Economics

[Freakzilla]

There was more to it than that, even before closing... but I'm in too good a mood right now to get depressed about it.

I have a date tomorrow night.

details.
now.


(unless it's with your "wife",
in which case, I don't want
to hear about it ...)

It's with my "wife", sorry.

[SandRider]

[Freakzilla]

I know... but she's lost a LOT of weight.

[Spice Must Flow]

I disagree that it isn't a Rep vs. Dem thing.

I think economic ideas ARE divided by party lines .

and let's not forget it was a Republican president that bailed them out.

Had to be voted by congress - democrats were just as much a part of it.

Clinton and "Affordable Housing"?
Everyone is to blame for this not just Republicans or Democrats, you know what both really care about.

Bush had plenty to do with the housing crisis, but your last sentiment I agree with.

Bush supported TARP as well as the then presidental candidates Obama and McCaine. This is bipartisanship at its worst!

Something BIG is going on.
There are revolutions in the Middle East.
There are riots in debt-ridden Europe.
In the US you have the Tea Party which was quickly absorbed by the Republicans, and the Occupy Wall Street movement which was quickly absorbed by the Democrats.
The US is almost equally 50-50 between democrats and republicans. THis is not coincidence and there might not be as much difference as you think.
Rather than focus on the Republican / Democrat differences - in realm of economics I'd ask you to think about some different issues. What I think are good topics are central banking, the FED, and fiat currency. THe theives walk away while you point at one another, and they're stealing from all of us.

[Crysknife]

Yeah...

I could have afforded my house. If I didn't get laid of and find a new job 55 miles away, if my wife had kept the windows and doors closed, if... I've got a bunch of reasons.

But the truth was, I couldn't afford it comfortably and account for any emergencies like sickness, job changes, car trouble, etc...

The truth was I couldn't afford it.

I tried mortgage adjustment twice and each time they just rolled over what I was behind into the loan and raised my monthly payment.

All that did was kept foreclosure off for a while.

Well in that case the only safe way to buy a house is to save the money first. The economy hurt a lot of people, Freak, even ones that thought they were solid and not in a subprime loan. Of course I think the govt. Should put programs in place to help people. I'm still in that process and I'm still good but its hard. I will thank Obama for any assistance I get. If it keeps me in my home then that helps prop up my neighbours and their home value.

[Crysknife]

I disagree that it isn't a Rep vs. Dem thing.

I think economic ideas ARE divided by party lines .

and let's not forget it was a Republican president that bailed them out.

Had to be voted by congress - democrats were just as much a part of it.

Clinton and "Affordable Housing"?
Everyone is to blame for this not just Republicans or Democrats, you know what both really care about.

Bush had plenty to do with the housing crisis, but your last sentiment I agree with.

Bush supported TARP as well as the then presidental candidates Obama and McCaine. This is bipartisanship at its worst!

Something BIG is going on.
There are revolutions in the Middle East.
There are riots in debt-ridden Europe.
In the US you have the Tea Party which was quickly absorbed by the Republicans, and the Occupy Wall Street movement which was quickly absorbed by the Democrats.
The US is almost equally 50-50 between democrats and republicans. THis is not coincidence and there might not be as much difference as you think.
Rather than focus on the Republican / Democrat differences - in realm of economics I'd ask you to think about some different issues. What I think are good topics are central banking, the FED, and fiat currency. THe theives walk away while you point at one another, and they're stealing from all of us.

The problem is that you think the gold standard is somehow beyond corruption. It's like saying that a free market is utopia.....it isn't and again, there is no such thing as a free market. Most countries have a mixed economy and ALL of their governments play a role.
Ron Paul would slash taxes for the wealthy and slash regulations. Hell, I would save a lot of money dumping chemicals in the western desert. Paul doesn't care about the environment. That's how he will hand everything to the wealthy. He's owned by them as much as any politician. Yes I agree dems are not without guilt. But they are by far the lessor of two evils.

[Spice Must Flow]

The problem is that you think the gold standard is somehow beyond corruption. It's like saying that a free market is utopia.....it isn't and again, there is no such thing as a free market. Most countries have a mixed economy and ALL of their governments play a role.
Ron Paul would slash taxes for the wealthy and slash regulations. Hell, I would save a lot of money dumping chemicals in the western desert. Paul doesn't care about the environment. That's how he will hand everything to the wealthy. He's owned by them as much as any politician. Yes I agree dems are not without guilt. But they are by far the lessor of two evils.

Do you understand the problem of fiat currency? Tax the shit out of the rich, hell - confiscate ALL of their wealth and redistribute everything. Feel better? Good - now about fiat currency...

[Crysknife]

The problem is that you think the gold standard is somehow beyond corruption. It's like saying that a free market is utopia.....it isn't and again, there is no such thing as a free market. Most countries have a mixed economy and ALL of their governments play a role.
Ron Paul would slash taxes for the wealthy and slash regulations. Hell, I would save a lot of money dumping chemicals in the western desert. Paul doesn't care about the environment. That's how he will hand everything to the wealthy. He's owned by them as much as any politician. Yes I agree dems are not without guilt. But they are by far the lessor of two evils.

Do you understand the problem of fiat currency? Tax the shit out of the rich, hell - confiscate ALL of their wealth and redistribute everything. Feel better? Good - now about fiat currency...

I never said take everything.....what do you think I am? A socialist?

Do you understand the problem with gold standard? It's dumb and there is a reason we don't use it today. There are plenty of fiat currencies that are thriving and ours will be fine if we can get some regs back in place and tax the wealthy a little more, and maybe try some CEOs for treason. What else do you want to know?

[Spice Must Flow]

I never said take everything.....what do you think I am? A socialist?

Do you understand the problem with gold standard? It's dumb and there is a reason we don't use it today. There are plenty of fiat currencies that are thriving and ours will be fine if we can get some regs back in place and tax the wealthy a little more, and maybe try some CEOs for treason. What else do you want to know?

You can make arguments against the gold standard - I've stated repeatedly to deaf ears it is not the only way.
What are the thriving fiat currencies you speak of? Ours fiat dollar only goes back to 1971.

[Crysknife]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opini ... c_ev=click

It's obvious isn't it? You don't cut jobs in the middle of a recession.

[Spice Must Flow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-KWR-123011-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

It's obvious isn't it? You don't cut jobs in the middle of a recession.

I am not sure what you mean.
Who doesn't cut jobs? Corporations? Of course they do - that's why it's a recession!
Do you mean the government should have job friendly policies? That would be anti-raising taxes - aparently it's not obivious to you.

This "Keynes was Right" crap is silly. You do realize Bush was following Keynesian policies, don't you? If McCain had won instead of Obama, he'd be spending money too - and I bet you'd be criticizing him because he's a Republican. Of course cutting spending is going to be painful, but it will be more painful in the long run if we don't.

I'm sorry you couln't come up with a "thriving fiat currency," but if you find one compare it to a real currency like gold. How did it perform in the last 10 years? Compare it against a wheat, sugar, corn - the things you recognize that matter. Check the dollar out against these things - what you find should shock you, not the "ho-hum, if we just tax the rich everything will be all right."

And speaking of taxes, inflation (increasing the money supply) is a tax that disproportionally affects the poor. Shouldn't this be AT LEAST as important as your mantra "tax the rich." If you REALLY are concerned about the poor, then it is important that you understand this. If you just want to be an obedient Democrat and tow the party line, then you shouldn't be thinking about these types of things.

[Crysknife]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-KWR-123011-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

It's obvious isn't it? You don't cut jobs in the middle of a recession.

I am not sure what you mean.
Who doesn't cut jobs? Corporations? Of course they do - that's why it's a recession!
Do you mean the government should have job friendly policies? That would be anti-raising taxes - aparently it's not obivious to you.

This "Keynes was Right" crap is silly. You do realize Bush was following Keynesian policies, don't you? If McCain had won instead of Obama, he'd be spending money too - and I bet you'd be criticizing him because he's a Republican. Of course cutting spending is going to be painful, but it will be more painful in the long run if we don't.

I'm sorry you couln't come up with a "thriving fiat currency," but if you find one compare it to a real currency like gold. How did it perform in the last 10 years? Compare it against a wheat, sugar, corn - the things you recognize that matter. Check the dollar out against these things - what you find should shock you, not the "ho-hum, if we just tax the rich everything will be all right."

And speaking of taxes, inflation (increasing the money supply) is a tax that disproportionally affects the poor. Shouldn't this be AT LEAST as important as your mantra "tax the rich." If you REALLY are concerned about the poor, then it is important that you understand this. If you just want to be an obedient Democrat and tow the party line, then you shouldn't be thinking about these types of things.

Once agian, utter bullshit.

By cutting governmnet you are cutting jobs, real jobs that pay money to people who then go out and spend it at the local coffee shop that is trying to stay in business.

Bush did not follow Keynesian policies because he was raising deficit spending when we had low unemployment and good times. That is a time to SLOW deficit spending. Obviously you don't understand.

Your hangup on fiat currencies is pretty lame. In the end it's the regulations on any type of monetary system that will ensure it's survival.

Where's the inflation? We've ran a debt and deficit for 80 years now. Calm down, the world isn't ending because of the debt. The only argument you have against the debt is that if we reduce it then Americans will gain confidence. Well that's speculation just like lowering taxes on the rich will create jobs. You have no hard evidence on anything you say. And that coffee shop will love it when you reduce the debt by firing it's customers.

[Robspierre]

Lowering taxes does not create jobs. Customers create jobs. When the working/middle class have less and less income to spend companies sell less, reduce their workforce and we have a vicious cycle.

Corporations have paid to have the regulations reduced, many of the regulations put into place after the Crash of '29 were removed allowing the various banks, hedge funds, and speculators to run wild.

Banks have been proven to have lied to get customers loans because of pressure from upper management.

Taxes now are lower than when Reagan was president. Sure shoots the cut tax crowds arguments.

Rob

[Spice Must Flow]

Once agian, utter bullshit.

By cutting governmnet you are cutting jobs, real jobs that pay money to people who then go out and spend it at the local coffee shop that is trying to stay in business.

Bush did not follow Keynesian policies because he was raising deficit spending when we had low unemployment and good times. That is a time to SLOW deficit spending. Obviously you don't understand.

Your hangup on fiat currencies is pretty lame. In the end it's the regulations on any type of monetary system that will ensure it's survival.

Where's the inflation? We've ran a debt and deficit for 80 years now. Calm down, the world isn't ending because of the debt. The only argument you have against the debt is that if we reduce it then Americans will gain confidence. Well that's speculation just like lowering taxes on the rich will create jobs. You have no hard evidence on anything you say. And that coffee shop will love it when you reduce the debt by firing it's customers.

You could have the government hire one man to dig a ditch, and one man to fill it. You've employed two people, but you're not creating wealth, you're wasting it. Heck, by your argument they should just print money and give it to people, and that would improve the economy. Wait - they kind of are doing that

Remember those good times of the Bush years starting off with the fallout from the tech bubble crash, and closely followed by 911. Oh yeah, those were the good 'ol days, the economy was really booming, wasn't it. NO, it wasn't - those weren't "good times" as you present it by any stretch of the imagination. Things appeared to get better because of the deficit spending, and the promotion of the credit/ housing bubble. It bought us time, but in the end left us with more debt and a housing bubble crash.

Where's the inflation after 80 years? Well, compare prices today with those of 80 years ago. Didn't your grandpa ever tell you a story about how a coke was a nickel when he was young (depending on when he was young) or something like that? Inflation is the increase in the money supply, higher prices is the result. Depending on how old you are, I'm sure you can see plenty of inflation as you compare prices of things when you were a child to today.

No - the debt is not a psychology/confidence thang. At some unknown point they will either have to default on the debt, or hyperinflate. Americans don't lose confidence in their currency because they look at the national debt number - most are hardly aware of it. But they will lose confidence when they go to make a purchase and their dollar starts buying less and less at a faster and faster pace. What type of regulations do you propose will save us? It's not the end of the world - except that historically these things usually end in wars.

[Crysknife]

You're beyond help, dude. Your ideas would kill people literally and figuratively. Bush was handed a surplus and he chose to cut regs and cut taxes for the wealthy instead of strengthening the regs and preparing for hard times by paying down some of the debt when he had the chance. But you would vote for him if it were a choice between him or Obama. Sad. And Ron Paul is 5 times worse than Bush.

[Crysknife]

BTW, they also had less nickles back then. Just change the name of a dollar to "nickle" and your problem is solved. I mean, the average American back then didn't make 50,000 a year either.

[Crysknife]

Also, its sad that you would call the infrastructure that the country has built as a "waste". The pipe that was laid in that ditch will benifit many households or businesses. Get lost.

[Spice Must Flow]

My ideas are going to kill people? Please, pop out of your ideology for a moment. I get the impression you have your beliefs, and you pick the economic arguments that will support those beliefs. Everyone does this to some extent, but shouldn't you at least try to do it the other way around? I've got it that you want to blame everything on the Republicans. They wear black hats and Democrats wear white hats. The world's not a KJA novel, it's a little more complicated than that. Europe is pretty socialist, they've got problems, did the Republicans do that?

You're beyond help, dude. Your ideas would kill people literally and figuratively. Bush was handed a surplus and he chose to cut regs and cut taxes for the wealthy instead of strengthening the regs and preparing for hard times by paying down some of the debt when he had the chance. But you would vote for him if it were a choice between him or Obama. Sad. And Ron Paul is 5 times worse than Bush.

The boom time was with Clinton, not with Bush. Clinton did cut the deficit for which he deserves some credit, but in no way did he pay off any debt. Why aren't you criticizing Clinton? It's because he's a democrat, and they're the good guys, right?

Also, its sad that you would call the infrastructure that the country has built as a "waste". The pipe that was laid in that ditch will benifit many households or businesses. Get lost.

Actually, if money is going to be spent, infrastructure is a good place to do it. Obama should have spent more of the stimulus there.

Let's look at your arguments on the gold standard.

Nixon knew the gold standard was crap. How can you multiply wealth when you can't multiply the gold

Do you understand the problem with gold standard? It's dumb and there is a reason we don't use it today.

I've got a decent grasp of it, but I can tell you don't. There are legitmate arguments to make against it, but all you could come up with is "it's dumb." Were the founders of the US "dumb" when they put in the constitution that only gold and silver could be used for money? Why is it historically the most widely used system. Whether you agree with it or not, "dumb" just doesn't fit. Maybe Nixon though it was crappy because he needed to find a way to finance the Vietnam War, and the gold standard was preventing him from doing that? Is there any other issue with which you agree with NIxon, or just the "crap" issue.

It's true I've thrown alot out there, but you don't appear to be making any effort to understand what I am saying beyond explaining why I'm wrong, and you're not even doing a good job of that. I don't care if you disagree with me, but at least understand what you disagree with. Much of what I am talking about is readily accepted by socialists. I converse with some, and I learn from them and sometimes they learn from me. You haven't given me anything to work with beyond "tax the rich," and you're not receptive to anything I have to offer. I won't exactly "get lost" but you're right, there's no point going further with this discussion.

BTW, they also had less nickles back then. Just change the name of a dollar to "nickle" and your problem is solved. I mean, the average American back then didn't make 50,000 a year either.

OK - this is the one thing for someone who claims to want to help the poor should understand. Inflation is a tax on the poor. Go to your liberal economics website of choice and verify it. If you don't have one ,please google it - there are pleny of liberal websites that discuss it. You're so steadfast in your "tax the rich," and you just laugh this one off because it doesn't come from the Democratic party. It comes down to if you are really sincere.

[Crysknife]

Yeah, more infrastructure would have been nice. Too bad the Republicans wanted much of it to be in tax cuts. If dems had had their way there would have been more infrastructure.

You're right though, there is no reason to further the debate. Thanks.

[Nekhrun]

You could have the government hire one man to dig a ditch, and one man to fill it. You've employed two people, but you're not creating wealth, you're wasting it.

This is ridiculous. Government jobs are every bit as necessary and as permanent as private sector jobs. Or maybe you think that if people in the private sector are hired to build or provide a service for something that those are permanent jobs. They're only as permanent as the demand for the service. While I know that some of you can't wrap your heads around it, government is necessary for functioning society and regulation is a good thing.

[Spice Must Flow]

You could have the government hire one man to dig a ditch, and one man to fill it. You've employed two people, but you're not creating wealth, you're wasting it.

This is ridiculous. Government jobs are every bit as necessary and as permanent as private sector jobs. Or maybe you think that if people in the private sector are hired to build or provide a service for something that those are permanent jobs. They're only as permanent as the demand for the service. While I know that some of you can't wrap your heads around it, government is necessary for functioning society and regulation is a good thing.

Your statement is so broad it's hard to address. What government jobs, what private sector jobs, what regulations?
Surely you don't think ALL government jobs are necessary? It's GOOD that private sector jobs are only as permanent as the demand for the service!

Let me expand on my point (which admittedly wasn't really clear) because you've misinterpreted my meaning. I was responding to this:

By cutting governmnet you are cutting jobs, real jobs that pay money to people who then go out and spend it at the local coffee shop that is trying to stay in business.

Government jobs are MUCH more permanent than private sector jobs. (the following is a metaphore, not to be taken literally) That's not a good thing, because you need a ditch digger when you need holes. When you don't need holes, you don't need to divert tax payer money for the purpose of digging them. WIth government it is exceedingly difficult to get rid of a job, so instead they hire someone to fill in the holes. You hire a supervisor to oversee the ditch digging. An entire department of ditch digging is created over something you may have at one time needed, but don't anymore. This does not contribute to the prosperity of a society, it decreases it.

Yes, we still want people to go to the coffee shop or black smith shop. Well, actually there aren't too many black smith shops (are they called smitherys?) because there is very low demand for them. So, the smitherys go away, and if no one wants coffee anymore, so will the coffee shop. Or, the government could also intevene in the private sector by providing support for the smitherys - maybe it could give them a tax break, but for what purpose? To keep blacksmiths employed providing a service that people don't want? This also does not contribute to the prosperity of a society.

If employment is your only goal, hire the ditch diggers/coverers. But what I am saying is:

You could have the government hire one man to dig a ditch, and one man to fill it. You've employed two people, but you're not creating wealth, you're wasting it.

[Spice Must Flow]

Lowering taxes does not create jobs. Customers create jobs. When the working/middle class have less and less income to spend companies sell less, reduce their workforce and we have a vicious cycle.

So, if you cut taxes, people will have more income to spend, and there will be more jobs. I'm with you.

Taxes now are lower than when Reagan was president. Sure shoots the cut tax crowds arguments.

Now you seem to disagreeing with your previous statement.
Keep in mind - when Reagan took office we were the biggest creditor nation, where as now we are the biggest debtor nation, coming off the biggest credit bubble in history, which has a long way to go before being reconciled. Taxes aren't the only variable. In economics, there are SO many factors to consider, and many that we can't even account for and we are completely unaware of. That's why what we're talking about is mostly theory, and the best we can do is try to reason the way things work. Like your reasoning in your first statement seems to support lowering taxes. I certainly allow for diversity of opinion, but I'd like to understand your reasoning, and maybe I'll learn something - and hopefully impart something, but at least understand your point of view and why you hold it. Hopefully we'll reason to our assumptions, rather from them.
So - do you understand the reasoning for my interpretation of your first statement and why I think it supports lowering taxes = more jobs?

Corporations have paid to have the regulations reduced, many of the regulations put into place after the Crash of '29 were removed allowing the various banks, hedge funds, and speculators to run wild.

Banks have been proven to have lied to get customers loans because of pressure from upper management.

Let banks, hedge funds, and speculators run wild if that's what they choose. Then they will go out of business and be replaced by more prudent players. If you bail them out, then they will continue to go wild because if they bet right, they win, and if they loose, taxpayers will cover their bet. Send me to Vegas with that deal - I'd go wild too!
If they are engaged in fraud, they should go to jail. You don't see alot of that happening. This is what government is SUPPOSED to be "regulating" and they are not. Fraud is already illegal - you don't need more regulations.

[Robspierre]

Lowering taxes does not create jobs. Customers create jobs. When the working/middle class have less and less income to spend companies sell less, reduce their workforce and we have a vicious cycle.

So, if you cut taxes, people will have more income to spend, and there will be more jobs. I'm with you.

Taxes now are lower than when Reagan was president. Sure shoots the cut tax crowds arguments.

Now you seem to disagreeing with your previous statement.


No I'm not.

what you are conveniently ignoring is cost of services and tax increases elsewhere. We hear cut taxes, cut taxes. Look at the reality of tax cuts. They are aimed at people who make more than a million a year and at removing any inheritance tax. Because the poorest do not pay taxes, the hardest hit is the working and middle class.

Cutting taxes does not automatically put more money in peoples pockets. Health care costs in this country are outrageous and increase at a rate greater than inflation. Insurance is a racket that costs more and more each year. The costs of fuel eats into income. Food items cost more for less. Federal taxes get lowered but states increase taxes in other areas, sales tax, car registration fee's etc.

American wages/income have actually decreased since the '70's while the upper 1% have seen an increase in earned income. Yet taxes are lower.

That is why I am not contradicting myself. Yo cannot just say cut taxes will give the worker more money. It won't. There has to be this broad swath of changes in order for that to happen.

Cutting government jobs does not reduce government spending. Someone loses their job and the job gets outsourced and costs more to be done now. Reagan started this stupid shit. Example. The Forest Service has seen their budget cut for wild land fire suppression. et, more and more people are living in rural areas and we are seeing massive development in areas that see a large amount of yearly fire activity. Because of cut budgets the Forest Service does not have the manpower to fight wild fires and contract crews are hired. As soon as the contract is up they stop working and renegotiate at a higher rate. (Be careful about shooting your mouth off here, my father was a Forest Service firefighter for 37 years. He ran a Hot Shot crew and was a national resource called upon to not just fight fires but to help during natural disasters and was even loaned out to Canada on several occasions.)

Instead of the smaller government line, how about smarter government. You need to really address that with some concrete ideas backed up with some research.

Your talking points are overly simplistic and do not address the reality that the US is an empire made up of fifty "nations" with federal oversight.

I spent fourteen years running business from low six figures to mid seven figures and dealing with requirements from multiple states and the federal level. Until you get away from your 'cute' little talking points and stop throwing around the trite buzzwords such as Keynesian and Austrian models and other trite shite, you will not be taken seriously.

Even though he doesn't write much anymore, you can find archived on the net The Whisky Bar by Billmon. His day job was t write risk analysis for corporations based on current economic situations. He would be paid to attend Davros and then write up real world reports based on what took place at the conference. You want the reality of the global, and it is a global economic situation, start reading his posts because right now you are just a nutter sticking his fingers in his ears going lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is all ready made up."

Rob

[Nekhrun]

You could have the government hire one man to dig a ditch, and one man to fill it. You've employed two people, but you're not creating wealth, you're wasting it.

This is ridiculous. Government jobs are every bit as necessary and as permanent as private sector jobs. Or maybe you think that if people in the private sector are hired to build or provide a service for something that those are permanent jobs. They're only as permanent as the demand for the service. While I know that some of you can't wrap your heads around it, government is necessary for functioning society and regulation is a good thing.

Your statement is so broad it's hard to address. What government jobs, what private sector jobs, what regulations?
Surely you don't think ALL government jobs are necessary? It's GOOD that private sector jobs are only as permanent as the demand for the service!

It was your stupid post that led to my comment (remember hole diggers?)

I think that more government jobs are necessary (and don't call me Shirley [doesn't quite work the same online]).

[Spice Must Flow]

what you are conveniently ignoring is cost of services and tax increases elsewhere. We hear cut taxes, cut taxes. Look at the reality of tax cuts. They are aimed at people who make more than a million a year and at removing any inheritance tax. Because the poorest do not pay taxes, the hardest hit is the working and middle class.
Cutting taxes does not automatically put more money in peoples pockets.
...That is why I am not contradicting myself. Yo cannot just say cut taxes will give the worker more money. It won't. There has to be this broad swath of changes in order for that to happen.

In and of itself (all else being equal, other issues aside), lowering your taxes 5% would give you 5% more in your pocket. Or are you saying that lowering your taxes causes an increase in cost of services? (tax increases elsewhere would just be disguising your tax cut)

Health care costs in this country are outrageous and increase at a rate greater than inflation. Insurance is a racket that costs more and more each year.

Agree - supported by regulations, the tax structure and government services which skew incentives.

The costs of fuel eats into income. Food items cost more for less. Federal taxes get lowered but states increase taxes in other areas, sales tax, car registration fee's etc.

Inflation and supply and demand issues on fuel and food - arguably not helped by government policies. States are spending the money somewhere.

American wages/income have actually decreased since the '70's while the upper 1% have seen an increase in earned income. Yet taxes are lower.

I'd argue other factors involved. The 1% income increase is a concern.

Cutting government jobs does not reduce government spending. Someone loses their job and the job gets outsourced and costs more to be done now. .

You're assuming the government is still going to supply or pay for the service.

Reagan started this stupid shit. Example. The Forest Service has seen their budget cut for wild land fire suppression. et, more and more people are living in rural areas and we are seeing massive development in areas that see a large amount of yearly fire activity. Because of cut budgets the Forest Service does not have the manpower to fight wild fires and contract crews are hired. As soon as the contract is up they stop working and renegotiate at a higher rate. (Be careful about shooting your mouth off here, my father was a Forest Service firefighter for 37 years. He ran a Hot Shot crew and was a national resource called upon to not just fight fires but to help during natural disasters and was even loaned out to Canada on several occasions.) .

I know very little about this issue - but if the government is going to provide a service, and it costs more to outsource it, then they shouldn't. It sounds like you are threatening me

Instead of the smaller government line, how about smarter government. You need to really address that with some concrete ideas backed up with some research..

Smarter sounds good, but I'm also for LESS - I want the government doing less.

Your talking points are overly simplistic and do not address the reality that the US is an empire made up of fifty "nations" with federal oversight. .

Agree that the US in an empire - I am not for empire. I'm primarily talking about a federal level, each state would have to (get to) find it's own solutions for anything not specified in the constitution.

I spent fourteen years running business from low six figures to mid seven figures and dealing with requirements from multiple states and the federal level. Until you get away from your 'cute' little talking points and stop throwing around the trite buzzwords such as Keynesian and Austrian models and other trite shite, you will not be taken seriously.

That's a bit hostile - I don't think I deserve that.

Even though he doesn't write much anymore, you can find archived on the net The Whisky Bar by Billmon. His day job was t write risk analysis for corporations based on current economic situations. He would be paid to attend Davros and then write up real world reports based on what took place at the conference. You want the reality of the global, and it is a global economic situation, start reading his posts because right now you are just a nutter sticking his fingers in his ears going lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is all ready made up

Why don't you point out for me where I have done that, because I am not aware of it. As for the site, I'll check it out next year.