Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

Good article, although seem to have changed your mind on this subject half way through. At first, you directly blamed many problems on capitalism. But then you realized the real cause: corrupt government. It took a few tries, but you finally hit the nail on the head.

You’re right when you say we need a new type of politician. All those problems you brought up exist because we allow bribery of our government. So-called “campaign donations” from businesses must be outlawed. Only hardcore party-supporters see these as anything other than bribes.

Nope, Traveller, didn’t change my mind or argument. I began the article praising capitalism for what it does best, and went on to point out that government policy and management is what they do worst in most cases. Nothing inconsistent and no U-turns involved.

Government requires a very different focus and has a different responsibility than that of a capitalist investment business manager.

Of course, I agree with you entirely regarding the legal and illegal bribery and blackmail which is the foundation of our campaign finance system.

While I believe that capitalism is better than any other economic system, out of control capitalism, one that controls government, is very dangerous. It’s just as dangerous as socialism and communism. Both of which is an economic system. Not a form of government. Despite what some folks would like to have us believe.
In order to keep politicians from being controlled by out of control capitalism major reform in campaign finance is needed. Businesses and special interest needs to barred from contributing to political campaigns. As long as these are allowed to bribe politicians with large contributions to their campaigns capitalism will continue to control the government.

David

In the U.S. economy we believe in evolution instead of intelligent design. Our economy is the result of millions of small decisions, experiments, success and failure. It make no sense to those who try to figure out who is in charge, but clearly large scale cental planners have done a much worse job of creating wealth and general prosperity than our freer market has produced.

The best way for the government to plan is to create conditions where the people can plan for themselves.

David,

Great article. Now here’s why it’s all wrong… (the short response by necessity)

The first major flaw with this political theory is that planned economies make even worse choices than ‘unplanned capitalism’. Planned economies are notoriously poorly planned — every time it’s tried!

Secondly, the kind of ‘planned economy’ which you would hail as our salvation has already been tried. It’s called corporatism. We can thank Mussolini for discrediting precisely this kind of government/capitalist partnership. Your preferred form of government is in fact a part of history which you may want to study. It is economic fascism.

It is important that our government call in industry leaders for consultation when designing everything from building codes to fuel efficiency standards. But we the people, through our representatives, should design those codes and standards for maximum value. American capitalists will design them for maximum replacement cycles.

But, through our campaign finance system, our legislators don’t just consult with them, they actually ask capitalist industries to design social and national policy. Big Mistake! Huge! This is precisely why it costs American taxpayers $350 for a bolt in a military machine, or $200 for a military toilet seat. When the capitalists control government decision making, it is not the nation that benefits, but, that small subset of the population called capitalist investors.

Thirdly, the ‘unplanned capitalism’ you are speaking of isn’t unplanned at all. When a property owner sells his land to a developer who builds a shopping mall it is in fact highly planned. What you refer to as unplanned is in fact your determination that what others do with their private property should be your decision rather than theirs.

This is a far more egregious shredding of the constitution than any imagined phone tapping ‘scandal’.

By necessity planned economies will have to resort to limiting both free speech and private property in order to ‘plan’ the economy. It is a new version, ‘sheep’s clothing’ if you will, of old ideas, David.

Fourthly, moving from ‘unplanned capitalism, which, even by your account has made America a wealthy and powerful nation, would in fact have the effect of making America a third world nation in a short period of time.

David,

I may be way off base here, but I personally believe the hold capitalism has on our society today amounts to little more than the hold our European ancestors had on indigenous Americans. With certain exceptions (such as this electronic ink machine) most of what feeds the capitalist machine is “bobbles and beads”.

One example that comes to mind is video games ———- they hold someones attention just like any other new shiny toy, that is to say NOT LONG! They’ve also resulted in a level of physical inactivity that has contributed to a decline in the health of our nations young.

You’ve already mentioned the MIC so I’ll not beat that dead horse other than to say, WASTE. I’ve personally witnessed waste running rampant in both a state government bureaucracy and in a neoliberal corporate environment.

In the case of the state bureaucracy the result was providing less of the services that we were there to provide. In the case of the corporation the result was outsourcing to Mexico, increased workloads and reduced safety standards for laborers, and ultimately the lay-off of 75% of the American workforce, while we in even lower management, R&D, etc. enjoyed handsome bonuses.

My third and final part of this rant has to do with OIL! I graduated from high school at the age of seventeen in 1969. I was a poor boy but my grades and my fathers deceased veteran status earned me two scholarships and a few other perks, but I wouldn’t have been able to complete even my basically community college education without Greyhound and Continental Trailways.

Now you can’t get anywhere in rural America unless you own at least one car……….I know because I can’t drive! Jimmy Carter was the last POTUS to really push conservation. Given our ever growing population step number one in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing our negative effect on the environment is conservation.

The Cheney cartel’s made conservation a freakin’ joke. I know two business owners (hardware & floral) that opted for Suburbans to replace their fleets of minivans because of Bush-Co tax breaks. OTOH they certainly served the capitalist interests………very temporarily.

The effect of capitalism is always temporary. Every time the capitalists come to visit they must offer the newest and shiniest bobbles and beads!

The most recent blend of politics and capitalism (beyond the MIC) is the notion that privatization of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. will result in improved coverage and lower costs even though facts surrounding the Medicare part D plan and Medicare Advantage plans point the other way, not to mention the 17 to 18% of Americans lacking any health insurance at all.

Still, they keep dangling those bobbles and beads in front of us and we keep biting just like fish at the shiny spinning bait. And just like the fish we’ll continue to be filleted unless we learn.

Boy, Jack, did you miss the thrust of this article. Just where in this article did you find your projection of a Communist cabal designing a central plan for all people to obey and comply to?

Paranoia strikes deep. I know, I know, I didn’t spell it out in detail so a fearful conservative could climb over their fear. You see, Jack, in America we have a host of researchers and academics who have studied in depth the sociological and psychological impacts of various community designs. We have similar experts who have studied the economic and financial impacts of our varied urban designs and absence thereof, and some newer ones based on proven more productive and efficient models, from home to work commutes to energy efficiency in design and implementation.

What I suggest in this article is that we elect politicians who will consult with and heed the advice of researchers, and who can recognize the validity of their data if it’s there, AS OPPOSED to letting the for profit developers design the codes and layouts for maximum sales with little to no regard for maximum quality and durability.

Guess you missed this clear implication that all voters have to do is insist that politicians listen good old American know how, instead of good old American greed. Hope that helped you over whatever seeming fears of marxist conspiracy you may have projected into this article.

David:

What country to you see that is governed according to your standards?

Craig

Craig, what, you want America to follow other country’s model all of a sudden? WoW! What happened to good old American ingenuity and creativity and leadership into territory none others have dared tread in the name of a better way. Oh, yeah, I forgot. We sold it to the Japanese, who now use it in our Toyota and Honda manufacturing plants to provide better cars, better jobs, and better pay to American workers than American companies can.

esimonson,

I’m curious where the underpaid, uninsured, and undereducated play into your scheme of things. Do I dare even mention those who are incapable of caring for themselves?

Shouldn’t there be some balance, or rather some reasonable controls so we stop moving towards a society who’s only motivation is monetary domination? Or is the ultimate goal to be the one who dies with the most money and assets?

As wealthy as we are as a nation we couldn’t prevent a few idealogical extremists from hijacking airliners and turning them into weapons. We seem to be unable or unwilling to care for all of our own countrymen or their families and most shamefully we’ve failed to even provide proper care to our veterans.

With a national debt approaching 70% of GDP and looming disasters regarding the elderly, disabled, and poor we have to decide whether or not we want to be the worlds next huge disgrace. Will we be the Darfur of the future?

David:

Sorry, I am just curious. What country do you like that governs according to your standards?

Craig

Craig, reread my last reply. The answer is in there. I have to work at these articles and replies, it is only fair to ask readers to do a little thinking about them, IMO. I never respected the answers given to me so highly as those which I was led toward but had to take the last step/s on my own.

Craig, good question to David. I mostly appreciate David’s posts and research, however, I would like to hear him state (1) a country (2) that it is a process/model he’d like to see instated.

David:

I think the question is fair. I also think it is fine if you prefer another way of doing economics. There must be somewhere on earth that you can point to and say, “here, this is a place that does economics the way I think they should be done.”

I know what you are against. I want to know what you are for. I want the name of a country whose economic policies reflect your beliefs.

Craig

David, great article, except for the obvious (gee, we are in the Independent part of the blog) 3rd party tilt. Sorry, I won’t be sold on the Third Party line until a third party comes along that isn’t at one extreme or the other. Until that happens, no third party candidate will be electable, and thus I will not support them. I would rather try to change from within. Evolution rather than revolution, if you will.

Craig and Edge: Why does David need to point out a country that does things the way he thinks is good? America itself was an experiment in a new way of doing things, or at least based on an old way that hadn’t been tried in 1500 years. Checks and balances, republican representative structure, a two house Congress, these were all brand new ideas in the late 18th century. So why can’t American forge ahead and remake herself in a new mold, one that truly befits a world leader of the 21st century? Find the balance between the forces of capitalism and the needs of the people and of the Earth. That is the path to tread.

L

“Why does David need to point out a country that does things the way he thinks is good?”

BAM!

You’ve got it leatherankh! IMO it’s not a matter of trying to be “like” anyone else. It’s looking at what we are and trying to be better.

Almost anyone knows that nothing stands still. We can either move forward or backward, certainly we’ll experience periods where we go back and forth and side to side, but for some reason we seem to be stuck on stupid right now.

Most of America’s strength has been acquired since the controls introduced by FDR took affect and ever since then SOME of the capitalists have been trying to destroy every program that has resulted in us becoming numero uno! Like it or not we’re all in this together.

Unless we add support to the weakest links in our society we will fail just as other nations have failed.

Like I said, David does his homework. If this is theory then call it that. IMO we need to stand by what we say as represented.

KansasDem, standing by our weakest links in society has never been a success. You balance standing by them with pulling their collective arses up by the boot straps. Plenty of Americans want you to stand by them without any accountablility. Where is the accountability man? A bloke has to stand for his own rights, not wait for someone to stand on their own behalf.

KansasDem,

I have absolutely no problem with taking care of those who need our help. In fact, I spend a lot of my time doing just that.

However, the problem comes when you force someone else to do it by legally putting a gun to their head to do so. I’ve never really been able to support that kind of ‘help’.

KansasDem,
One example that comes to mind is video games ———- they hold someones attention just like any other new shiny toy, that is to say NOT LONG! They’ve also resulted in a level of physical inactivity that has contributed to a decline in the health of our nations young.

You know, I’ve noticed something: Democrats treat video gamers exactly the same same way Republicans treat homosexuals.
Gaming doesn’t make people violent and it doesn’t hurt out health.
You would think it would be the Reps coming out against video games, but for some reason it’s usually democrats. Hillery is a good example.

The first major flaw with this political theory is that planned economies make even worse choices than ‘unplanned capitalism’. Planned economies are notoriously poorly planned — every time it’s tried

How about some real examples instead of a blanket statement????

David

Decision makers consult experts, but they make the decision. Those sociologists who study the poor gave us the war on poverty, which we lost. Those experts on economics often do not understand the dynamism of the system they study. If you let experts run things, things will be run as well as most university departments.

I am not sure we disagree, so let me explain what I am saying. Experts are very often narrow and poor at making choices. That is how they got to be experts in their fields. Theirs is a different skill set from decision makers. They should be consulted - yes - consulted.

Some things should not be planned at all by governments, or planned only in broad lines of infrastructure. We probably disagree on the details of this.

We probably also disagree on the general state of America. I think it is very good. Whatever we have been doing is working well in comparison to what most others are doing. That does not mean that we should not seek constant improvement or learn from the experience of others, but our system is not broken. It requires constant work, but it does not require radical change.

Consider environment. This is the one we always complain about. 40 years ago, we identified a serious problem with pollution such as so2, shoot, CO, NOx etc in the air and sewerage and chemicals in the water. We largely solved those problems. The air and water in the U.S. is cleaner than in most places in the world (and I have been to many). Recently we have identified CO2 as a problem. 40 years ago, scientists and experts mostly agreed CO2 was harmless (listen to the experts, right). I have confidence that after a short time we will address this problem, as effectively as we addressed acid rain in the early 1990s. After we do that, we will identify another problem. Identifying and solving problems is a sign of success.

BTW - re science - I was talking to my son about dinosaurs the other day. It seems that most of the science I learned back when I was a kid is wrong. They even changed the names of many of the dinosaurs. That is the way science is. It changes and is never settled. That is why you can never “let science decide”. Experts in the pseudo sciences like sociology or econometrics have an even worse record when it comes to deciding. That is why good decision making - consulting experts but not relying on any particular ones - is such a useful and rare skill.

Perhaps the VA used to be run efficiently…it still may be efficient, but, according to the lawsuit being filed against it, it isn’t functioning for our sons & daughters who are returning from Iraq:

Yet, the lawsuit says, Nicholson and other officials still insisted on a budget in 2005 that fell $1 billion short, and they made “a mockery of the rule of law” by awarding senior officials $3.8 million in bonuses despite their role in the budget foul-up.

Today, the VA’s backlog of disability payments is between 400,000 and 600,000, with delays of up to 177 days to process an initial claim and an average of 657 days to process an appeal.

Jack, would you send a NASA mission into space without a mission design to insure its success? If not, I fail to see any logic in the position that government should be absent a mission design for its various policy directions and areas of responsibility. Government already takes its design from wealthy special interests, and it is having extremely bad consequences.

We need to raise the caliber of our politicians such that they are capable of understanding and synthesizing the information from the experts into a cohesive plan that minimizes waste and failure, very much as NASA mission managers do. We would do no less for a Mission to Mars or the Moon, why should we tolerate less for the mission of charting America’s future?

David

NASA is a technical and scientific venture. Those you can plan. Economic and social things are harder. There are many more players and they do not agree on basic goals and values.

We are both reasonable guys. I bet if we each made a list of the things most important for a just, fair and prosperous society, one that we would NOT participate in personally to keep us disinterested, it would be very different. We have litte consensus on goals and values so making a program to reach them is hard.

Beyond that, in NASA you are talking physics. Physics is probably the hardest (i.e. most rigorous) of the sciences. When you start dealing even with biology you have more variations and less knowable outcomes. By the time you go to sociology, you really do not have science at all.

Charting America’s future cannot be a science either. It is based on values and reasonable disagreements. The system we have now allows for more pluralism than any other large scale system I have seen or even heard of. It allows the most people the largest range of choices BECAUSE it does not impose an overall plan on us all.

David:

The reason government does not do the planning you want done is that business is against it. Business pays legislators to write - sometimes business itself writes the legislation - that helps business.

Republicans go along with this because business is where they get their campaign money. Democrats don’t like this but they do it too in order to get campaign money.

The only way of achieving what you want is to take the power of money out of campaigns. The best way to accomplish this is to have government fund campaigns. This has been a liberal goal for a long time.

Paul, that is precisely what I wrote in my article. That is what has to be changed. Jack and conservatives opposed to national planning don’t realize it is already being planned, just extremely badly by the highest bidders on election campaigns. It is one of the primary reasons America has no follow through on a lot of legislation, like the 1986 Amnesty and border security law, or Social Security and Medicare reform. The wealthy special interests won’t allow it. America the nation and her people suffer for it in a host of ways, the least of which is paying taxes and getting little back from them as promised by the politicians.

Jack said: “Those you can plan. Economic and social things are harder.”

And JFK said “We do these things not because they are easy, but, because they are hard.” Great words those. Too bad Republicans fight them so adamantly. Ironic that Republicans support the impossible like Iraq, but, won’t support the merely difficult, for their own nation.

David

It is not only hard to plan the economy. It is impossible and the attempt is undesirable. Let firms plan. Let individuals plan. Let NGOs plan. Let government create the infrastructure and protect the rule of law needed for these enterprises. Government can plan that part if they need to plan.

You are right when you say it is being planned. It is planned by the people, by firms and by NGOs. In other words, it is planned by the American nation, not by the American government. This is how it should be. The government has enough trouble planning for itself.

Jack said: “Let government create the infrastructure and protect the rule of law needed for these enterprises.”

But, that’s my point. Corporations and other wealthy special interests block infrastructure, force other infrastructure and draft the laws TO FAVOR THE CORPORATION! Not the nation’s future, not the American people, and NOT our Constitutional form of government designed to insure NO minority interest or Group controls the power of government.

Health insurance lobbyists are complicit in keeping America from resolving the health care crisis and that component of the unsustainable Medicare/Medicaid entitlement program. The oil industry has been complicit in preventing America from moving toward energy independence. The Pharmaceutical industry has single handed been forcing taxpayers to underwrite far cheaper sales of their product to every other nation of the world EXCEPT this one, which pays a premium.

This is not sound government policy and not a sound path toward our future, Jack. It has to stop.

Jack said: “In the U.S. economy we believe in evolution instead of intelligent design.”

Questions:

Who is the ‘we’ in the U.S. economy you mention above?

Evolution as in natural process, or evolution by building upon previous designs which worked and improving them? Crucial question. What worked before had a designer. What worked before may not work now. What will be needed to work tomorrow should be left to chance of evolution, or expertise in design and problem solving?

Intelligent design as in NASA? Intelligent design as in the Trump Towers? Intelligent design as in traffic flow analysis and intersection lights altering their pattern according to the needs of the traffic flow density, speed, and direction?

Intelligent design as in paying for our expenses today and using surplus to invest in tomorrow? That kind of intelligent design.

Or, are you talking about the intelligent design of Oil Companies reaping tax subsidies while experiencing historical record breaking profit years? Or, the intelligent design of Haliburton bilking the American people for billions and hightailing it to the Dubai in the UAE while the absconding is good? Or the intelligent design of voting booth counters capable of rigging results without accountable backtracking mechanisms? Or the intelligent design the Ag, construction, and service industries lobbying Congress for open borders during a time of war and potential attacks from illegal entrants into our country?

Intelligent design is precisely what I am asking for. Intelligent action is judged by its results. Put a cook in charge of baking up an atomic weapon, and you won’t get what you asked for. Putting corporate lobbyists in charge of national policy and legislation is the same analogy. Governments goals and responsibility is not making a profit for corporations. Government’s responsibility is to meet the needs of the nation as intelligently, efficiently, cost effectively, and durably, as possible. These are not the goals of corporations. Hence they will be irresponsible, often in the extreme, regarding the goals of government laid out in our Constitution, and have proved to be so, in thousands and thousands of ways.

We have to stop putting profit makers in charge of national defense, in charge of education, in charge of tax policy, in charge of border policy, in charge of elections. For that is precisely the role of corporate and other wealthy special interest lobbyists, to take charge of policy for their own benefit, not the nation’s, not the people’s, and not the nation’s or the people’s future, but, for their next annual shareholder’s profit statements.

Their seat at the table should be in offering the products and services government requires to meet its obligations. Not defining what those obligations are.

Classic example. Border Security. Our nation needs it, our people need it. 9/11 proved it. No brainer. Government should be taking counsel from the private sector on what technologies exist and at what cost and effectiveness per cost, to meet that obligation. Our Government SHOULD NOT be buckling to private wealthy and corporate special interests to NOT INSTALL border security. Yet, that is precisely what has happened.

6 years after 9/11 and we have secured what, 300 miles of border? That is what happens when government allows corporate and wealthy special interests to design America’s future.

Health insurance lobbyists are complicit in keeping America from resolving the health care crisis and that component of the unsustainable Medicare/Medicaid entitlement program.

I’m sorry, but isn’t Medicaid the program that progressives hold up as an example of how great the government is in operating a program, especially a health care one? Aren’t some of the plans predicated on expanding medicaid/medicare?

How do I resolve that one group of people say that these programs are awesome and another say that it’s failure and unsustainability that requires a change?

Rhinehold, good question to which there is a fairly simple answer, by way of example. Let’s say I make widgets, and I make 100 widgets a day very efficiently and with high quality. Also assume for the sake of argument, I am the only person with the knowledge to make these widgets. I make these widgets for 50 cents and sell them for $1. I am making $50 in profit every day (100 widgets times .50 per widget profit.).

OK. I look down the road and see that the demand for my widgets is going to increase by 1000% in 10 years, which will require that I increase the size of my facility to make widgets by 400%. That will cost me $20 per day profit to save enough to sell this small facility and buy a much bigger facility. But, instead of saving that $20 per day, I choose instead to buy a bigger house, and limousine, and a Villa on the Riviera over the next 10 years.

That is how one can explain that I am best widget manager in the U.S. and at the same time the worst manager the business world has ever seen.

Medicaid is very well and efficiently run. But, there is an enormous increase in demand just around the corner, and the inflation of health care costs is eating into Medicaid’s ability to serve the present population, let alone the increased demand for it coming just around the next decade’s corner with a rapid growth in the aged in our country.

Government is not taking the steps necessary to meet the increased demand coming nor, to combat health care cost inflation driven by the health insurers, health care contractors, and health care investors and managers. And failure to do so will be catastrophic for our Parents and grandparents, and our economy. You cannot remove 20-40 million consumers and tax payers from the economy and tax rolls and hope that the economy or the government can hold up under the crushing loss consumer dollars and federal revenues.

This is why the Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said several months ago, that “the time to act on entitlement spending is 10 years ago.” And each year we delay means a greater hit to our economy and government balance sheet 10 thru 45 years from now.

Alan Greenspan is even more direct, now that he is no longer beholding to any administration for a job. Greenspan said a failure to act effectively and responsibly on this could result in the end of democratic capitalism.

These men are not crackpots. They are the best, brightest, and most experienced our economics world has to offer.

David

It is a question of how and who makes decisions. In the evolutionary decision making, decisions are decentralized and many different experiments are going on at the same time. Those things that work well are copied and multiply. Those things that do not are discarded.

It is very difficult for government, which is by nature a rule making and top down organization, to make decisions in this fashion. Just laws, by their nature, apply uniformly. There is no room for experimentation. We need law and we need government, but we need them in their proper limited places.

Government is status quo. It is not innovative. The U.S. is very innovative because the government, generally, knows its place.

When you mention planning for traffic etc, I agree. LOCAL governments should certainly plan those things. We would expect specific rules to be different in different places as they experiment and meet different preferences. The problem is we try to Federalize these things and make rules for the whole country. If you keep these sorts of plans local, I have no problem.

When you talk re government failures (oil subsidies, border policy etc) I agree. But I understand that the solution is LESS government in general. Government consistently fails at tasks regarding the distribution of economic goods. Maybe it should stay out of that business. Maybe it could do a better job of the things it needs to do (like border control you mention) if it would stay away from things that are none of its business. Rhinehold covers some of these points.

Re surplus and deficit, BTW, government should really run neither a surplus nor a large deficit. The Federal government needs some debt in order to manage the money supply. All currency is a form of government debt. Beyond that, it should not invest in anything besides general infrastructure. We the people can take care of the investing.

Jack said: “Government consistently fails at tasks regarding the distribution of economic goods. Maybe it should stay out of that business.”

There is that Republican denial of reality that prevents me from ever becoming a Republican. Should, could, would, does not describe reality, it describes ideology.

Jack, let me ask a very straight forward rhetorical question. If the government, one year from today, ended all entitlement programs, Would the American economy survive the retirement of the baby boomers?

Answer, absolutely NOT! It would collapse. Millions and millions of health care, government, insurance, and medical manufacturer workers would be thrown out of work. And the loss of their consumption dollars would affect the earnings of 10’s of millions of others. It would create an economic depression that would make the Grapes of Wrath sound like a fairy story with a happy ending.

Almost 70 years of economic system building now underwrites the economy we have today. The time to ask whether or not government should provide services for tax dollars of the kind we have today, was 70 years ago. We have an economy in which the government is the largest employer, providing trillions of dollars of service to the economy on everything from defense contracts to agricultural subsidies for failed crops and drought, to Social Security and Medicare. That is the reality, Jack.

You may wish to abandon that reality, but, it is insane to advocate doing so without a realistic assessment of the consequences of that action. Screw the ideology man. We are a mixed economy and with tremendous economic challenges before us just a decade away, this is no time to chuck it all and start over from scratch saying to hell with the effects upon the American people, let alone the world’s populations whose economies depend in part upon our own.

David,

I don’t know anyone saying we should ‘immediately pull out’ of entitlements. I also haven’t heard anyone suggest that those who can’t take care of themselves shouldn’t be taken care of by the government now (though I think a long term goal to replace that spending with groups like the Red Cross should be considered when and IF it appears possible) but instead of looking at what we are doing wrong you suggest we continue down this same path that has put us in this place to begin with and EXPAND upon it?

For healtcare specificially it is precisely the lack of choice in the system that has caused the runaway costs that we see today. The doctors and nurses do not see the profit that are collected on the backs of the patients, it’s the insurance providers and HMOs. I would much rather look at what the problem is and resolve it instead of using the situation to incite MORE class hatred and expand the use of government into our decision making just to gain power for politicians, such that we are seeing today. You complain about the politics being involved in the decisionmaking now but want to INCREASE the politics involved?

But I’ll bite, how would you suggest that ‘big business’ is blocked out of the political process so that it’s interest are no longer represented and ‘the little guy’ is who government is for?

David

I do not propose eliminating entitlements. We need to control their growth and introduce more market mechanisms to allow people more freedom to choose and take care of themselves. We need for most people to take care of themselves most of the time. Those who cannot or will not do so need help, but it should not be the default option.

We also need to reform those systems like SS that were set up to address a set of problems very different than we have today.

I do not want to get rid of government. I want it to be in its place. Government and the rule of law are essential to a market economy. But government cannot properly innovate or create wealth. It is a wealth consumer and redistributor. That is the role of government. And we must remember that wealth must be created before it can be consumed or redistributed.

The private economy is the goose that lays the golden eggs. As long as government does not take too much or try to take the goose apart, everything is okay. When government begins to think it is actually in the golden egg business, we got problems.

Rhinehold, said: “you suggest we continue down this same path that has put us in this place to begin with and EXPAND upon it?”

Where did I suggest that? Expanding it is not possible. Ending it is not possible. Either option leads to a failed economy in less than 2 decades.

And that two decades that puts is in the thick of the retiring babyboomers, as well as a monumental national debt, is precisely why we can’t phase out the mixed economy system we adopted in the 1930’s. There just isn’t time anymore. It’s why Bernanke said ‘The time to deal with the entitlement crisis is 10 years ago.’

The only option now is to take decisive and quick action to mitigate the harm that is coming. A great many laudable steps have been proffered to do just that. More will be needed.

But the very first steps to be taken by our government are to allocate benefits ONLY to those needing them, raise taxes and cut spending and start producing surpluses to offset later deficits, and take dramatic actions to lower, or halt this health care system inflation, that is annually moving up the timetable on how soon entitlement spending creates huge debt and debilitations to our economy, and/or human casualties for lack of medical treatment.

A universal health care system can take the burden of health care off of corporations and business, provided they raise wages for non-wealthy workers by a commensurate amount, to be allocated directly into medical savings accounts from which workers may draw upon for the deductibles, and medical and preventive expenses not covered by the universal health care system. Private health care providers contracting with the Federal Government for provider status must become non-profit organizations.

These initial steps can and will mitigate the effects of retiring boomers on the economy, at one time keeping them in the economy as consumers (preventing their bankruptcy due to medical expenses) and preventing millions from having to die or suffer for lack of resources and access to medical care.

Universal health care taxes will need to be implemented ASAP on a progressive scale. Those with the most to lose financially in 15 to 20 years will be those seeking investment returns in 15 to 20 years, in the face an of an economic depression if we fail to act. Taxes hurt. Depression destroys. This is a no brainer to all but those who believe they will be invulnerable to the crisis of inaction, like Haliburton which is moving to Dubai, or the Trump, Bush, Cheney, and Kennedy families who already have enough wealth to remain wealthy in the wake of a depression.

There is no way working Americans can, or will, cut back on current quality of life sufficiently to voluntarily save for the next 10 to 20 years to fund their own medical care through self-insurance. And if we do nothing, private health insurance will be affordable only to the wealthier Americans. That is a political reality that is inescapable.

But, our government can begin being honest with the American people and warn them that in 20 years, regardless of how effective new reforms are, the more personal savings they have for medical care and retirement, the more comprehensive medical care they will be able to afford. It is therefore, in their and their children’s best interest interest to start saving now, and government in partnership with private investment firms can and should offer low risk saving vehicles for this purpose.

These are only some of the first steps to be taken. Following these will be the need to increasingly narrow the coverage offered by universal single payer health care system. This will be necessary from the rising costs resulting from increased demand for long term care as retired boomers age. The system will increasingly become a necessary medical procedure only system, with perhaps a 50% matching of private saved funds for procedures not covered but for which future healthy condition is threatened (ie preventive health care procedures).

But, as complex as this or other prophylactic steps sound and as politically unsavory as these sound, the consequence of inaction is many, many times worse, for workers, their families, businesses and corporations, and our nation as a whole. Every year we delay increases the costs to everyone and the nation, up to and potentially including, an economic depression the likes of which America never wants to write into its history books.

Perhaps our politicians are waiting until after the 2008 elections to get started. Perhaps that too is an inescapable reality. But, if voters don’t demand planning and action from the candidates BEFORE they are elected in exchange for their vote, the risk of inaction grows very much higher.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko”, its timing could not be better. The alarm bell has been rung. It only remains to be seen if the American people and their government will respond, or sit back complacent in the knowledge that others have cried the sky is falling, and the sky remains above.

But, skies do fall history shows. Ancient Rome, the USSR, the unstoppable Nazi Germany, the British in India, Imperial Japan, the American Civil War, the 1960’s, Viet Nam. America is vulnerable, and those who say it can’t happen here, very likely said that very same thing prior to Sept. 11, 2001. They now live in a new reality, and ironically continue to say, it can’t happen here.

Polls show however, that the majority of Americans know better. Hopefully that dramatic dissatisfaction with government today, will translate into a demand for reform and change which meets the challenges ahead, instead of allowing politicians to continue to play it politically safe till the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that.

David:

The coming age wave has many solutions. You mention some of them.

I believe the answer is complex and requires many smaller solutions to “get her done”.

From what I understand, it’s not so much the baby boomers as it is longer life. Please don’t ask me which Bernanke speech, but it came from him. He said basically this problem will still be with us “long after babyboomers have passed from the scene”.

Basically, we need a debate about what is an appropriate government response to longer life. If longer life were uniform, I would say just move retirement age to say 70 for starters. There is a problem with that. Although we are moving to an informational society, we are not completely there. Many jobs are traditional in that the contain manual labor with bodies that give out long before 70.

Also, with Social Security some depend more on it than others. In general I would be for leaving SS the same for lower income workers and adjusting it for higher income workers. I would also be for making SS taxable for wealthier americans.

I think we need to means test Medicare. We need to stop subsidizing the wealthy on medicare.

We also need to uncover why medical expenses are rising so much. Capitalism can bring the costs down, but we have to break up the monopolies. I know we have a huge difference of opinion on the scope of the entitlement crisis. However is medical expenses continue to rise above the rate of GDP growth, watch for the trend of going overseas for medical procedures to mushroom. I can see clinics on both our northern and southern boarders for many procedures. (I know they are there now, but I mean in greatly expanded form). These “Walmart” hospitals staffed with foreigners will do for medicine what china has done for the junk we all can’t live without.

If you look at medicine as a commodity it has had a long bull market. Wow it looks to me like it’s time for it to come down. We need to break up the monopolies and get some competition in there.

I think we need to continue with pro growth policies. We are outstripping Europe in economic growth. That increases the tax base and long term increases government revenue.

I think we need targeted immigration reform that allows younger high trained immigrants a shorter line. This increases revenue.

I don’t believe we need budget surpluses. I do however believe we need smaller deficits that are less than the growth of GDP. This will allow the debt to grow at a slower rate than the rest of the economy. There is no reason not to do this with the economy doing so well.

I could go on and on, but that’s enough for now.

Craig

David:

Thought of something else. I disagree with you that a huge fiscal crisis is coming. I mentioned this to you before. We are nearing the zenith of babyboomer power in congress. We are voting now for programs we want but aren’t going to be the ones to pay for them.

In only about 13 years, the tide will turn and a majority of Congress will not younger than babyboomers. The chance of them voting for bankruptcy is zero. They will vote to cut benefits long before then.

A better call to action I think is that if the house is in order and we have reasonable proposals that are well funded, there is less of a chance of the next generation to cut out benefits. Right now with no action, it appears we are all still smoking pot if we think the next group is going to say “OF course we will bankrupt ourselves so you can live well.”

The big crisis isn’t going to happen because it’s in our interest to fix this thing before a crisis comes.

Craig

Jack said: “I do not propose eliminating entitlements. We need to control their growth and introduce more market mechanisms to allow people more freedom to choose and take care of themselves. We need for most people to take care of themselves most of the time. Those who cannot or will not do so need help, but it should not be the default option.”

I agree.

Jack said: “But government cannot properly innovate or create wealth.”

Tell that to defense contractors and their workers and investors. Tell that to the staff and administrators and employees receiving a government paycheck and benefits for essential government services. Tell that to the corporations which take patents on research and development funded by tax dollars. Tell that to the foreign investors floating our national debt.

Sorry, Jack, but your comment is absurd on its face. Of course government can, and does, promote innovation (University R&D), create innovation (NASA), and create wealth. In fact, I have never known any wealth to be created and kept without the essential service of some kind of government to mint the money to pay the army to protect and defend its currency printing presses. Whether Feudal or Democratic Republic, all forms of government create wealth.

Adam Smith was very clear about this. Industry cannot prevail in ownership and non-slavery employment without government to create the monetary system and protect it, which is the reward for industry, in any society that leaves the barter system. It is the lawmaking apparatus of the government and its ability to extract taxes that gives it the wealth apparent that justifies government borrowing.

Would you lend money to homeless unemployed person with the expectation or receiving it back with interest? Of course not. Neither do foreign and American investors loan the government money on the perception that it cannot create wealth when the loans become due. Government creates the very environment for industry to thrive from which the government may extract wealth in its own name to conduct business with foreign nations. Our U.N., NATO, APEC, and NAFTA are predicated on the premise of governments ability to create the wealth necessary to join such exclusive organizations. It if were not so, corporations and businesses would conduct and create trade agreements and international contracts solely and independently.

You cannot separate government from wealth creation anymore than you can separate employees from employers and say one or the other is responsible for wealth creation. They create wealth in partnership with each other. To be more specific, aside from becoming an employer and redistributor of wealth via taxation on some and distribution to others), the bulk of commodity or service industry is performed by individuals in the private sector, but, which could not ensure the rewards of that industry or commerce without the services and enforcements of contract by the government. The government is also the provider of the currency which permits non-barter commerce to occur, and as provider, it is also the regulator of the worth in part, of that currency, as appropriate to the aggregate demand for it, and the representative value of it. Too much currency devalues it, too little increases its value, and thus, with the trading of currencies and bonds, the governments do in fact create wealth and sometimes destroy it (as with the runaway inflation of Brazil in decades past, partly as a result of continuous overprinting.)

An underlying principle implied again and again in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments is that society (and government, which codifies conduct which impartial observers of that society would condone and applaud) creates and reinforces the moral sentiments and imperatives that permit contracts to be implemented and carried out amongst its members and, between its members and itself, in a trusting, predictable, and just result of exchange. In this regard, government creates or destroys wealth commensurate with its ability to enforce contracts of exchange and the codes governing their creation.

Republicans are especially fond of saying only the private sector can create wealth and therefore wealth belongs to the private sector, and Libertarians go further and say distribution of wealth should be left to those who in the private sector hold it.

Of course, these ideas negate and neglect the reality and true nature of wealth and the indispensable role government plays in both its creation and destruction, if mishandled. And therefore these simple ‘conservative’ ideas about wealth are false. Wealth is a very complex subject, as is the concept of money, as is wealth ownership.

As one wise Buddhist said long ago, humans being mortal cannot own wealth, they can merely borrow it from those that passed before them or, suffer over its absence.

Take for example the constantly misunderstood and for all intents and purposes simple minded statement that America is the wealthiest nation on earth. Can a nation have wealth? Is a nation something other than the sum of its people, their interactions and the geography found between their borders and the resources it provides? When we say America is wealthy, do we mean every American is wealthy? Most Americans are wealthy? All the important people are wealthy? Or, is America wealthy in measure and ways beyond the sum of the assets of its private citizens? In natural resources? In acreage per capita? In innovation and creativity? In borrowing capacity? Or, in its absence of poverty compared to other nations as many immigrants view it?

Is a person who dons a $4000 suit and drives a Rolls Royce and hires an attorney to file bankruptcy due to the inability to pay their bills, wealthy? Is America wealthy if its government cannot meet its contractual obligations to its own people for money borrowed and extracted in taxes, or its foreign creditors?

I think this clearly makes the point, that government is inextricably linked to, and an integral part of, what constitutes the process of wealth creation, Jack. Wealth is not the sole province of the private sector, not by a long shot, nor can it be, nor should it be. Just as health is not a product of the heart, the liver, the brain, or the toe, but, of the aggregate condition of the whole living being. Is one healthy if one is not dying of cancer today. Is one healthy today if one is going to die of cancer in a year?

Craig said: “The chance of them (post boomer generation) voting for bankruptcy is zero. They will vote to cut benefits long before then.”

Craig, I highly recommend you read Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments so you can understand clearly why what you suggest is an impossibility. The idea that workers will vote for the suffering and premature deaths of their parents and grandparents without health care or dignified retirement accommodations, is absurd on its face. Seriously, read Adam Smith, he goes into lengthy detail on why this didn’t happen then, and won’t happen now, in a democratic republic.

What you suggest could only occur in an authoritarian society where but a few would have that kind of defect of character to cause it, and the power to implement it.

Craig said of Bernanke: “He said basically this problem will still be with us ‘long after babyboomers have passed from the scene’.”

What I think you missed is his premises, Craig, is if we try to solve the problem with immigration to increase the work force, or, we fail to reform it toward balance of current revenue input plus inflation associated with the payments plus private savings, the problem will be with us ‘long after babyboomers have passed from the scene’. We will serially recreate the problem generation after generation.

Bernanke is not opposed to safety nets. He is for Congress and the White House devising a balance between current revenue funding and private savings equal to contractual and personal obligation for payments down the road. Private savings he says must become an integral part of funding future quality of life. And he is absolutely correct.

While he did not say this, I took it as implied that he thinks a stable population creates far less problems than an infinitely growing one, as options to constantly increase the work force through immigration would entail. Population growth increases demands upon limited resources and government. I don’t think Bernanke supports increasing demands upon government or tapping out our resources. Do you?

David

There is a big difference between creating conditions for wealth and innovation and creating wealth and innovation. It is no coincidence that the most innovative countries are those with relatively smaller government and lighter regulations.

Let me emphasize again that I am not against government. The free market cannot exist w/o government and the rule of law. I respect government. But I understand that government and the nation are not the same.

In the case of your example of defense contractors, government certainly has not created wealth there. It has taken wealth from some citizens and given it to others. Whether or not we think this wealth transfer is justified is not the issue. The fact is government has just moved the money.

In the case of universities, government provides funds and infrastructures for others to work. The universities increase knowledge, but strictly speaking they do not innovate. Innovation comes when somebody takes those ideas and makes them do something that people in society need or want. Many discoveries take decades before they actually become innovations in the sense of being useful.

Re foreigners lending the government money - they do that because they know the government can tax its citizens and its citizens are productive. Governments whose citizens are poor cannot get the same sort of loan treatment.

BTW - you believe this too. You are always critical of the current government and you say that they are managing poorly. Yet foreigners continue to lend to us at favorable rates. Why? Becuase they understand that the wealth of the U.S. is produced by its people, not its government, but that the government has the ability to tax that wealth… or maybe they just think Bush is doing such a fine job that they should feel comfortable lending money.

I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of agency. Government’s role is to enforce the rule of law and help create the conditions by which the people can create wealth. It is an essential role and our government generally does a decent job of that compared to most others. But it is not wealth creation.

When government tries to manage something directly, it usually does a poor job. It is not that the government is bad, but it is not their role. A banker might be very successful in figuring out which investors should get loans. He may help his clients make millions, but he would be foolish indeed to try to manage their firms himself.

Re trade agreement etc - again I say that is the role of government. Government has its role and the people and firms of the U.S. have theirs. Just as I would be uncomfortable with particular firms making agreements that bind the whole country, I am uncomfortable with government trying to manage the ordinary affairs for particular firms.

SO let me sum up. Government is an essential part of society and of a market economy. It performs roles that others cannot, such as maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use coercion, rule of law and reasonable regulation. But government is not the nation. It is a type of service organization for them, but that does not mean it is in business to meet their ordinary means. That it cannot do. If you ask government leaders to try to give you all you want, some will try. Some will even be sincere, but they just cannot do it because they are not wealth creators. They can only give you what they have taken from somebody else by means of taxes and coercion. Government has an important, but limited role to play.

Jack said: “In the case of your example of defense contractors, government certainly has not created wealth there. It has taken wealth from some citizens and given it to others.”

Oh, I see, so for you, in order for government to create wealth, it must do so for everyone? Why don’t we ask the private sector to do that, if that is the standard? This poppycock. Government creates tremendous wealth for lobbyists, and retired Congresspersons who become lobbyists. Were it not for government, there would be no lobbyists. Thus, government does indeed create wealth by, as you say, giving tax dollars to select individuals and organizations. They are wealthier for having received the government checks, are they not?

Your ideology is interfering with your ability to accept reality, Jack. You just used the words “wealth transfer” referring to government action. The recipients of that wealth transfer are wealthier due to government. Logic, Jack, dictates that government created wealth for those recipients. And as I said earlier, government can also take or, destroy wealth in its management of society.

NASA engineers innovate and create all the time, Jack. So do research chemists employed by government contracts, and hydrogen fusion has been subsidized in part by government. Government and some of its employees and sub-contractors innovate and create for government all the time Jack. The CIA and NSA have had many of their inventions occur as a direct result of government spending. Government funds innovation and creation, Jack. The private sector does so as well and in much greater volume. But, don’t let ideology get in the way of recognizing what is glaringly obvious, Jack. Without government sponsorship and wealth creation many innovations and creations we enjoy today would not have been invented or created when they were, if at all.

Jack said: “Becuase they understand that the wealth of the U.S. is produced by its people, not its government, but that the government has the ability to tax that wealth… or maybe they just think Bush is doing such a fine job that they should feel comfortable lending money.”

Poppycock. Government prints money. Circulates money into the private sector, and takes some of it back, which it uses to pay off the interest on its debts. Those are the facts, Jack. Government LITERALLY creates money, and money is an aspect of wealth. It is true that private sector industry does the lion’s share of giving value to that money through production of products and services. But the government is also integral to the product development cycle for many innovations, and ALL of government provides services which also give value to the money.

Government at one time absconded by law with most of the Gold in this country, and issued paper money to the people as an IOU.

He who has the gold has wealth, Jack. The miners may have dug it out of the ground, but, government became the keeper and owner, by law, of the gold. Hence, government created its wealth of gold through legislation just as mining companies created wealth for its owners by hiring miners to dig it up for them. Government employees don’t have to dig the gold out of the ground to acquire the gold’s wealth anymore than the investors in a gold mining company have to.

There is just no getting around this glaring fact of reality, Jack, unless one wears ideological blinders and does verbal gymnastics with words like wealth, currency, creation, and IOU’s.

Jack said: “I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of agency.”

We do indeed. According to you, the miner who digs gold for a paycheck and the mining company that hired him, who turns the gold over to the government or bank in exchange for paper IOU’s is creating wealth through the employee’s industry. But, the government employee who works for a government paycheck at NASA creating a space probe, is creating wealth for themself BUT the government that hired him is NOT creating wealth for that employee as the Mining company does for its employees? That is sheer nonsense, Jack, and blatantly contradictory and illogical.

The government hires people to make weapons, then forges treaties and agreements with other governments to sell those weapons to the other countries for a price to be repaid the U.S. government (foreign aid), then taxes the weapons sales of the manufacturer in return for having created a market for those sales. Sure sounds like a middleman sales facilitator to me, Jack. And our government’s foreign aid loans and trade packages create enormous wealth for very large numbers of people who would otherwise not have that wealth.

Government and private industry are inseparable, Jack. One does not survive long without the other. We don’t say of a partnership in a company where one partner serves as production manager and the other as accountant, that the production manager creates wealth for the company and its employees but, the accountant partner does not.

Reality Jack, in fact, does not fit well with your ideological projection of what you want to believe it should be. But, the reality is, any entity that pays others for industry creates wealth for its employees. Government creates wealth. In the U.S., it creates wealth in some fashion or another for almost every American living here.

I acknowledge the wealth created for me by the government everytime I enter an Interstate freeway, which cuts my travel time significantly, allowing me to engage in my business for profit with far more customers per day than if that Interstate Highway system did not exist. You on the otherhand, refuse the gratitude that is due your government for having facilitated your wealth in such a direct manner at a pittance of personal cost. Your bias against your government is part of the Republican ideology. Republicans refuse to acknowledge the wealth their government creates for them, so they can fight the government’s asking for its pittance for services and products created for your use and which facilitates your wealth creation.

Such cognitive dissonance is expensive to maintain Jack. Such denial of reality carries a very heavy cost. As our nation is now finding out and the cost will only grow crushingly over the next 40 years. Government is our partner which if treated with respect, honesty, and firmness of expectation in propriety, can enhance all our lives.

Treat our government as adversary, which Republicans do, and define it as the enemy, and I assure you Jack, the enemy will only grow stronger feeding on the weakness of its adversaries’ ideologies and blind spots to reality.

David

If you grow a cob of corn, you create wealth. If you assemble a product, you create wealth. If you and I make a voluntary trade that makes us both better off, we create wealth. If I force you to give me something, I just transfer some of your wealth to me. If I force you to give some of your wealth to a third party, I also merely create a transfer and not wealth. If the government does that, the result is the same.

Wealth creation means a positive sum. Creating something does that. Growing something does that. A voluntary trade where both feel they have gained does that. Taking from one to give to another is merely a transfer.

Re money - do you believe the government owns the people’s wealth? It “allows” us keep some and take backs what it wants. I believe the people own their wealth. Since we are not owned by the government, neither is our production. We give some to government to provide rule of law, common defense etc, but it is our wealth.

We also disagree about the role of government. I repeat, government plays an essential role in a market economy. But government role is to provide infrastructure and rule of law and is generally not a producer. It should not be. Government gets its funds by means of coercion. We usually do not think of taxes in that way, but try not paying them and you will find out how it is. If people are trading freely, nobody is coerced because they all feel they are better off. They have the choice. If government gives you the option of paying only the amount of tax you feel is fair, then government could be in this category too. But it is not.

Jackj, government creates money, the absolute bedrock core of wealth in this economy. To deny this simple fact, is, well, truly amazing.

When government hires an employee, it creates wealth for that employee, no less than if a mining company hires and employee to dig.

Sorry, your comments reflect a huge misunderstanding of what constitutes creation of wealth. Issuing a paycheck creates wealth for that recipient. All of America’s wealth comes from basic ingredients, human labor, natural resources, innovative and essential services exchanged for money. Government creates wealth by creating time savings services and providing those to the public, so they their time is free for other pursuits, just as a taxi service creates wealth by speeding a stock broker from one exchange to another to conduct business, as opposed to the broker walking from one exchange to the other. The taxi service creates wealth both for the taxi service and driver and the broker through time saving.

Government performs this same wealth creating service by insuring each American does not have to build their own road in front of their residence, or fight al-Queda on their doorstep, freeing them to pursue other wealth creating activities through time saving services provided by government.

The government employee receives wealth, the subcontractor for government work receives wealth, the citizen receives wealth in the form of time savings in exactly the same way a taxi service creates wealth for all parties to the transportation from point A to point B.

Jackj asked: “Re money - do you believe the government owns the people’s wealth?”

The government printed the money the people have, it controls the supply of the money available for the people to have, and it executes policies and regulations designed to protect the IOU value of the money people have.

One more point, and this is crucial: The people own the government. The government serves the needs of the people. The people in the measure of dollars at their disposal, own the IOU value of those dollars. Money is just printed paper. The government gives that paper value, and in this regard, the government controls in part, a big part, the value of wealth held by the public.

You think if you have 1 million dollars in cash under your bed, you are wealthy? If you are wealthy, it is because the government printed those dollars, backs those dollars with exchange value, and protects those pieces of paper from counterfeit which means if counterfeit, that 1 million dollars under your bed is worthless fire kindling. Amazing how government creates wealth that way in the form of human capital services rendered unto its people.

With regard to wealth, the government of, by, and for the people is the people, and the people are the government in a democratically elected form of government. One cannot say logically that wealth is the people’s and government does not own the wealth. The government is the people, and in America for a little while at least, we enjoy the wealthiest government and nation in the world, both of which are the people plus all contained within our borders.

David

Sometimes I put Jackj because I am typing the next line and do not notice till it is too late.

Currency and money supply is one of the responsibilities of goverment. Money is a store of value and means of exchange. Government has the responsibity to manage it wisely, but it does not follow that government owns that value.

Currency is a form of government debt. It borrows the money from the people and in return provides those services above.

Currency protection is one of government’s most important responsibilities, BTW. When it cheats or falls down on the job, all hell breaks loose in the economy. A low inflation rate is good; too much inflation is the government stealing wealth from the people and it pretty soon wrecks the economy.

You are right that government controls wealth through it’s control of the money supply. But that is not the same as creating wealth. If I write a check to you that you and you treat it as value to exchange (and can find others to take it) neither of us has created wealth, only debt.

Jack said: “Government has the responsibity to manage it wisely, but it does not follow that government owns that value.”

It does however own the assets of the national park system, BLM lands, coastal areas, wildlife refuges, worth trillions. So, let’s not get carried away by the notion that because government does not own the holdings of the private sector, that it has no holdings of its own. Try entering Area 51 if you think the government has no asset wealth of its own. And yeah, yeah, you can parse this out to say what assets the government holds, it holds in trust for the people. But, that is malarkey.

If the majority of Americans voted for the government to sell all its assets and distribute the proceeds to the people, it would never happen. It would be considered a revolution and the government long ago passed laws regarding trying to instigate a revolution.

In reality, government is an organization with the greatest asset wealth of any other. Kind of like the Catholic Church in that regard. Catholics only think it is theirs held in trust. Try prying that wealth from the Vatican’s army or the ArchBishop’s council.

Jack said: “It borrows the money from the people and in return provides those services above.”

Sorry, Jack, your comment is just flat our wrong again. You cover bonds, but left out the levying of taxes - without interest as a loan would generate, and without contractual obligation to return that money to the person paying it.

And there is no quid pro quo on the levied taxes to provide an equal sum of taxes paid by Mr. A, back to Mr. A, as could be implied by your quote above.

Your last paragraph I could not decipher. You write me a check and I cash it or pass it on to another who cashes, your wealth decreases, the check casher’s increases. Wealth is both lost and created by the transaction. Same with taxes. The government is enriched by the collection, and to the extent that the government buys what it wants and not what the people want (black ops budgets for example) it exercises choices with its wealth according to its needs and wants. Also, in Congress voting themselves a wage increase. Happens frequently.

Government does indeed create wealth for 10’s of millions of Americans, and decreases wealth for many more than that. Your ideology is still blinding your comments to reality, Jack.

You talk of what you think economics ‘should be’, according to Jack. I talk of the reality that is, and economics is about realities Jack. You can continue to replace reality with what you think someone once said it should be, but, it doesn’t change what is, Jack. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. Our economy and government are not the simple black and white definitions you wish applied. I have given you numerous examples of how government creates wealth, decreases wealth, increases wealth, for both itself and others, both foreign and domestic in residence.

You don’t have to accept reality, Jack. But, if you don’t, trying to convince others of your fantasy will be difficult, and trying convince a majority will be impossible, as the Republican Party found out in Nov. 2006.

You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but, you can’t fool all the people all the time, Jack, which is what Republicans had hoped to do with their Reaganomics supply side trickle down simple model lie about how that rising tide would lift all boats.

There comes a time when such fantasy is tested against reality by the majority and the fantasy is rejected. Fantasies don’t permit control over reality, they lead to disastrous mistakes and errors in decision making, because they aren’t rooted in the reality of what is.

David

I am not sure what we disagree about (besides the basic value).

The last paragraph I agree with but interpet differently. If it creates wealth for 10s of millions and decearles it for many more, it is destroying wealth in balance.

Re my check example - a dollar is like a check from the government. You never actually cash it and in fact you cannot anymore.

David:
“I acknowledge the wealth created for me by the government everytime I enter an Interstate freeway, which cuts my travel time significantly, allowing me to engage in my business for profit with far more customers per day than if that Interstate Highway system did not exist. You on the otherhand, refuse the gratitude that is due your government for having facilitated your wealth in such a direct manner at a pittance of personal cost. Your bias against your government is part of the Republican ideology. Republicans refuse to acknowledge the wealth their government creates for them, so they can fight the government’s asking for its pittance for services and products created for your use and which facilitates your wealth creation.”

Well said! I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, I agree with the entirety of that post to Jack. But you know what? Not everyone who has been very successful at creating wealth thinks like Jack does, or shares the rest of the Republican and Libertarian mindset you are actually describing in your post (IMO).
Thankfully, a large number of incredibly successful people are more than willing to acknowledge the role that government has played in their success. They want that fundamental role to continue on into the future, rather than let it be killed off by those who are hostile to the idea of government investment and infrastructure. This is because they understand it is the only way that those who weren’t born with silver spoons in their mouths can ever hope to have even half a chance to succeed, as they have.

Check this out:
Forbes 400 Richest Americans: They Didn’t Do It Alone
Private Wealth Counts on Public Investment, Infrastructure
Here’s a quote:

“Some Forbes 400 billionaires want to pull up the ladder behind them,” says Scott Klinger, co-director of Responsible Wealth. “They received government help, but don’t want anyone else to. The myth of self-made wealth is used to justify tax cuts for the rich and reduce public investment in the very institutions and infrastructure that not only enable more Americans to become wealthy, but are crucial to a strong and growing economy.”

You can download the full report on the above page. I did awhile back, and found their honesty very heartening.

Here’s another link, featuring some more quotes from several famous entrepreneurs: It Takes a Village to Make a Millionaire
New Report Blasts Myth of the Self-Made Man

“United for a Fair Economy”

*sigh*

Why is it seemingly unfair that someone might work hard and get rewarded for that work in today’s society? Instead there are those that seek to villify that person, working hard to create a better future for their family, seeking to destroy that because there are those who have less…

Rhinehold:
“Why is it seemingly unfair that someone might work hard and get rewarded for that work in today’s society?”

That isn’t the issue. The issue is not allowing this country to become comprised of rigidly stratified castes. We were founded on ideals that told us that all men are created equal, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be unalienable rights, and that the government would naturally to provide for the common welfare rather than choose to ignore it. Therefore, encouraging a caste system of “haves” vs. “have-nots” in this nation (such as Libertarians advocate for), is actually Unamerican, and should automatically be viewed as an obvious waste of human potential amongst our citizens, and an invitation to dangerous instability.

“Instead there are those that seek to villify that person, working hard to create a better future for their family, seeking to destroy that because there are those who have less…”

“Vilify”? “Seeking to destroy”? My what overwrought hyperbole.

United for a Fair Economy is a national, independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. UFE raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality.

Responsible Wealth — Who We Are
We are leaders in business, community, government, philanthropy, academia and finance. We are among the wealthiest 5% of Americans, the primary beneficiaries of the robust growth of the American economy. We are united by our common concern that despite a booming economy, many are not sharing in the prosperity.

Founded in 1997, Responsible Wealth is affiliated with United for a Fair Economy (UFE), a national non-profit devoted to putting a spotlight on the dangers of excessive inequality of income and wealth in the United States.

Our work is focused on four areas:

* We advocate fair taxes.
* We support a living wage for all.
* We call for greater corporate accountability.
* We promote broadened asset ownership for all Americans.

Why We Take Action

The over 400 members of Responsible Wealth have joined together to speak out publicly to change a growing set of rules tilted in favor of us, large asset owners, at the expense of all others in society. We believe an economy and a democracy which tolerates a widening gap between rich and poor and which concentrates economic and political power in the hands of a few is not sustainable.

We act from conscience and from long-term self-interest. The growing disparities of wages and wealth seen in America and throughout the global village are not healthy for society or for business. As we near the close of the century, we see, throughout our own nation and many other nations, an unraveling of the social fabric, characterized by a loss of community, strained and broken families, loss of loyalty from or to employees, the scapegoating of the poor and vulnerable, and blighted neighborhoods choked by long-periods of disinvestment. We see the increasing polarization of society in which growing numbers at each end of the economic spectrum live behind bars or behind gates.

Healthy businesses and healthy communities have common needs. These can be found in several important words shared in the lexicons of both business and community-building: equity, security, trust, covenant, mutual, and bond. These words define the characteristics of the society and economic system that is needed to carry us into the next century.

Healthy markets need stability and order, elements that are threatened by the social breakdowns that accompany large disparities of wealth and power within a society. This has been exhibited most recently by the growing anarchy in places like Indonesia, Russia and Mexico. Healthy markets need a broad and diversified base of viable customers, a goal thwarted when society’s poor are systematically excluded from the marketplace.

Adrienne,

Suggested reading: Outing the L-Word parts 1 thru 3, by Andrew S. Taylor.

You can find them at www.trueblueliberal.com or www.bestcyrano.org or just google.

You’ll be glad you did.

Thanks for the recommendation, KD. I’ll definitely go check it out.

Therefore, encouraging a caste system of “haves” vs. “have-nots” in this nation (such as Libertarians advocate for), is actually Unamerican, and should automatically be viewed as an obvious waste of human potential amongst our citizens, and an invitation to dangerous instability.

And again, another example of people who do not understand a) what the libertarians advocate for and b) that the government is not the only, or even the best, way of dealing with these issues.

“that the government would naturally to provide for the common welfare”

You’ve got that a little backwards Adrienne.
We were founded on the ideals that govt was to

provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare

Give and encourage basically.

“The over 400 members of Responsible Wealth have joined together to speak out publicly to change a growing set of rules tilted in favor of us, large asset owners”

Speak out?
Complain how nobody is doing enough to help the poor and then go eat a hundred dollar meal and go back to your estate.

I’m sure those in need would rather have these people practice what they preach.

kctim, the preamble uses the word “promote” but the actual text of the constitution (section 8) says “provide.”

…and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Rhinehold it seems, IMHO, Adrienne has hit the nail on the head as far as what the libertarians preach. What are we missing?
Its the misuse of the Government by the uber rich via the “free speech” of bribing the legislature that causes the inequalities. Imagine a fair trade agreement that takes into consideration the environment and workers as well as the multinationals. Maybe we could compete with a level playing field.

Thanks AP, for saving me the trouble of having to point that out for Tim.

j2t2:
“What are we missing?”

Libertarians (and Libertarian leaning Repubs) often claim that folks like us don’t really understand their views. But it’s not nearly as hard to grasp as they’re always claiming. From what I’ve read of their views, the achievement of Libertarian goals would be certain to create an American caste system.

“Its the misuse of the Government by the uber rich via the “free speech” of bribing the legislature that causes the inequalities.”

Exactly. Then pair that with their stated desire to remove all forms of government assistance with education and educational facilities (such as public libraries), public assistance with healthcare — well, basically anything with the word “public” or “government” in it — to be replaced with words like private, for profit, required toll or fee, etc. Anything that gives a helping hand or leg up to those not born into wealth or lucky enough to have already made a fortune. It’s a recipe for creating a rigid, starkly stratified caste society.
As if this country isn’t ‘dog-eat-dog’ enough…

“Imagine a fair trade agreement that takes into consideration the environment and workers as well as the multinationals.”

Indeed. :^)

“Maybe we could compete with a level playing field.”

Yes. Which would give us a true meritocracy — a real fighting chance at “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for everyone. At the very least, it would promote dignity and opportunity for all — even amongst the not as meritorious (or lucky, or well connected).

PS. to Kansas Dem — I went and searched out those three essays by Taylor. Excellent pieces, clearly and concisely written! Thanks for turning me on to his work. I will now look forward to reading Part 4 which is to be focused on the subject of Objectivism.

Let’s see.

The libertarians want an end to all corporate welfare, farm subsidies to rich farm owners, an end to tarrifs designed to protect business who refuse to change and compete in a global market and ensure that all people have the same advantages, and disadvantages, provided to them by the government resources that ‘public’ money, a term used for wealth stolen from the citizenry at the point of a gun, are used for.

Of course, that also means we don’t believe in practicing robin hood policies that force wealth from one person to an other at the point of a gun as well. I guess that means we’er mean selfish bastards, except that most of us are highly charitable people, *giving* our time and money to help those who really need help instead of institutionalizing theft and charity so that it no longer has any real meaning to anyone who participates in it.

There should be no personal income tax. ‘Public funds’ should be collected from corporations and sales/service taxes that use the governmental infrastructure. There should be governmentally directed (at a state level) programs that use privately contributed money to help those who need it. I don’t have much of a problem in incentivising the giving to these charities, but when we FORCIBLY take charity from our neighbors it only breeds resentment and anger at the very people who we are trying to help until we end up with a view of the poor and needy that we have today.

Of course, I know I’m a bastard, being a libertarian and wanting to see the cost of goods come DOWN for everyone so that the poor and needy can afford the things they need (not necessarily everything they want) by eliminating hidden income taxes in all of the goods we purchase, but I’ll take the hit for that.

Yup, we LOVE the ‘caste system’ because we’re heartless bastards that want the unwashed masses to have to beg and scrape for our help. Not that we think help would be better served by not having class warfare initiated with them on one side and the people who could be helping them on the other for political gain, like the democrats have proven they are about, but instead provide services like mentoring programs and education over handouts… No, that couldn’t be it at all, we just hates those peoples.

Btw, just a small clarification, there is a difference in equality of opportunity and equality of results… Just something to think about.

kansasdem,

Your comment is an excellent example of what’s wrong with david’s desire for a ‘planned economy,’ whose primary goal is to subject economic decisions to the whims of political pressure, attitudes, and dare I say, ignorance (as in disinterest).

I may be way off base here, but I personally believe the hold capitalism has on our society today amounts to little more than the hold our European ancestors had on indigenous Americans. With certain exceptions (such as this electronic ink machine) most of what feeds the capitalist machine is “bobbles and beads”.

One example that comes to mind is video games ———- they hold someones attention just like any other new shiny toy, that is to say NOT LONG! They’ve also resulted in a level of physical inactivity that has contributed to a decline in the health of our nations young.

In david’s belief system about the economy it is not unreasonable to expect political decisions to be made based on comments just like this which might curtail or outlaw products or services by folks who actually have no interest in them.

What david doesn’t like about ‘unplanned capitalism’ is that there are decisions being made that contradict his philosophy. This kind of political ideology sees the market, meaning everyday people as well as corporations, making the ‘wrong decisions’.

In your opinion video games are not worth the resources used to create and consume. In a planned economy this might very well be a political decision. ie based on an opinion not on the demand of consumers.

This is the primary reason why all planned economies are dismal failures. Putting politicians in control of economic decisions is always a bad idea.

And no matter what david thinks this is exactly what his idea would do. All the talk about ‘the people’ being in charge is moot when everything is managed, controlled, and funneled through the politicians.

David,

Many of your exchanges with jack consist entirely of just saying he is delusional and not dealing with reality. This is not an argument!

The reality is that your idea has been tried, david. It doesn’t work. To the extent that it is tried in varying degrees of purity and adherence to leftist doctrine it generally destroys the economy.

Let me explain.

The central premise of your article is that it is not enough for two parties to agree to exchange goods and services - these decisions must be submitted to the collective for approval.

This is what you are advocating.

I’m not going to keep arguing with the Libertarians and Neo-Conservatives here about their unshakable (and IMO, irrational) belief in letting the “free market” answer all of Life’s Greatest Questions.
Instead, I thought maybe some of you will be interested in reading the essays by Andrew S. Taylor that Kansas Dem recommended to me:
‘Outing the L-word’
Part 1.
Part 2: Nature,Power and Hierarchy
Part 3: Money

esimonson, you have said what you think I have said. I will let your words stand for comparison to mine.

We have a mixed economy, Europe has a mixed economy, even China has bought into a mixed economy. Every modern nation on the planet has bought into the mixed economy.

Holding an opinion against the reality of the rest of the world is not that uncommon, and I am pleased there are folks such as yourself keeping everyone else ready to defend their assumptions and conclusions, which I have done amply here.

It is healthy. But, your comment on a transaction involving only 2 parties takes place billions of times each day. Also, transactions in which the government is also a party, number in the billions. That is the reality. And the vast majority of humans living on this earth recognize their interdependence and the benefits of belonging to civilization, which justifies the cost of belonging.

All those people, and your wish to transact as if they didn’t exist. Kind of an inherent contradiction. But, minority views are healthy. Thank you.

esimonson said: “Your comment is an excellent example of what’s wrong with david’s desire for a ‘planned economy,’ whose primary goal is to subject economic decisions to the whims of political pressure, attitudes, and dare I say, ignorance (as in disinterest).”

In fact, I argued just the opposite. Since you missed that, it seems pointless to debate you further. You either didn’t read all that was said, or, you will project what you want to see on whatever is said. In either case, reality is not where your comments derive their content from.

Rhinehold, the major flaw in your entire argument is your assertion that government takes from the public without their consent. The reality is, the people can vote taxes out anytime they choose. They haven’t, and they don’t. Ergo, taxation is by consent of the public.

It is a substantial flaw in your view in democratically elected governments.

Rhinehold said: “Why is it seemingly unfair that someone might work hard and get rewarded for that work in today’s society? Instead there are those that seek to villify that person, working hard to create a better future for their family, seeking to destroy that because there are those who have less…”

Rhinehold, where are these efforts to kill Bill Gates and take what he has to distribute to the poor. Sorry, I just don’t any evidence of it. I don’t resent any wealthy person’s wealth. I recognize however, that their wealth was obtained using the human, legal, and governmental resources which bear a cost. Hence, it is just and fair, that Bill Gates remunerate the government (people) in part, for the benefits he received in developing and protecting his wealth.

Think of all the many government and public resources in play to protect him and his wealth from attack. Military, police, SEC, Banking Commissions, FCC, and the protections for his product shipped to customers, Postal Service, highways, trains, planes, communications. Bill Gates uses an enormous number of government services to protect his freedom and right to create wealth from robbers, murderers, highway robbery, and to protect his communications, and then there are Patent Office services which protect his product from counterfeiting.

All of those services carry a cost to the people. Given his wealth and vast amount of services he uses, it is only fair that Bill Gates pay considerably more in public tax to protect his massive wealth and freedom to conduct business without unjust interference.

Libertarians don’t like to see the reality of wealth, and how absolutely dependent wealth is upon government and public services. They prefer to view the transactions that create wealth as between the buyer and seller alone. Of course, that gross over-simplification of what happens ignores the reality that business has many hidden players working to ensure the transaction is fair, just, and protected from criminal intent and influences.

Rhinehold, Because I hear this at the point of a gun arguement so often I wonder if everything that could result in being on the wrong end of the gun is also not part of the libertarian world view? From your previous post in this thread:
“…provided to them by the government resources that ‘public’ money, a term used for wealth stolen from the citizenry at the point of a gun,…”
“Of course, that also means we don’t believe in practicing robin hood policies that force wealth from one person to an other at the point of a gun as well.”

If I were to drive my car to fast, shout obscenities, walk down the street intoxicated and so on and so forth I could ultimately be forced at the point of a gun to go to jail and/or to pay up. Most of the time, however, most people dont end up at the point of a gun for these things, much like taxes.
Should all of these things that are against the law also be done away with so as to remove “the point of a gun” problem ? Or is it just the