Less Government or Lower Wages? You Decide.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Aug 15, 2009.

  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Less Government or Lower Wages? You Decide. by Peter Schiff
     
  2. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,824
    Thanks Received:
    4,502
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,110
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2009
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Hopefully very psyched. :) He's already broken the fundraising record previously set by one of his opponents, so I'd say Schiff is doing great so far.

    Are you from Connecticut?
     
  4. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,824
    Thanks Received:
    4,502
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,110
    yes and I can't wait to get dodd the eff out of office.

    Peter is the first candidate I've ever given money to.
     
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    I don't blame you, and congrats on having such a great candidate to support. Ohio isn't so lucky, so far, in our upcoming Senate election.
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Basically what lowered consumer spending means is that people are doing without.

    And while I appreciate that many of you imagine that's exactly what this nation needs, I suspect that few of you understand how that becomes a vicious cycle of economic misery.

    As consumers spend less, more people lose their jobs, necessitating that as they spend less, still more people lose their jobs.

    And since, as people are losing their jobs, state revenues (on sales taxes, mostly) decline, therefore the states end up broke.

    Since MOST services that all of us need are paid for by the STATES, the quality of all our lives goes down.

    Now thge books might look great as this happens, but our lives are going to shit at the same time.
     
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    As Peter points out in his article, if we don't start living within our means now then we'll eventually be forced to live within our means whether we want to or not.

    Consumers Don't Cause Recessions - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute

    This article exposes the fallacy of the so-called Paradox of Thrift.
     
  8. PeterS
    Offline

    PeterS Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    973
    Thanks Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +71
    I'm a bit confused. Both the 2001 recession and our current recession are products of over-capitalization. Over-capitalization can only occur when government steps away. Cyclical 'washing' of assets, as the author seems to be promoting, is fine unless unless the economic cycle is shortening as now seems to be the case. This isn't a recipe for a higher quality of life but lower since there is never enough excesses incurred to cover lean years.

    It isn't a question of big or small government but smart government. The regression line for business spending and investment turned negative at the end of 1997 due to over-capitalization but government continued policies to encourage capitalization. The end result was a bubble that when it collapsed the government action was to encourage further investment. In short, it was one dimensional thought, in this case less government, that lead to our current dilemma.

    We are a democracy so it isn't a question of whether government will act-it will. That being the case we are better off to stop electing ideologues and start electing leaders to take the steps necessary to address the problems at hand...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2009
  9. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,824
    Thanks Received:
    4,502
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,110
    So? A lot of us could do without a lot of things.

    An economy based on blind, rabid consumerism has led us where we are. So would you rather a cycle of booms based on false prosperity (credit) and the inevitable busts or a long term outlook that values thrift, savings and investment?

    And the market will find ways to serve the new attitude of the masses. Or maybe serve the blind consumerism of others in the world. Imagine an economy based on providing the best value at home while reaping the benefits of another's wanton consumerism.

    Kind of like our blind consumerism enriched other countries for the past few decades.

    Government has been the worst offender of misfeasance. As tax revenues grow, the need for government spending does not necessarily grow at the same rate. But as a gas will expand to fill the space available so will government spending expand as to waste all tax revenues collected. But where a gas cannot exceed the volume of any given space, government spending almost always exceeds the tax revenue collected.

    Sorry Ed but as my tax bill has risen, the level of services from my government has not. So IMO our lives are lessened when government demands of our resources for diminishing services.
     
  10. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    869
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +31
    PeterS,
    I obtained this definition from a World Wide Web site entitled
    "Businessdictionary.Com":

    "Over capitalization"
    Definition
    Situation where a firm has more capital than it catered-for or needs. Thus, its assets are worth less than its issued share capital, and the earnings are insufficient to pay dividend and interest. This situation is remedied generally by buying back issued shares (stock) or by paying off debt".

    PeterS, from this definition, I understand “over capitalization” being a financial problem of individual investors and corporations. It is overwhelmingly, if not fully a matter regarding the transfer of wealth. I fail to see how it is of the nation’s economic concern?

    Among, if not the most significant USA economic indicators are the GDP and median wage. The GDP is a comparative indication of national production of goods and services. The median wage proportion to the per capita GDP indicates the extent of that production’s distribution among our population.

    Transfers of wealth are for good economic reason deliberately excluded from the calculations of GDP.

    Respectfully, Supposn




























    Among, if not the most significant USA economic indicators are the GDP and median wage. The GDP is a comparative indication of national production of goods and services. The median wage proportion to the per capita GDP indicates the extent of that production’s distribution among our population.

    Transfers of wealth are for good economic reason deliberately excluded from the calculations of GDP.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     

Share This Page