Um... "Hostage Takers"? WTF? Every time the government "creates" a job, it costs 1.4 jobs. That's just how it works when you pass money from people who are working on real stuff to people who's job it is to shift money, and then to people who are working on make-work. The solution is the solution of 1921 - cut government back as far as you can, stop propping up businesses OF ANY SORT and let the economy work. Businesses want to produce things their customers desire; if the desires are warped by government intervention, then the whole business plan is flawed and unsustainable.
Furthermore, the "cut over 10 years" paradigm being talked about is trivial cuts in reality. 900 Billion over 10 years will likely be a cut of only 30 or 40 billion in the 2012 Fiscal year. Hardly draconian, in fact a trivial cut.
Some businesses may want to produce things or provide services their prospective customers desire, but if those prospective customers aren't buying because they don't have the money, they're not very likely to do it -- or to hire people to do it.
As for using the term "hostage takers", if a gang of thugs says "give us what we want, or the economy gets it," I call that hostage taking and call them hostage takers. If you do not like that, or don't like the way I said it, I frankly do not care.
The solution is the solution of 1921 - cut government back as far as you can, stop propping up businesses OF ANY SORT and let the economy work. Businesses want to produce things their customers desire; if the desires are warped by government intervention, then the whole business plan is flawed and unsustainable.
You got your number wrong. That's the solution of 1931. It's what Hoover did. And it failed miserably.
Yes- actually that makes my point. Hoover's plan for getting out of the depression: voluntary charity in local communities. The federal government would help organize that charity, but would not spend one thin dime itself.
Quote:
"No governmental action, no economic doctrine, no economic plan or project can replace that God-imposed responsibility of the individual man and woman to their neighbors. That is a vital part of the very soul of the people. If we shall gain in this spirit from this painful time, we shall have created a greater and more glorious America. The trial of it is here now. It is a trial of the heart and conscience, of individual men and women."
In other words: fuck you, poor people, you're on your own.
You know, I hear this a lot. I also hear that it was necessary for the Roosevelt administration to put out a lot of Federal spending to end the Depression.
Interestingly enough, the United States was the only nation to institute such spending. Despite these programs, the Depression was still ongoing until the Second World War broke out and the US removed unemployed with the draft and ramped up private industry to build war machines.
Despite the lack of government programs, the Depression ended soon after 1932 in most of the countries of the world. Japan, as a matter of fact, had moderate growth in GDP all through the 1930s. It was not limited to fascistic countries, either. France and Britain recovered long before the United States did.
So, the lack of a comparable result in the only country that used Roosevelt's methods seem to contraindicate the value of those methods.
Now, during the present Depression, every country (including the United States) that has instituted bailouts has had their economy get worse. Once again, the negative results seem to indicate that it's the wrong thing to do.
My bet is that if Hoover and Roosevelt had just let things go, we would have had a recovery beginning in 1932 and have been competitive with the rest of the world by 1936 or 37 instead of lagging behind.
"Every time the government "creates" a job, it costs 1.4 jobs." Where did you hear this? Sounds bogus.
"Businesses want to produce things their customers desire;" You forgot the phrase "as cheap as possible". If your phrase was true, there wouldn't be advertising and they wouldn't pressure us to buy their stuff because we'd want it anyway.
"cut government back as far as you can" You mean like police and consumer safety departments that make sure those who "produce things their customers desire" are actually safe? Or make sure the workers aren't put at unnecessary risks because a business wants to save money. Or how about maintaining our infrastructure.
"let the economy work" No economy has ever worked without government support. Governments are there for things that don't and shouldn't make a profit. If the government didn't do what it does, the economy would grind to a halt within days.
First: The cost to an economy from a tax is basic economics; the current tax rate of 40% direct and 15% inflation is clear and easy to verify. Second: "as far as you can" does not include safety bodies. We need some method of air traffic control, and food safety inspection and so forth. What we don't need is subsidies on oil production, or ethanol, or solar panels, or soybeans or anything else. Third: Economies worked for centuries before governments decided they needed to meddle. You must be nearly completely ignorant of history.
First: Since taxes pay for safety bodies, roads, schools, police and other things the economy needs to continue deducting taxes from an economy is misleading. Worse, it ignores what taxes contribute to the economy.
Second: Actually "as far as you can" DOES include safety bodies. Why else are police and fire departments being cut, air traffic controllers are being forced to work so hard they are falling asleep at their posts, and federal organizations like the FDA are overwork, underpaid yet have little actual authority to do their jobs. And whey they do their jobs right and find violations, we hear whines of "government control" and "interference with business" from the very people who defanged them in the first place.
Third: You are completely wrong here. Governments were the ones who minted money, established laws, started banks (the Medici family invented the modern notion of banks as part of the ruling class of the Republic of Florance), went after thieves and pirates, ended slavery. To say economies worked without government "meddling" is ignorant. Without such meddling businesses would continue to treat their employes like slaves (or even have slaves), use child labor, ignore worker safety and rights, and generally continue to act like profit justifies anything. If you enjoy a 40 hour work week and weekends, thank government meddling.
Yes, Alverant, except that the corporations that do all of those awful things wouldn't exist and have the same rights as individuals if the government didn't allow them to incorporate in the first place and provide protection for them.
This crypto-capitalist government that we have is indistinguishable from the corporations--otherwise the Wall Street crooks wouldn't have gotten bonuses while the African-Americans in this country lost 85% of their net worth over the last few years.
The last vote in Congress is proof to me that the mainsteam Democrats are as vile and corrupted as any Republican in the business. They may like gays, blacks, butterflies, and puppies, but when it comes down to voting, they'll sell you out in a second--just like their colleages across the aisle.
I wish I believed that my congresscritter would listen to me. Thing is, a single glance at publicly available information would tell him that I cannot threaten him with a non-vote next year, since I was already going to be a non-vote anyway. Between that and my usual terror of making phone calls....
This isn't just an abstract topic to me like it is to some. If the services funding dies, most of the people in my building are doomed.
Many of them cannot even feed themselves, as in are unable to take food off a plate and put it in their mouths. I help them with their computers and small repairs when I'm able.
The people who want to throw America's elderly and disabled to the wolves are monsters.
The pills that keep me out of institutional care and functional cost MORE than I'd make at McJob, and without them I can't leave the house half the time anyway.
Oh yes, and Regan shut down the institutional care to give more tax breaks to the "Job Creators" back in the 80's. How did that pan out?
The sad joke is, even IF I could afford my meds I'm virtually unemployable. I've got a degree, and management experience. So I'm "overqualified" for the jobs that exist. I've tried. And being disabled since 98, and the two companies I worked for before that being out of business I have no provable work experience.
So my long term choices will be living in a gas-less uninsured car and eating out of trash cans, or just taking my medicine cabinet and going to sleep.
Oh well, at least unlike most of the people I will still be able to walk my own ass out into the street when our building is shut down...........
My prediction has been a massive armed internal conflict in the USA in the next 10-25 years. I think this may need to be revised - perhaps the next 2-5 years. One of the foolish things conservatives are doing is being so gung-ho about the second amendment. I predict this will come back to bite them when the disenfranchised poor begin to arm themselves and engage in guerrilla warfare.
The elderly and disabled were never in danger of not being paid. The social security receipts are earmarked for payments out BEFORE going into the general fund - and the payment out of monies above receipts (which started last year) is made by redeeming bonds held by the SSA, that is, it is a net DECREASE in the debt.
Hell, the interest on the debt was only one-tenth of the total revenue brought in before the bill was passed the other day. There was never any real danger of default.
Now, the government would not have been able to fight imperialistic foreign wars or provide bailout money for the major corporations that were "too big to fail", but I hardly consider that a loss.
We would have had to operate with a budget at about the 2000 level. I remember that year--it sure as hell wasn't Armageddon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-01 02:35 pm (UTC)Every time the government "creates" a job, it costs 1.4 jobs. That's just how it works when you pass money from people who are working on real stuff to people who's job it is to shift money, and then to people who are working on make-work.
The solution is the solution of 1921 - cut government back as far as you can, stop propping up businesses OF ANY SORT and let the economy work. Businesses want to produce things their customers desire; if the desires are warped by government intervention, then the whole business plan is flawed and unsustainable.
Furthermore, the "cut over 10 years" paradigm being talked about is trivial cuts in reality. 900 Billion over 10 years will likely be a cut of only 30 or 40 billion in the 2012 Fiscal year. Hardly draconian, in fact a trivial cut.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-01 03:35 pm (UTC)As for using the term "hostage takers", if a gang of thugs says "give us what we want, or the economy gets it," I call that hostage taking and call them hostage takers. If you do not like that, or don't like the way I said it, I frankly do not care.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-01 04:25 pm (UTC)You got your number wrong. That's the solution of 1931. It's what Hoover did. And it failed miserably.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-02 03:49 pm (UTC)http://dailybail.com/home/radio-address-hoover-announces-his-1931-stimulus-plan.html
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-02 11:33 pm (UTC)Quote:
"No governmental action, no economic doctrine, no economic plan or project can replace that God-imposed responsibility of the individual man and woman to their neighbors. That is a vital part of the very soul of the people. If we shall gain in this spirit from this painful time, we shall have created a greater and more glorious America. The trial of it is here now. It is a trial of the heart and conscience, of individual men and women."
In other words: fuck you, poor people, you're on your own.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-03 07:51 am (UTC)Interestingly enough, the United States was the only nation to institute such spending. Despite these programs, the Depression was still ongoing until the Second World War broke out and the US removed unemployed with the draft and ramped up private industry to build war machines.
Despite the lack of government programs, the Depression ended soon after 1932 in most of the countries of the world. Japan, as a matter of fact, had moderate growth in GDP all through the 1930s. It was not limited to fascistic countries, either. France and Britain recovered long before the United States did.
So, the lack of a comparable result in the only country that used Roosevelt's methods seem to contraindicate the value of those methods.
Now, during the present Depression, every country (including the United States) that has instituted bailouts has had their economy get worse. Once again, the negative results seem to indicate that it's the wrong thing to do.
My bet is that if Hoover and Roosevelt had just let things go, we would have had a recovery beginning in 1932 and have been competitive with the rest of the world by 1936 or 37 instead of lagging behind.
Tom Trumpinski
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-07 03:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-02 12:28 am (UTC)Where did you hear this? Sounds bogus.
"Businesses want to produce things their customers desire;"
You forgot the phrase "as cheap as possible". If your phrase was true, there wouldn't be advertising and they wouldn't pressure us to buy their stuff because we'd want it anyway.
"cut government back as far as you can"
You mean like police and consumer safety departments that make sure those who "produce things their customers desire" are actually safe? Or make sure the workers aren't put at unnecessary risks because a business wants to save money. Or how about maintaining our infrastructure.
"let the economy work"
No economy has ever worked without government support. Governments are there for things that don't and shouldn't make a profit. If the government didn't do what it does, the economy would grind to a halt within days.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-02 04:03 pm (UTC)Second: "as far as you can" does not include safety bodies. We need some method of air traffic control, and food safety inspection and so forth. What we don't need is subsidies on oil production, or ethanol, or solar panels, or soybeans or anything else.
Third: Economies worked for centuries before governments decided they needed to meddle. You must be nearly completely ignorant of history.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-02 11:17 pm (UTC)Second: Actually "as far as you can" DOES include safety bodies. Why else are police and fire departments being cut, air traffic controllers are being forced to work so hard they are falling asleep at their posts, and federal organizations like the FDA are overwork, underpaid yet have little actual authority to do their jobs. And whey they do their jobs right and find violations, we hear whines of "government control" and "interference with business" from the very people who defanged them in the first place.
Third: You are completely wrong here. Governments were the ones who minted money, established laws, started banks (the Medici family invented the modern notion of banks as part of the ruling class of the Republic of Florance), went after thieves and pirates, ended slavery. To say economies worked without government "meddling" is ignorant. Without such meddling businesses would continue to treat their employes like slaves (or even have slaves), use child labor, ignore worker safety and rights, and generally continue to act like profit justifies anything. If you enjoy a 40 hour work week and weekends, thank government meddling.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-03 07:55 am (UTC)This crypto-capitalist government that we have is indistinguishable from the corporations--otherwise the Wall Street crooks wouldn't have gotten bonuses while the African-Americans in this country lost 85% of their net worth over the last few years.
The last vote in Congress is proof to me that the mainsteam Democrats are as vile and corrupted as any Republican in the business. They may like gays, blacks, butterflies, and puppies, but when it comes down to voting, they'll sell you out in a second--just like their colleages across the aisle.
Tom Trumpinski
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-01 03:11 pm (UTC)This isn't abstract to me, this is doomed.
Date: 2011-08-01 03:56 pm (UTC)Many of them cannot even feed themselves, as in are unable to take food off a plate and put it in their mouths. I help them with their computers and small repairs when I'm able.
The people who want to throw America's elderly and disabled to the wolves are monsters.
The pills that keep me out of institutional care and functional cost MORE than I'd make at McJob, and without them I can't leave the house half the time anyway.
Oh yes, and Regan shut down the institutional care to give more tax breaks to the "Job Creators" back in the 80's. How did that pan out?
The sad joke is, even IF I could afford my meds I'm virtually unemployable. I've got a degree, and management experience. So I'm "overqualified" for the jobs that exist. I've tried. And being disabled since 98, and the two companies I worked for before that being out of business I have no provable work experience.
So my long term choices will be living in a gas-less uninsured car and eating out of trash cans, or just taking my medicine cabinet and going to sleep.
Oh well, at least unlike most of the people I will still be able to walk my own ass out into the street when our building is shut down...........
Re: This isn't abstract to me, this is doomed.
Date: 2011-08-01 09:46 pm (UTC)Re: This isn't abstract to me, this is doomed.
Date: 2011-08-02 04:05 pm (UTC)Re: This isn't abstract to me, this is doomed.
Date: 2011-08-03 07:59 am (UTC)Hell, the interest on the debt was only one-tenth of the total revenue brought in before the bill was passed the other day. There was never any real danger of default.
Now, the government would not have been able to fight imperialistic foreign wars or provide bailout money for the major corporations that were "too big to fail", but I hardly consider that a loss.
We would have had to operate with a budget at about the 2000 level. I remember that year--it sure as hell wasn't Armageddon.
Tom Trumpinski