The Death of Keynesian Economics

[editec]

It's really very simple.

Who manage's the people's money better?

The people who make the money or the government whom confiscates it and allocates it the way it sees fit?

Or as another member phrased it, who spends our money better? The government who prints it or the people who collect and hoard it?

Your question is reasonable and one that all patriots should think through carefully.

The other question is ad hominem is one that usually comes from the 'Statist' or "Political Class' mentality that the government technically owns everything and should allocate what the citizens should have or be allowed.

Using the Adam Smith explanation as expanded by Walter Williams in my previous post, 'collecting' is necessary in order for the people to look to their own security and 'hoarding' is what responsible people do to ensure that security. In more charitable language it is 'saving for a rainy day' or in Biblical language: it is setting up stores in preparation for the lean years that are certain to come.

As no goverment can possibly be smart enough, educated enough, or skilled enough to manage society or its resources as well as the people themselves will do simply living their lives, the more resources left with the people to do that, the better off the people will be. The government serves best by securing the people's unalienable rights and then leaving them to live their lives.

So then why have any government at all?

If governments serves no purpose, seriously, then why have it?

If you believe that governments are just nothing but wasted effort and the people will always know how to spend money more wisely than their governments then why aren't you an anarchist?

 

[antagon]

that's a rip-off, but i say the gold standard suppressed gold to a greater extent than anything else in history.

 

[antagon]

By the way I was in a hurry to get to the gym and omitted an important fact: the 400 year cycle is a convenience number. On average it takes any living animal species 16-20 generations to adapt an environmental change. For humans that results in about 400 years. The world has adjusted to the spread of mostly American foods worldwide (1500-1900) but not to the industrial revolution (1776-?) that interacted with it so a lot of confusion results. The continuing industrial change of the product life cycle is not something we adapt to genetically but mimetically and cultural adaptation is not designed for a 400 year adaptation cycle so political solutions don't work.

this is interesting. do you think there are facilities which can accelerate this adaptation curve for humans? can think-tanks and government policy -- our intellectual advantage even -- force changes more quickly than the other critters on the planet?

take your october 1992 kids, for example. single-generation paradigm shifters?

 

[Annie]

It's really very simple.

Who manage's the people's money better?

The people who make the money or the government whom confiscates it and allocates it the way it sees fit?

Or as another member phrased it, who spends our money better? The government who prints it or the people who collect and hoard it?

Your question is reasonable and one that all patriots should think through carefully.

The other question is ad hominem is one that usually comes from the 'Statist' or "Political Class' mentality that the government technically owns everything and should allocate what the citizens should have or be allowed.

Using the Adam Smith explanation as expanded by Walter Williams in my previous post, 'collecting' is necessary in order for the people to look to their own security and 'hoarding' is what responsible people do to ensure that security. In more charitable language it is 'saving for a rainy day' or in Biblical language: it is setting up stores in preparation for the lean years that are certain to come.

As no goverment can possibly be smart enough, educated enough, or skilled enough to manage society or its resources as well as the people themselves will do simply living their lives, the more resources left with the people to do that, the better off the people will be. The government serves best by securing the people's unalienable rights and then leaving them to live their lives.

So then why have any government at all?

If governments serves no purpose, seriously, then why have it?

If you believe that governments are just nothing but wasted effort and the people will always know how to spend money more wisely than their governments then why aren't you an anarchist?

I doubt anyone is arguing against 'any' government, therein lies anarchy. However, the tendency of government is to expand, the argument is that it has too much. Government exists to protect the governed from threats without and to provide for the needs that individuals cannot efficiently do on their own that benefit the governed as a whole.

In most incidents the most efficient government would be local. Thus local police, then national guard from the state, lastly the US military. Different threats, different executive responsibilities.

In the same way local maintenance of infrastructure include streets and san departments, county and state roads. While far reaching, the national roads and highways have provided a great asset to commerce and mobility and safety of the populace. So no, there are and should be exceptions to the rules. However, once completed maintenance and costs should have reverted to the states.

The federal government has its role, but has become too intrusive into areas it just doesn't belong. Using tax powers in attempts to controlling behaviors members of the legislature disagree with. That is too much government.

 

[editec]

Too much government?

Yeah I'll grant you that. Taxes are way too high, too. But not only at the FEDERAL level, but at the state and local levls, too. And there's where MOST people pay taxes, incidently.

But if you believe that we need a national government then you have GOT TO ADMIT that taxes are not theft, but a necessary cost that comes with having a civilization

Here's the bottom line and the one that some of you right wingers tend to ignore when you're feeling angry over what government are doing:

Every government must be somewhat COLLECTIVIST, or to use the term you calls think is some kind of epithet, every government has no choice but to be SOMEWHAT socialist.

The right leaning delusion that we can have a complex society but one without a central authority is, I think, just as nuts as the far letie nutter commies who imagine that we can have a functional and orderly society with no government.

So the question is, assuming you still think government is necessary, never a a yes or no issue, but rather a HOW MUCH issue?

And what truly astounds me about partisans is their continued believe that the parties are fundamentally different when it comes to government.

Both have done nothing but expand government for our entire lifetimes.

FYI, the national deficiet?

84% of it happened while Republicans were in the Oval office. The Dems were right there helping, too. They are really the red and blue team of the DUELOPLY PARTY

Fiscal conservatism? Doesn't really exist in the GOP and it never has, either.

And as far as FREE TRADE disaster?

Mush of that happened on DEMS watch.

So the myth that the Dems are the partners of the working man is ALSO largely political myth bullshit.

Time to put down the partisan blinders, folks.

The American people best hang together or the two parties are going to hang us individually, one stupid anti-American PEOPLE policy at a time.

And ya know where a really good place to start doing that might be?

How about right here!

How about giving the other side the benefit of the doubt?

Hiow about we start out assuming that most people, even those whose ideas you completely reject, are still your fellow citizens and they TOO love this nation?

Can we do that?

Or is the macho bullshit that some of us think makes us look tough on the opposition just too important to our precious egos to let go of?

Because fellow citizens, it's that silly us v them thing that some of you are SO into, that makes it possible for the people on the top to keep screwing the nation we love.

 

[Annie]

Too much government?

Yeah I'll grant you that. Taxes are way too high, too. But not only at the FEDERAL level, but at the state and local levls, too. And there's where MOST people pay taxes, incidently.

But if you believe that we need a national government then you have GOT TO ADMIT that taxes are not theft, but a necessary unpleaantness that comes with the territory.

You've never seen me call taxes theft. Unfair? Sure. Too high? Sure. Theft? Not.

People have much better odds of influencing local governing bodies. Quite a bit less on state level, near none on Federal level. Which indeed is the reasoning behind a limited Federal government. Unfortunately over the years people dropped the ball and let government do what is in its nature-grow and not stop. Turning it back hasn't really been done, ever. Then again, until a Revolution no one had done a federated republic before.

 

[editec]

Too much government?

Yeah I'll grant you that. Taxes are way too high, too. But not only at the FEDERAL level, but at the state and local levls, too. And there's where MOST people pay taxes, incidently.

But if you believe that we need a national government then you have GOT TO ADMIT that taxes are not theft, but a necessary unpleaantness that comes with the territory.

You've never seen me call taxes theft. Unfair? Sure. Too high? Sure. Theft? Not.

You haven't.

Okay, others do constantly on this board.

Have you ever corrected them taken issue with them or otherwise pointed out how assinine that position is?

People have much better odds of influencing local governing bodies. Quite a bit less on state level, near none on Federal level. Which indeed is the reasoning behind a limited Federal government.

I have no problem with limited government or divided responibility.

I take exception to your delusion that local government are necessaruly less corript, or more reponsive or less a threat to our freedom though.

A quick trip down history lane shows us that city government, state government, and country governments are just as likely to go rrogue and become preditory as Federal government.

Unfortunately over the years people dropped the ball and let government do what is in its nature-grow and not stop. Turning it back hasn't really been done, ever. Then again, until a Revolution no one had done a federated republic before.

Agreed.

Athough I'm not at all sure that the people allowed this to happen.

Plenty of Americans fought this tooth and nail.

They just lost, that's the problem.

 

[Annie]

Too much government?

Yeah I'll grant you that. Taxes are way too high, too. But not only at the FEDERAL level, but at the state and local levls, too. And there's where MOST people pay taxes, incidently.

But if you believe that we need a national government then you have GOT TO ADMIT that taxes are not theft, but a necessary unpleaantness that comes with the territory.

You haven't.

Okay, others do constantly on this board.

Have you ever corrected them taken issue with them or otherwise pointed out how assinine that position is?





I have no problem with limited government or divided responibility.

I take exception to your delusion that local government are necessaruly less corript, or more reponsive or less a threat to our freedom though.

A quick trip down history lane shows us that city government, state government, and country governments are just as likely to go rrogue and become preditory as Federal government.

Unfortunately over the years people dropped the ball and let government do what is in its nature-grow and not stop. Turning it back hasn't really been done, ever. Then again, until a Revolution no one had done a federated republic before.

Agreed.

Athough I'm not at all sure that the people allowed this to happen.

Plenty of Americans fought this tooth and nail.

They just lost, that's the problem.

At the heart of each issue you addressed is an informed and active electorate. Granted we elect representatives to do the heavy lifting, but must always keep in mind the meme on power, it's up to the people to know what the representatives are doing in a general sense.

Living outside of Chicago, in one of the most corrupt states in the Union, you don't need to remind me of any of the above. In fact, people here really need a kick in the butt, but it's unlikely that would help. They voted overwhelmingly to provide a recall provision for governor. Then reelected the governor.

 

[william the wie]

By the way I was in a hurry to get to the gym and omitted an important fact: the 400 year cycle is a convenience number. On average it takes any living animal species 16-20 generations to adapt an environmental change. For humans that results in about 400 years. The world has adjusted to the spread of mostly American foods worldwide (1500-1900) but not to the industrial revolution (1776-?) that interacted with it so a lot of confusion results. The continuing industrial change of the product life cycle is not something we adapt to genetically but mimetically and cultural adaptation is not designed for a 400 year adaptation cycle so political solutions don't work.

this is interesting. do you think there are facilities which can accelerate this adaptation curve for humans? can think-tanks and government policy -- our intellectual advantage even -- force changes more quickly than the other critters on the planet?

take your october 1992 kids, for example. single-generation paradigm shifters?

That can happen. But threat specific genetic adaptations are understood, relatively rapid and most importantly relatively easy to identify and date. The cultural tools of mimetic adaptation appear to change more slowly. Keynesian analysis is often and correctly criticized as being updated mercantilism, Einstein's physics is an updated version of Aristotle's physics and for that matter if you want to really convince yourself of cultural rigidity Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" will do the trick quite nicely.

Qwe a word for woman that predates Indo-European has cognates in use in most Eurasian languages such as Korean or the English queen and she is a bit daunting. The early English terms for dog count and later hound also gave us **** but when wild the polite cur became whore and later feral. There is a great deal of lock in into binary cultural adaptation with the excluded middle being definitely excluded. If a third way of looking at things is attempted it is almost always ignored and if not it is shoehorned into the binary system.

 

[code1211]

Too much government?

Yeah I'll grant you that. Taxes are way too high, too. But not only at the FEDERAL level, but at the state and local levls, too. And there's where MOST people pay taxes, incidently.

But if you believe that we need a national government then you have GOT TO ADMIT that taxes are not theft, but a necessary unpleaantness that comes with the territory.

You've never seen me call taxes theft. Unfair? Sure. Too high? Sure. Theft? Not.

People have much better odds of influencing local governing bodies. Quite a bit less on state level, near none on Federal level. Which indeed is the reasoning behind a limited Federal government. Unfortunately over the years people dropped the ball and let government do what is in its nature-grow and not stop. Turning it back hasn't really been done, ever. Then again, until a Revolution no one had done a federated republic before.

Taxes are not by definition theft.

Politicians who use taxes to finance public works in order to grease the palms of those who int urn contibute to them or their party are thieves.

Taxes don't steal my money money. Politicians steal my money. They only use taxes to do it.

 

[loosecannon]

this is interesting. do you think there are facilities which can accelerate this adaptation curve for humans? can think-tanks and government policy -- our intellectual advantage even -- force changes more quickly than the other critters on the planet?

take your october 1992 kids, for example. single-generation paradigm shifters?

It is quite arguable that humans haven't evolved to adjust to civilization yet and that they may never make the leap. The genome is complex for a reason. A wide variety of humans needs to exist to thrive in all circumstances that may occur.

Some humans are super risk adverse, because under the right circumstances that can be a survival or procreative advantage.

Some are quick to resort to violence, war and brutality because under the right circumstances that can be a survival or procreative advantage.

Some thrive on harmony and cooperation because under the right circumstances that can be a survival or procreative advantage.

Some are sheeple because under the right circumstances that can be a survival or procreative advantage.

Some are fearless leaders because under the right circumstances that can be a survival or procreative advantage.

Some are vegans....

Some are omnivorous....

Some strictly want to eat meat with every meal....

Some are smart as a whip and other strong as a lion....

Some are huge and hairy, some skinny and low maintenance.

I don't think humans adapt quickly, they just add new adaptations to an existing portfolio of traits that all survive within our genome in case they are needed some time in the future.

200 years ago we were 7 inches shorter. Now we are diabetic and way out of shape. But we are smart and have technology as our slave. But we use that technology to pander to our self gratification.


We are a mish mash of maladjusted misfits who by design are intended to largely fail to breed, so that those who succeed strengthen the gene pool. Whoops!

No humans don't ever adjust. We need sociopaths every bit as much as we need Calvinists. Just not on the same occasions.