Quote:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

---

Quote:

“That probably cost New York $1 billion,” Paterson said. “And look, I’m not going to defend these people that run these companies. They’ve frittered away a lot of money in these reckless schemes. But the reality is, in the end, we’ve lost $1 billion dollars because of that act. And there goes that pipe dream legislators engaged in reacting to my cuts.”

---

zappaisgod said:

...you might want to revisit the title of the thread.  It is a lot more encompassing than you 3 guys arguing endlessly about the federal reserve, John Maynard Keynes and currency valuation.

---

zappaisgod said:

I didn't say your argument didn't belong here.  I just wasn't interested in having Seuss scolded for not limiting it to the personal back and forth currently dominating the thread.

---

Actually, that reply should have been directed to Mr.Al.  My bad Seuss. 

zappaisgod said:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

---

zappaisgod said:

Which speaks to Seuss's point about welfare systems.  We can resist them or succumb.

---

zappaisgod said:

“That probably cost New York $1 billion,” Paterson said. “And look, I’m not going to defend these people that run these companies. They’ve frittered away a lot of money in these reckless schemes. But the reality is, in the end, we’ve lost $1 billion dollars because of that act. And there goes that pipe dream legislators engaged in reacting to my cuts.”

---

So the article claims the state lost $1 billion in income revenues.  Which means the bailed out companies kept roughly $3 billion extra in profits.  Did that not get taxed??? 

zappaisgod said:

NY state taxes the income of the executives.  They don't have the income, they don't pay the tax.  NY City will be even harder hit.  I seem to recall something a while ago that said more than half of all NYC taxes were paid by only 600 people.

---

zappaisgod said:

Restoring taxes to early 1980s levels?  That wasn't all that great which is why they were lowered.

---

zappaisgod said:

Tell me again why I should be compelled to give away yet more of my money.  This argument has never successfully been made.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

zappaisgod said:

NY state taxes the income of the executives.  They don't have the income, they don't pay the tax.  NY City will be even harder hit.  I seem to recall something a while ago that said more than half of all NYC taxes were paid by only 600 people.

---

NY corporations don't have to pay taxes???

---

Quote:

zappaisgod said:

Restoring taxes to early 1980s levels?  That wasn't all that great which is why they were lowered.

---

Gov't deficits were under control before Reagan.

---

Quote:

zappaisgod said:

Tell me again why I should be compelled to give away yet more of my money.  This argument has never successfully been made.

---

If you're making under $250k, I won't argue that you should pay more.  If you're making more, it's because you're not giving your employees their fair share of the profits they helped make.

---

zappaisgod said:

If the governor says it will cost NY a billion I believe him.

---

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Gov't deficits were under control before Reagan.

---

Bullshit.  You keep spouting this nonsense but it is utter bullshit.

---

No, I keep posting the same chart to prove this, and here it is yet again:



Let me know why you believe these numbers are incorrect or quit calling it bullshit.

zappaisgod said:

The economy was in a fucking shambles.

---

Yes, and deficit spending helped, didn't it?  That supports the original post.  But in continued even after the economy improved.  Big mistake.

zappaisgod said:

The only deficit you consider is the government deficit.  That is asinnine.

---

Wut?  Care to explain?

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

If you're making under $250k, I won't argue that you should pay more.  If you're making more, it's because you're not giving your employees their fair share of the profits they helped make.

---

Why?  They signed on for a fixed income and took no risks.  I didn't force them to work for me.  I take all the risk.

---

Most people have no choice.  It takes money to make money.  If you don't have enough to start a business, you work for a fixed income.  Which usually means you're underpaid for the amount you contribute.  We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

zappaisgod said:

If the governor says it will cost NY a billion I believe him.

---

That means the corporations weren't making a profit.  That being the case, of course the executives don't deserve an extra $3 billion of bailout money!

---

Quote:

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Gov't deficits were under control before Reagan.

---

Bullshit.  You keep spouting this nonsense but it is utter bullshit.

---

No, I keep posting the same chart to prove this, and here it is yet again:



Let me know why you believe these numbers are incorrect or quit calling it bullshit.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

zappaisgod said:

...you might want to revisit the title of the thread.  It is a lot more encompassing than you 3 guys arguing endlessly about the federal reserve, John Maynard Keynes and currency valuation.

---

Fair enough - if the discussion naturally progressed to welfare, I'd agree.  But I believe that came out of nowhere, as do most of Mr.Al's posts.

---

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Let me know why you believe these numbers are incorrect or quit calling it bullshit.

---

It's bullshit because you keep cutting off the ends and keep ignoring the fact that the only time the deficit got under control was when there was a Republican Congress, which is the actual budget making entity of the US government.  Or didn't you know that?  That is why it is bullshit.  Other points of bullshit relates to the fact that it is not presented as a percent of GDP.

---

My claim was that "Gov't deficits were under control before Reagan".  It doesn't matter who was in Congress.  But I'll repost the chart that shows debt as a percentage of GDP per your request:



This proves my point even better.  Or maybe you're calling bullshit because deficit spending was out of control during WWII?  Fair enough, I'll revise my original statement to "Gov't deficits were under control from the end of WWII until the Reagan presidency".

zappaisgod said:

Nor does it account for the fact that the residual effect of lowering tax rates led to greater tax revenue.

---

Wrong:

Reagan tax revenue increase ignores inflation and population growth

TEFRA tax hike largest peacetime tax increase in American history, shifting tax burden from the wealthy to the common man.

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

zappaisgod said:

The economy was in a fucking shambles.

---

Yes, and deficit spending helped, didn't it?  That supports the original post.  But in continued even after the economy improved.  Big mistake.

---

Now there is a different graph that does present the debt as a percent of GDP.  Why don't you post that one?  It also has much longer tails which clearly show that the deficit was MUCH higher before and after your other graph.  Was it deficit spending that helped or was it lowering tax rates?  I am quite sure that it is the latter.

---

No, it was deficit spending (see links above).  It should be obvious that when you throw billions into the economy, that's going to help.  The question is whether that will improve the economy enough to make up for the increased taxes later when you need to pay the debt back.  It's a good question, and it's the one I'm asking on this thread.

zappaisgod said:

Peter and Dick have economies.  Peter's is running a surplus of around $100 a week.  Dick is running a deficit of around $100 a week.  Take $200 from Peter and give it to Dick and now Dick has a $100 surplus and Peter has a deficit of $100.  Peter is pissed and Dick thinks he is making a profit.  I'm Peter and Dick is the government.  Get it yet?

---

Bad example.  The Government isn't an economy.  A better example is:

Quote:

Peter and Dick have economies.  Peter is running a surplus of around $100 a week.  Dick is running a deficit of around $100 a week.  Take $200 from Peter and give it to Dick and now Dick has a $100 surplus and Peter has a deficit of $100.  Peter is happy because he will collect his money back with interest, and Dick is happy because his economy is profitable again, and he now makes enough to pay Peter back while his economy is healthy again.  Peter is China, Dick is the US.

---

Again, whether or not Dick will be able to repay his loan is the question posed in this thread.

zappaisgod said:

It takes very little money to start a construction company or a whole host of other companies.  $20,000 will do it.

---

Two problems.  Most people don't have $20,000, and it's not possible for everyone to own their own company even if they had the money.  Anyway, we'll never agree on this, so I propose we agree to disagree.

zappaisgod said:

In the example of Peter and Dick where did I say it was a loan?  It isn't.  Dick took from Peter.  Now Peter has a deficit and Dick does not.  When does the government ever pay back the taxes?

Of further sad note is the notion that government injects money into an economy.  It does not.  It removes it from an economy.  Sometimes some portion makes it back.  Most of the time it does not.

---

Indeed.

Even if it is "spending money into the economy", as Falcon has mentioned before, is creating a distortion in the economy whereas efficient & productive sectors of the economy are subsidizing non-productive corporations & individuals.

There is a net economic loss in productivity when government subsidizes inefficiency & rewards failure.

We must strive to think in systems and remember that actions have real long term consequences.














Some consequences are better than others...

zappaisgod said:

In the example of Peter and Dick where did I say it was a loan?  It isn't.  Dick took from Peter.  Now Peter has a deficit and Dick does not.  When does the government ever pay back the taxes?

---

zappaisgod said:

Of further sad note is the notion that government injects money into an economy.  It does not.  It removes it from an economy.  Sometimes some portion makes it back.  Most of the time it does not.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

zappaisgod said:

In the example of Peter and Dick where did I say it was a loan?  It isn't.  Dick took from Peter.  Now Peter has a deficit and Dick does not.  When does the government ever pay back the taxes?

---

Are you just whining about taxes again?  What to does that have to do with anything in this thread?

---

Quote:

zappaisgod said:

Of further sad note is the notion that government injects money into an economy.  It does not.  It removes it from an economy.  Sometimes some portion makes it back.  Most of the time it does not.

---

Of course the Gov't injects money into an economy.  When we borrow from China and spend it on alternative energy, highways, etc. that money is being injected into the economy.  Maybe we'll pay China back, maybe we won't.  But the money clearly gets injected into our economy.

---

Mr.Al said:

Even if it is "spending money into the economy", as Falcon has mentioned before, is creating a distortion in the economy whereas efficient & productive sectors of the economy are subsidizing non-productive corporations & individuals.

There is a net economic loss in productivity when government subsidizes inefficiency & rewards failure.

---

Mr.Al said:

Subsidizing business failure is utter nonsense!  It reinforces failure!  W.T.F.!?!

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Agreed.  I'm not a fan of the bailouts.

Mr.Al said:
When government takes large amounts of money that was just created, taxed, or borrowed and spends it into a sector of the economy that is lagging systemic economic damage is caused.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I won't argue this point, but it's a red herring.  Bailouts aren't a product of Keynesianism, they are a product of politics.

Mr.Al said:
Giving money to inefficient bankrupt companies decreases the economic efficiency of the entire economic system.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
What do corporate bailouts have to do with Keynesian economics?  That's politics.

Mr.Al said:
You see that politics causes problems in the economy through bailout programs.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The bailouts came from Congress i.e. POLITICS.  If you think the central bankers were the ones that authorized the bailouts, you need to provide evidence of this.  Congress could have authorized the bailouts even if central banking didn't exist.

Mr.Al said:
you fail to address that the system you support creates systemic damage to the economy by handing large amounts of new money to their "too big to fail" corporate friends.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I've addressed this.  It's not Keynesianism that bails corporations out.  It's politicians.
Prove me wrong or quit bringing up the same points over and over

Mr.Al said:
Again, recall that the Keynesian system calls for central economic planners and central banks.  They are the individuals who immorally bail out bankrupt corporations.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I've said this about 10 times - Congress bails out bankrupt corporations.  It's politics, and has NOTHING to do with Keynesianism.  Please show me where Keynes said central banks are required to bail out failed businesses, or SHUT UP ABOUT THIS.

Mr.Al said:
Do you realize that central economic planners bailed out the banks and failed businesses?

---