my total line of crap. Debt and Inflation are required at some level to achieve success on the macro and micro economic levels. They are effectively like Water to a plant. If you have no water, the plant withers up and dies. If you have too much, the plant is drowned and dies. If the right amount is used; The plant grows. Though, inflation is not really so much a tool, but merely and indicator of effectiveness. Now here's my other line of crap. The federal government budget should never be balanced. Ohh Snap.. But to find fault in that, you'd actually have to do some reading in finance and econ, which you won't do. You will because you've been hurt by our exchanges in the past and your obvious dislike for me has colored your vision; which, If you want me to play the role of the classic internet troll, means I win.

That is a line of crap. Keynesian economics is so full of falacies it belongs in a feed yard. If you buy it, well, "foolish" comes to mind. Just to say that "the experts" say this, so you win, is plain bullying. Oh, yeah. And the Science On Global Warming is settled. Just pick the right experts.

Wow.

I am in love.

Looks like pstrbrc is buying round #4 I believe.

Ruh Roh, I think Iggy may have met is intellectual opposite (equal?).

Good post(s).

pstrbrc wrote: Wow. OK jumping in. Four things and a conclusion: #1. Government inherently has infinite capacity for evil, and only limited capacity for good. Therefore, limited government can be maximized for good, and minimized for evil. This is the Jeffersonian/Madisonian principle. If you don't buy this, you're looking at all of human history through rose colored glasses. #2. The longer a human being is in position to "lord" it over others, especially if said person truly believes that he/she is doing it for the others' "good", especially if said person truly believes that the others would not do as good a job themselves, the more potential damage to both the psyche of the one and the psyche of each one of the others. If you don't buy this... #3. Those who have been in the position of "lord" the longest in the USA are the members of the bureaucracy, not the legislature. President Reagan found this out. Remember, he promised to eliminate the Department of Education. He was not successful, primarily because of the power that the bureaucracy had over the Congress. #4. A bureaucracy always eventually functions as if its only purpose is to continue functioning. All contributing members of a bureaucracy must function with this purpose, or they get weeded out. Therefore, when calculating the cost-benefit ratio of continuing to ask funding for a program, this is not functionally based on whether it benefits anybody outside of the bureaucracy, but whether it benefits the functioning of the bureaucracy. This behavior is symptomatic of all long-standing bureaucracies, and the only way to minimize this is to kill a bureaucracy and start over. Conclusion: The US Government will continue to waste much of what we the taxpayers (grudgingly) cough up until one of two things happen: 1. The government collapses. Historically, this often takes two or three generations, but there is adequate evidence that we might be half-way through this process. Scary. 2. A party comes in power that takes seriously the evil of bureaucracy, develops some sort of mindset that allows "forensic bureaucrats" great power in reforming federal departments, even eliminating federal departments, and are given much credence when they ask such questions of Congress as "WTF?" when Congress comes up with cockamamie ideas to spend money. The Inspector-Generals are supposed to fulfill this function, but you see how that has gone under this administration, and it wasn't much better under #43. They don't have nearly the power or voice that they need to have to make any difference. Unfortunately, as much as I want #2 to happen, I'm betting on #1. And just hoping that the house of cards doesn't collapse until I'm gone seems, well, pretty selfish. Even nihilistic. But the rot in our government is so bad, even the "good" guys who work there can't see the evil they do, or have learned to rationalize it. All for the paycheck. (sigh) Imagine. Me, a libertarian, wanting to give power to a bureaucrat!

+1 Very good overview. Imagine all of the cowboys that will no longer be able to write poetry should either happen...

Keynesian economics is so full of falacies it belongs in a feed yard. If you buy it, well, "foolish" comes to mind.

Completely dismissing one of the most important schools of economic thought without giving a single reason seems a bit extreme. Did you mean the original theory from the 1930s or the more fully developed and evolved theory of today?

Otto Maddox wrote: Keynesian economics is so full of falacies it belongs in a feed yard. If you buy it, well, "foolish" comes to mind. Completely dismissing one of the most important schools of economic thought without giving a single reason seems a bit extreme. Did you mean the original theory from the 1930s or the more fully developed and evolved theory of today?

Pfffttttt. This is an internet forum. You want a masters dissertation? OK, here's the outline.

Keynesian economics is built on one major, and several minor flaws. All of the "more fully developed and evolved theor[ies]" , as you put it, have attempted to address the inadequacy of Keynesian theory to be reliably predictive. That is, the Keynesian economist says, "The economic forecast is xxx, but if government intervenes by yyy, we promise that zzz will happen instead." Track record of Keynesian economists? No statistical evidence that they weren't reading dog entrails. But each generation of Keynesian disciples comes up with one or two tweaks of the theory, and says, "Here we have the All New, Better Than Ever, Latest Edition Keynesian theory!" Which shows as much predictive accuracy as the last. Why? The Major Flaw. That is, Keynesian Economics is based on the premise that every so often the GUBBIMENT MUST DO SOMETHING. Which might or might not be true. But who gets to decide? AHA!!! THE GUBBIMENT!!!!! Please see my post about the bureaucracy. I don't feel like reposting it. There is only limited amount of good that can come from government interference in the marketplace. There is infinite evil. See, Grocery Stores In The Soviet Union, c. 1950-1970. For a clarification of why this is, I recommend Thomas Sowell's book, "The Vision of the Anointed". The Free Marketeers from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, on the other hand, have always had as a consistent thread the skepticism of what government can and should do. It is my humble opinion that it is this low view of the morality of government interference that has given Friedman and his disciples the ability to predict economic trends to a higher degree than blind probability. In fact, Friedman said that the validity of his or any economic theory should be judged by its simplicity in its predictive ability. Furthermore, economies that have adopted Friedman's theories have succeeded. I reference Chile's economy over the last 15 years. The problem with Keynesian economics is that it tries to be Socialism Lite, without dealing with the inherent evil that ultimately pervades a Socialist system. Because of this, it is terribly Pollyannish, and requires a lot (or is that alot? ) of wish-fulfillment to accept. Of course, wish-fulfillment is what many live on nowadays.

In reply to pstrbrc:

Well, it isn't as if the New Classical economists and the Keynesians are in complete disagreement. In fact, they share many things in common. So, to say one Keynesian theory is entirely foolish is to say the same about a portion of classical theory. You won't find many respected Keynesians who think the government should completely control the economy any more than you'll find classical economists who think we should have absolutely no government control.

Many people tend to wrap their economic and political ideology into one monolithic package. Unfortunately for those people, good economists rarely fall neatly under any particular political ideology.

And for the low blow -

"We are all Keynesians now" - Milton Friedman. December 31, 1965. Time

Friedman later clarified that he reminders saying something more like "In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian."

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to pstrbrc: Well, it isn't as if the New Classical economists and the Keynesians are in complete disagreement. In fact, they share many things in common. So, to say one Keynesian theory is entirely foolish is to say the same about a portion of classical theory. You won't find many respected Keynesians who think the government should completely control the economy any more than you'll find classical economists who think we should have absolutely no government control. Many people tend to wrap their economic and political ideology into one monolithic package. Unfortunately for those people, good economists rarely fall neatly under any particular political ideology.

Excellent post. Otto.

Mr. Pstrbrc has the "I never made enough money in my life and the government is stealing a lot of it" disease that infects his financial thinking. Does he have the "Work hard, be happy, annoy a liberal" bumper sticker on his car? Cause my car has the "Work harder, be happier, be a conservatives boss and make his life miserable".. bumper sticker.

I was about to post pretty much the same thing, but you got it.... W

Also, The first sentence that mr. Pstrbrc utters in an above post uses the words "government" and "evil" words. Very telling. Good job, join the self congratulating, told you so.. "Liberty" crew...

1988RedT2 wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Sorry, I dont' see a superior debate.

It is far easier to see when one's eyes are in fact open.

Lets see..

My debate is.. Debt is a powerful that can be utilized to further yourself, company, or country..

The other debate is.. what exactly? Don't use it? Don't have any? I don't understand the other argument.

To be fair.. I don't think you guys understand my argument. Because the deficit hawks have convinced everyone that all debt is wrong and bad, and the paranoia that is at the root of the modern "libertarian(read teabagger)" argument is driving everyone to think that everyone is out to get them.. Have I said, that this level of debt we currently have is good? Nope. But.. The word debt sure makes some people act funny..

Personally, I think we should reduce our debt, but the idea of a debt free nation is a silly one that is equal to a debt burdened nation that goes bankrupt. The sweet spot must be found and exploited.

huge-O-chavez wrote: Mr. Pstrbrc has the "I never made enough money in my life and the government is stealing a lot of it" disease that infects his financial thinking.

Now that's funny. Wow. Really? I make exactly what I want to make, I am content, and I pay my taxes willingly as a part of living in the U.S. of A. Do I think the government wastes my money? Yes, but then, so do I. (shrug) It's just money. I'm talking morality. Which is a much higher scale than money. At least in my book. Dunno what book you preach out of. But whatever book you use, quit thinking it's telling you what I think. I'm gonna let this one pass, but you belittle me again about who I am without knowing me, and I'll just start ignoring you. Bt I will pray for your soul.

Does he have the "Work hard, be happy, annoy a liberal" bumper sticker on his car?

No. Actually, no bumper sticker. I think communicating by bumpersticker is shallow and belittling.

Cause my car has the "Work harder, be happier, be a conservatives boss and make his life miserable".. bumper sticker.

So you believe you have the right to put such a shallow statement on your bumper, not caring who will misunderstand? Or do you really believe that people should pay a price because they have a certain set of beliefs that they would self-identify as "conservative"? If so, you're an ass. An arrogant one.

Also, The first sentence that mr. Pstrbrc utters in an above post uses the words "government" and "evil" words. Very telling. Good job, join the self congratulating, told you so.. "Liberty" crew...

Oh, sorry. Used two words, that when you mash them together, change the meaning of my statement, and so your tone becomes self-righteous? Physician, heal thyself.

huge-O-chavez wrote: "libertarian(read teabagger)"

Do you really not understand how degrading this term is? Do you believe that the people who identify with the clarion call that there is something wrong in continuing to let an elite class of people run this country should be tagged as those who, for deviant reasons, get off on sucking men's scrota? If so, well, you don't deserve to be treated as a gentleman. Begone!

pstrbrc wrote: If so, you're an ass. An arrogant one.

Ha, You're new here right?

Still got that job for you when the gold, MRE's and ammunition you've "invested" in goes south..

pstrbrc wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: "libertarian(read teabagger)"

Do you really not understand how degrading this term is? Do you believe that the people who identify with the clarion call that there is something wrong in continuing to let an elite class of people run this country should be tagged as those who, for deviant reasons, get off on sucking men's scrota? If so, well, you don't deserve to be treated as a gentleman. Begone!

Clarion?

Seriously man.. You're really to far into this.. Do you exchange all of your "debt notes(read US. Dollars) for copper recently? and then bury it around your house..

Anyway, the last gasp of the old angry waspy man is toast.... When does the new TR come out, slap everyone around and put us all back in our places? When do all the teabaggers get jobs, so they can stop being so silly?

Seriously, there is one way out of this mess and that is to work harder, better and faster and increase your top line while shrinking the bottom line as well. Shrinking the bottom line by itself is the same retarded method that put us into this method. Short term thinking with no vision.. Same problem with the baggers..

btw.. I really hope this guy is like a creation by one of you to screw with me.. That would be fun.

Out of curiosity, how many of the posters here have degrees in Economics or have worked in the field?

I'm just wondering because I have a minor in Economics, about 3/4 of the way to a major (if I were on the 5 year college plan I'd have one) and I think that I know just enough to know not to post in this thread about it, because I don't know enough about it. I think a lot of the posters (not going to name names, but it is on both sides) are in the same boat.

EDIT:

This post seemed a little more shiny happy person-ish than needed. I think I've just been reading too many economics journals in the past few days.

Iggy:

The title of this thread is "Balancing the Federal Budget".

Almost nothing you've posted has anything to do with that. Debt is not balancing a budget. Personal debt (or aversion to it) has nothing to do with Federal budgets (or debt, for that matter).

But you already knew that.

So, I guess your goal is to scuttle this thread no matter what, because I see no other reason to be harping on people's personal finance choices and resorting to name calling.

So pardon me if I have very little desire to listen to anything you are saying. It is a scenario that you have created.

If you don't like debt avoidance, I suggest you not do it. Take on as much debt as you like. But don't criticize other people who disagree with you.

I am far more interested in a discussion on "Balancing the Federal Budget" than listening to the garbage and name-calling.

huge-O-chavez wrote: Personally, I think we should reduce our debt, but the idea of a debt free nation is a silly one that is equal to a debt burdened nation that goes bankrupt. The sweet spot must be found and exploited.

I am quite certain that you are the ONLY person in this thread who has suggested a debt free nation. It is a false concept which stems from your lack of desire to learn about anyone other than yourself, not from anyone else's actual opinion.

SVreX wrote: It is a scenario that you have created.

Look. I posted about how a debt free nation or company is silly. I also posted about how debt can be utilized as a powerful tool to further ones company or self. I was attacked by the regular crew.

But, You have do have a gigantic point. I really have little desire in learning from others, not you, who only profess a philosophy that is motivated by fear and paranoia. Economic thoughts and philosophies intermingled with the politics of paranoid fear mongering are very dangerous and destructive. Now here's the interesting part. These thoughts are self defeating, because an individual will spend most of his time railing against enemies that are no more real than Elmo. This is what i see happening with the current "libertarian" movement. It's a movement motivated by fear of the unknown, fear of change, and one that quite frankly does nothing to actually move this country away from the current pain it is feeling. It is a movement of selfishness.

Now.. What does that have to do with the balancing the federal budget.. Not a ton, but boy do some people get uppity when you start mentioning that debt can be utilized for good.

Want to talk about the federal government and balancing the budget.. Let me get in there. I optimize companies factories and operations for a living. Get rid of the double, triple and quadruple organizations. Utilize Value Stream Mapping on all the processes to show how many people actually are involved.. and BAM.. Stuff gets wild when you put it on paper..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_stream_mapping

I like how Iggy is so good at writing absolutely inane, inflammatory stuff and making it sound coherent. The thing that amuses me the most is how he convinces other people that he actually believes the horseE36M3 he espouses in his posts. Good one, Iggy!

1988RedT2 wrote: I like how Iggy is so good at writing absolutely inane, inflammatory stuff and making it sound coherent. The thing that amuses me the most is how he convinces other people that he actually believes the horseE36M3 he espouses in his posts. Good one, Iggy!

The problem is, that its not horse poopie.. I like how folks such as yourself and duke have given up on discussions because you have exhausted your supply of "facts" and have therefore gone home. Last person to leave the ring, wins.

1988RedT2 wrote: I like how Iggy is so good at writing absolutely inane, inflammatory stuff and making it sound coherent. The thing that amuses me the most is how he convinces other people that he actually believes the horseE36M3 he espouses in his posts. Good one, Iggy!

Do we just start a poll to see how many here are just going to ignore iggy from now on in these types of posts?

Why is it that the old adage "Never argue with a fool--onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" comes to mind?

Yes, he is a good fisherman. He puts that smelly bait in the water and somebody always takes it.

tuna55 wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: I like how Iggy is so good at writing absolutely inane, inflammatory stuff and making it sound coherent. The thing that amuses me the most is how he convinces other people that he actually believes the horseE36M3 he espouses in his posts. Good one, Iggy!

Do we just start a poll to see how many here are just going to ignore iggy from now on in these types of posts?

That'll just make me try harder..

edit: plus you guys really don't want that.. Cause then every thread in here would degrade into a back patting self congratulatory fest... Here's how it would go...

Guy #1.. " We're getting hosed by the (government/liberals/people with no self responsibility).. Look at how we are being oppressed, and I am saying that I cannot achieve anything in this world that is of substance, because the deck is stacked against me due to the unfair nature of things..."

Guy #2 "Yes... Soros."

Guy #3 "We are (screwed/going to die)"

Guy #4 "Lets go back to something that was not really even fully implemented in the late 1700's, by trying use our modern ideas to interpret some fairly cryptic writings from back then."

Guy #1 "Yes.. if only we could then we'd all be free to go into our respective dwellings and not interact with each other, except on this forum"

Guy #3 "yes.. Freedom"

Guy #4 "Liberty blah blah"

Guy #2 "taxes rawr.."

Guy #5 "......................"

See......... It'd be boring.

1988RedT2 wrote: Why is it that the old adage "Never argue with a fool--onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" comes to mind?

or.. Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you start to realize the pig likes it..

Politics of fear and paranoia.

huge-O-chavez wrote: Politics of fear and paranoia.

I assume you are speaking of the fear and paranoia among the recipients of entitlements who are opposing fiscal responsibility for fear that their money tree will lose its leaves?