About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

I wish Rothbard's ideas were more mainstream; the nation as a whole has largely been swallowing GDP as currently defined as a fact of some kind. It is a political assertion, not a fact. And yet, that battle has currently been lost. We are treated to the latest GDP numbers every month, as if it meant a damn thing. It just rigs the debate.


Note even most arguments based on federal spending; almost always normalized to 'GDP' -- as if that made any sense at all, even as defined. The overhead of self government is -overhead-. It should experience per-capita productivity gains just like the private sector. Only in the USSR -- where it was the function of their government to 'run the economy' might it be reasonable to scale the size of government to something called 'the economy.'

Even if we -ignore- expected productivity gains, when we compare the size of government over time, we should adjust for a] population and b] inflation. Deviations beyond that represent growth in government, and even -that- rigs the argument in favor of government growth(since endemic inflation itself is ultimately caused by the governm,ent getting creative with the money supply and implementing a hidden tax on all of us.)

Think about that;we give government the benefit of the doubt TWICE. We ignore productivity gains, and simply account for population growth, period; the percapita efficiency of government is scored the same today as it was 3 yrs before IBM introduced the 029 keypunch. We ignore the fact that it is the government itself that causes inflation, and adjust for inflation. And even after bending over twice...we can only adjust JFK's $100B to maybe $1500B today. (Really, $1400B...but I am bending over backwards three times to make a point and being -really- generous with the growth of government to call JFK's $100B = $1500B today.)

And .. still that isn't enough; we are at $3800B, nowhere near $1500B. Whatever and whoever and wherever the advocates of limited government have been, they have been massively inneffective, and we are losing this battle big time. Not by a little, but by $2.3T/yr...

In a free nation, the efficiency of self-government is evidenced by an every year decreasing % of 'GDP', not a fixed % of GDP-- or in our case, God help us, a growing % of GDP.

GDP was a political rigging of the debate. Yet another argument that the GOP never effectively made...or made at all.

If the GOP is the defender of freedom, then Madonna is the defender of modesty. (She is only like a virgin, possibly in one ear.) The inneffective GOP is exactly why the nation is also taking it on the chin. There has been nothing standing in the way of the Democrats for decades except Democrat-Lites, and even that is being generous with the GOP.

regards,
Fred


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 81

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And here are 2 quotes from the recent article in New York Magazine: The Blip (What if everything we’ve come to think of as American is predicated on a freak coincidence of economic history? And what if that coincidence has run its course?)

The prospects for African-American employment increased most dramatically during World War II and in the period just after: 16.4 percent of black men held middle-class jobs in 1950; by 1960 it was 24 percent; by 1970, 35 percent. Progressives will often describe the history of social liberation by quoting Martin Luther King Jr.’s line that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice; the implication is that metaphysics are somehow involved. But this history has also taken place during unique economic times, and perhaps that is not coincidence.

If you buy Gordon’s story, then the effect of the second industrial revolution was to replace the specific entitlement of the Gilded Age (of family, of place of birth) with a powerful general entitlement, earned simply through citizenship. "Just the fact of being an American male and graduating from high school meant you could have a good-paying job and expect that you could have children who would double your own standard of living," Gordon says. This certainty, that the future would be so much better than the past that it could be detected in the space of a generation, is what we call the American Dream. The phrase itself was coined only in 1931, once the gains of the second industrial revolution had dispersed and inequality had begun to dissipate.

Note how it is economic freedom -- rather than the organized coercion required for implementing "social justice" -- that initiated gains in dispersed living standards. In the first quote above, blacks were making great progress in the 1950s (before Affirmative Action policies, etc), increasing their proportion of middle-class employment by 50% in less than one generation. Thomas Sowell writes about this fact.

And the second quote highlights that things had already gotten better by 1931 -- reduced poverty, reduced inequality, massive intergenerational wealth accrual (no matter who you were) -- before things like FDR's New Deal were put into place. In fact, things had gotten so good by 1931 -- expectations were so high and sustainable -- that they coined the term: "the American Dream." The upshot is that it wasn't organized coercion that led to the better living standards for all peoples, it was the relative freedom from organized coercion that did so.

The irony is that many people adopt the floating memes that the reason that life ever got better is because of some kind of a Compassion Czar -- a central authority who reached into society and re-shuffled things in order to help a little guy. History shows that the exact opposite is true -- and that central authorities have been screwing things up since at least 1931, and especially so since 1964.

It's almost like a gang of these petty dictators have a secret room where they sit and watch things improve on their own (because of freedom, rule of law, property rights, etc.) and then they say to each other:
Hey, look how much better life is getting! Let's come up with a public policy that will allow us, after the fact, to take credit for the observed progress -- even if the actual real-life effects of our policy will almost definitely work to reverse the current, positive trends! We can always blame others, like people who love freedom for instance, for the mess that we will be creating! 

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/07, 1:53pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 82

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
"Hey, look how much better life is getting! Let's come up with a public policy that will allow us, after the fact, to take credit for the observed progress"
Running to get in front of the parade and then yelling out, "Hey, look at this wonderful parade I started."

Parasites!

Post 83

Sunday, September 8, 2013 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This one, like many of the Krudman's articles, fit this thread's title perfectly.

Post 84

Sunday, September 8, 2013 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Political power-brokers are sort of like stock-brokers on Wall Street: they see an upward trend and ride it until it tops off and then they cash out. The difference-problem is that (1) they are gambling with our money, (2) the political capital they gain is unearned, and (3) they almost always make matters worse over time, while appearing to be champions of a better future. Stock brokers do not have those 3 flaws, at least not to any similar measure or degree.

Politicians are like stock brokers who have been given the combination to your personal safe, who ride your back while you toil underneath them (which drives your productivity down through the floor), and who try to get you to believe that your success was their doing -- all the while doing what they can to destroy future opportunity.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/08, 11:48am)


Post 85

Sunday, September 8, 2013 - 11:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Here's a quote from one of the links embedded in the link you provided:
Suppose we take a multiplier of 1.3, which is fairly conservative. Then it would have taken $1.76 trillion in spending over the past 4 1/2 years to close the output gap. Yes, I know, it would have been politically impossible but we’re just doing the economics here.

So is that an extra $1.76 trillion in debt? No the economy would have been stronger, leading both to higher revenue and to lower spending on means-tested programs. A fairly conservative estimate is that each dollar of extra GDP would have saved 1/3 of a dollar in the form of higher revenue and lower spending, which means 2.29/3 = $0.76 trillion.

So the net extra debt we would have run up with my fantasy stimulus turns out to be a round $1 trillion. OMG: ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!
The elusive Keynesian Multiplier! That thing that can never be measured, but only conjectured or speculated to be at (or "near") some imagined value! Yippeeeeeeeeeeeee! Economics, when you abandon reason, is really, really fun! My question for Krugman is:


If it became politically possible to be "just doing the economics here", and a little bit of extra spending would get us over the hump, then why not a whole lot of extra spending (to make us really rich)?? Instead of printing an extra $1.76 trillion, why shouldn't we go ahead and print $17.6 trillion???

After all, with a "conservative" multiplier of 1.3, each dollar of extra GDP would have saved 1/3 of a dollar in the form of higher revenue and lower spending. My guess is that Krugman cannot coherently answer this question, because an answer would involve a wider or deeper conceptual understanding of economics than that which he is currently employing.

Ed

p.s. And Krugman says that federal debt is only 72% of GDP. Doesn't that sound odd (fishy) to you? I queried about this, including the link, in the Economics forum.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/08, 11:46am)


Post 86

Monday, September 9, 2013 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the factor of 1.3; I just don't agree with the sign.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 87

Monday, September 9, 2013 - 5:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Good point. A realistic ("Keynesianistic") multiplier would be negative, due to the actual economic realities that it is attempting to model. In reality, things play out differently than depicted in the Keynesian model.

Ed

p.s., Here's an irony for you to ponder whilst sipping down 'a cold one': You have to hate models to truly love them.

:-)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/09, 6:37pm)


Post 88

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
p.s., Here's an irony for you to ponder whilst sipping down 'a cold one': You have to hate models to truly love them.


Ha!

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 89

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 5:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

I recently realized my analysis of inflation was missing the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

Follow along with QE1 and QE2($2T in treasury bonds purchased by the FED.)

1] Secretary at Treasury prints 12 zeros on a piece of paper.
2] Treasury walks up to FED window, who agrees to buy paper bond backed by promise to overtax future private economies.
3] FED creates $2T in brand new spendable current accounts/cash and assigns it to Treasury, who will spend it in DC's usual crony based chutes and ladders fashion.

So far: total new value in current economies: secretary printed 12 0's on a piece of paper.

4] Gov't goes out into private economies with their freshly manufactured from thin air value-proxies and demands $2T in actual value from those who create value. In exchange, they are handed IOUs.

5] The selective benefactors of that commerce take those $2T in IOUs, go out into the private economies, and compete for thier share of the new value created in the economies--which is, a secretary printed 12 0's on a piece of paper.

6] Not finding any actual value, but also finding high unemployment supressing wages and prices, this $2T in funny money finds its way to the stock market, where inflation shows up as vastly over-priced(ie, constant valued)stock prices. That is where the inflation has erupted.

7] The gov't points to the inflation in the stock market and touts 'stock market at record highs!' -- as if this was representative of good news(which it would be, if it was the consequence of economic activity/increased value. Instead, it is the result of de-valued value-proxies. Bad news.)

8] Folks on Main Street, far from DC, look at all the 'For Sale' and 'For Lease' and 'Going out of Business' signs, then look at 'Wall Street at Record Highs' and scratch their heads, not able to make sense out of the 'jobless' recovery and high unemployment and soaring stock market and apparent lack of inflation...and yet, it is all the same thing, caused exactly by the government fatfingering the economies.

In our Brave New World, the soaring Stock Market going nowhere is the inflation...pushed there by the high unemployment which supresses both wages and prices elsewhere.

No stimulus. But now, that extra $2T in bond needs to be paid back...via exra taxation on the economies. These were supposed to be 'stimulated' economies at this point, to support the extra required taxation.

So...what does this mean, if sputering economies must now be over-taxed to payback those bonds?

Uh-oh.

An irony; the same economies that had $2T in value expropriated from it (handed worthless IOUs in exchamge for real value) will now by punished by being asked to pay for that value, plus interest, via taxation.

Imagine it this way; suppose the gov't was one person, and the privae economies was one person. GMan shows up with funny money and demands $2T worth of stuff that PMan makes. PMan got nowhere to go with the cash because it represents nothing made by anyone. Puts it into a drawer. Then later, GMan shows up and demands that PMan hand over $2T, plus interest.

And, this is supposed to 'stimulate' PMan? HOW?

So far, the only new net value in the economies is ... a secretary printed 12 zeros on a piece of paper.

It is not simple $2T in and $2T plus interest out, a near net wash. (Made worse by the fact that the FED hands that interest back to treasury to spend -- to go out into the economies and demand yet MORE value to be paid for twice by the private economies-- once when they create the value and hand it over in exchange for worthless IOUs(backed only by a secretary printing 12 zeros on paper), and once again when that same government comes back and taxes the same private economies to pay back the bond.

The reason this dynamic is not symmetric is, only the gov't has the power, via the point of its guns, to manufacture IOUs of that nature. It is pure taxation both in and out. It does not broady stimulate the economies, it only selectively stimulates connected crony entities close to the tsumani of manufactured cash/OPM waterfall, via the inefficient system of government chutes and ladders.

The most amazing aspect of this scheme is that anyone, anywhere, actually believes it could work to be net stimulative. But moot-- the evidence is clear.

Given the enormity of this economic blunder-- the visible public failure of these theories -- the perps have either been slithering away ... Paulson, Geitner, and now Baranke...or else, the remaining perps(Congress/White House) have no way out of the mess they made other than continually double down.

Epic Hindenberg. Will the outcome be the end of Big Government, finally? Or will the weasels, clinging to the gig until their fingers bleed, manage to convince enough of us(for example, by pointing to the inflation they've created in stock prices)that 'Capitalism did it--need Bigger Government?'

regards,
Fred

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

That was a good explanation of the economics, but there is even more to it than that. Here is an attempt to portray this extra-economic truth artfully (via hypothesized interchange) ...
GMan: Hey, PMan, I'm sitting on a pile of freshly-minted cash. Would you like a whole heck-of-a-lot-of money?

PMan: What's the catch? What do I have to do in order to "earn" that money?

GMan: Well, I'm going to call-in some favors from you ... from time to time.

PMan: Like what?

GMan: I might, say, ask you to champion a political cause, like green energy, after I've made the necessary adjustments in my own personal investment portfolio, of course (and have also alerted my power-broker cronies to do the same).

PMan: So you want me to lie to the public about the current state of affairs, so you and your cronies can obtain unearned value (i.e., steal value from innocent people)?

GMan: Precisely.

PMan: And is that it? Is that all? Is the debasement of my own moral character the only "catch" here?

GMan: Well ... not exactly.

PMan: Go on.

GMan: You see, after I get you to debase your own moral character in service to my short-sighted and narrow-minded "interests" ... some time after that ... I'm going to come back and demand the money plus interest.

PMan: Let me get this straight. I take the money, I lie for you, and you reap unearned "reward" in the interim AND get all the money back plus interest, AND walk away without being morally tarnished -- while I am left in shambles, both economically and morally/socially?

GMan: Well, I wouldn't want to put it exactly in those terms, but yes -- that is exactly what it is that I am "asking" of you.

PMan: No thanks, GMan! You suck! Get away from me!


Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/28, 7:47am)


Post 91

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Post 90 highlights the moral dilemma (of "who first gets the money") whenever inflation occurs.

Inflation hurts everyone eventually, as its effect spread throughout all economic exchanges -- but the very first guy who gets the money experiences a windfall (he gets to spend the money before the money spreads around the markets, getting devalued in the process). That's why inflation is such a powerful tool for corruption, because the first guy benefits more than anyone else ever will. It's like having a magic wand and telling someone that you are going to give them a temporary leg-up on everyone else in the nation, by letting him be the very first recipient of inflated money. There is no objectively-moral reason to do such a thing, but there is an objectively-immoral (corruption) reason to do so.

Ed


Post 92

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

The first people to get freshly minted dollars aren't getting something MORE than others who have been making purchases in the past... it is only that they avoid the diminished value of the dollar that will follow as the newly inflated currency flows through the economy - but only if they spend it right away.

Let's say that the Government uses some of the newly created funds to cover soc. sec. payments and that a wave of those payments will go out on the 15th of this coming month. Those people can spend that new money, at old prices for goods ('old' meaning prices relatively unchanged from the month before). But those people who leave that new money in the bank for a few months before spending it will be paying higher prices.


Post 93

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 6:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Good point.

Recipients of newly-minted cash have only a few months to spend it in order to obtain goods at old prices -- though it doesn't detract from my point that inflation gives central planners illegitimate influence over economic players. If a genie-in-a-bottle said I could have $85 billion dollars, but that I have to purchase things (cars, planes, trains, islands, stocks) with it quickly, say, in a few months from the time I received it -- then I would not turn him away complaining that that is a raw deal. If that genie-in-a-bottle was a politician however, then I would know that there are strings attached, and I would "respectfully decline."

Ed


Post 94

Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
...my point that inflation gives central planners illegitimate influence over economic players
True.

They steal from those who have money in savings, erode the value many of people's investments, and their future earnings... to buy votes, buy power, pay off cronies, and all despite knowing its harm.

I was only pointing out a very minor item about the timing of the loss of value in the fiat money.

Post 95

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

Yes, displacement in the economies...that is what federal fatfingering does. But there is the following as well.

High unemployment suppresses inflation as increased wages; because wages aren't rising, that puts some drag on prices. So the inflation doesn't show up in the form of high prices as much as it would if unemployment was normal.

Generally, folks with a lot of money in savings -- which gets screwed by normal inflation -- are also the same folks who have a lot of assets as equities; since the inflation has no where to go, it is erupting as over-inflated stock prices. This ameliorates the net impact on those living off of savings.

But there is no new -value- in the stock market...it is funny money. It is constant value scored in now worth-less value proxies.

So, en masse, the funny money could be pulled out of the stock market and 'spent' -- but that would just do what unemployment and suppressed wages cannot do, which is, drive up prices for everybody.

So the 'rich' get richer -- but not in terms of the value that funny money can buy, only in terms of value proxies -- and the poor and middle class get poorer -- because in fact the above is imperfect process and inflation is starting to erupt in some areas and their savings is not as balanced by artificially inflating equities...

As it must, because the only 'stimulus' in all of the above is, a secretary printed 12 zeros on a piece of paper...

Our political leaders focus only on running down hill has sure enough got the nation to that destination.

regards,
Fred

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 96

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 6:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, why isn't the funny money showing up as new business expansion, increased pump and turbine stations, increased opportunities to pull on pump handles and circulate value?

Because the government has inserted itself into the risk-reward marketplace and fatfingered the process with its crony based chutes and ladders nonsense. By taking over 'the economy' the federal government has killed the risk-reward engines that drive the economies.

There are now basically two kinds of potential entrepreneurs in the world; those waiting for the next Curt Schilling Studio 38 subsidized risk opportunity, and those looking at this complete tribal cluster fuck and waiting for it to fail.

The net of that is economies flat on their ass, with anecdotes like 'FaceBook' --- where $100B in nowhere else to go capital is thrown at an entity that employs maybe 3400 webmonkeys.

Remember, when American capitalism was thriving, a Beth Steel employed 330,000 Americans... it would take 100 Facebook IPOs to equal 1 Beth Steel in our economies, and even then, those jobs and benefits at Facebook are nothing like those once offered to HS graduates at Beth Steel, complete with 13 weeks paid vacation.

Its difficult to comprehend the enormity of the incompetence being hurled at running 'the economy' in modern times.

The left wing attack on our universities.. that which spewed out the Krugmans, the Sunsteins, the Clintons, the Obamas... was totally effective in bringing down America. This beast is dead.

regards,
Fred

Post 97

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 6:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You can also see why private corporate bonds are not the same as public bonds.

Private corporate bonds are paid back via the actions of that private corporation to -create new value in the future-. Private corporation: prints a bond. But ... bond holders purchase bond-- transfer of current accounts from savings (past value produced)of bond buyer to bond holder.

Corporate bond offerer now has borrowed past value IOUs from bond buyer...goes out into economies and -creates new value in the future- in order to payback bond plus interest.

It all balances on an accounting basis. No inflationary funny money(current accounts transferred from bond buyer to bond holder.)


Look what is missing in the 'public bond' scenenario purchased directly by the Fed. Magic creation of current accounts, no past value transfer. Instant perversion of the economies. And, to top it off, the same people providing the value are also the same people being taxed to pay for that same value, guided and directed by others in government in their chutes and ladders 'running the economy' cluster fuck. Plus interest!

In the modern version of federal government taking over the economies, it is the GM private bond holders who got screwed over at the point of a gun. And few in the nation said a single word, other than muttered under the breath, 'serves them right.'

We really want to kill those engines with such capricious fat fingering?

So GM paid 'most' (take a few ten billion) of the subsidies back via stock. As long as we ignore the few ten billion in loss, and as long as we ignore what was stolen from the original GM bondholders...this clubbing over the head was a huge economic win!

Seriously? We're that nation today?

Personal friend, owned a construction company most of his life. Thought he was safe with those GM bonds. Never imagined the federal government showing up with a gun. Never considered that 'risk.' They cleaned out his pension, his net life savings, with the stroke of a politico Ivy Leaguer Puke's pen. Wiped him out, total roadkill after providing for himself and his family and his employees for decades. Hed been focused on other more productive things, not the implicatations of the political winds and weasel lawyerly machinations coming out of DC. Died rapidly after that of pancreatic cancer, bitter and angry.

He was emblematic of the engines that drive our economies. He took on risk, he provided jobs. In the end, he regretted it all, wishes he'd have kept working out of his pickup truck and stayed small.

He's the guy our politics has destroyed. I have no idea what these idiots think is going to replace him. And freshly educated, nobody wants to be him.


And that is what has killed our economies. They are not coming back until that which killed them is long gone.

regards,
Fred



Post 98

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Combine all of the above:


Your stock portfolio has exploded. You are stock wealthy.

Are you incentified to invest in new businesses when you see the spectacle of what Obama did to the GM bondholders?

Are you incentified by the chutes and ladders of Solyndra to go out and compete with the next subsidized SOlyndra or Curt Schilling Studio 38?

Are you eager to go out into the current trial cluster fuck and prepay your own ransom?

Or, are you going into bunker mode and waiting for the tribal insanity to pass?

Moot; because that is exactly what is happening, no matter what the cause. What is left is for the perps to spin a reason...

regards,
Fred

Post 99

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When did our federal government become so primarily inward looking? About a hundred years ago, when the progressive/socialist movement swept over the globe like a social disease.

It used to be primarily an outward looking institution.

Well, it was a big beast, and it took a while, but the social disease finally took it down.

Now maggots are frantically devouring the carcass. The bones are beginning to show, which just makes the maggots more frantic. Won't be long now.

Again, sorry if you haven't eaten breakfast.

Steve, hope the boat is floating...

regards,
Fred

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.