![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/380923.stm?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/380923.stm?
The basic problems with the economy are multifold:
1. Most people let themselves be wowed by the credentials of our
"authorities" on economics, and set aside common sense. A lot of what
gets peddled in economics, even from the most prominent names in the
field, can only work in the short term.
2. Because most people work and live on a monetary basis (ie., they
work for money to buy what they need to live), the notion that money
represents actual wealth is pandemic.
3. Of all of the crank ideas in economics, few of them bring no
short-term benefit to anybody at all; most of them, while damaging the
economy in general, bring a definite short-term benefit to a small
number of people. These people can afford to devote time an energy to
seeing their ideas implemented, whereas the loss for an individual in
the majority is smaller than the cost of successfully fighting the idea.
The writer of the article shows an excellent example of these three
facts. There are a small number of people who profit enormously from
the high debt levels of Western democracies. Just about everyone else
is screwed. When one of the screwed among us voices his or her
objections to the idea of carrying a chronic debt, we are told that the
high debt levels enable a more prosperous economy (because the numbers
after the currency symbols are larger), and we are also told to yield to
the experts.
It's also turning out that Keynes was wrong; the Roosevelt
administration proved that deficit spending to cure an economic downturn
tends to deepen and extend the downturn, and it looks like the Obama
administration is supplying more evidence of this.
All in all, I think the silliest idea ever put out is that any
government, under any party, following any philosophy, can ever "fix" an
economy. That idea has no historical foundation. A well-ordered
government can ensure the best environment for sustainable economic
growth. But if we remember that wealth consists, not of cash, but in
consumer goods, capital goods, and infrastructure, it becomes painfully
obvious that government, as government, creates no wealth whatsoever,
and is very often an unnecessary obstacle to those who do.
If our economy is ever fixed, it will not be fixed by either a
Republican of a Democratic administration, but by the people themselves.
Whether the people will have the benefit of a government of laws, and
a minimum of government-imposed obstacles, is the only variable that the
government controls.
And if you don't agree, then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 12-7-2009 9:11, John VanSickle wrote:
> And if you don't agree, then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.
Ah, Godwin's Law, but I didn't see this one coming.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/380923.stm?
>
> The basic problems with the economy are multifold:
Sure. I just meant the *primary* problem with government spending is that
it's always "We'll spend like hell for 5 years, *then* make it up." I've
never heard of a president with a four-year plan for anything. It's always a
five-year plan for something, with the fifth year heavily loaded to make up
for four years of making things worse.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: The basic problem with the economy...
Date: 12 Jul 2009 12:27:42
Message: <4a5a0efe@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 07/12/09 02:11, John VanSickle wrote:
> 1. Most people let themselves be wowed by the credentials of our
> "authorities" on economics, and set aside common sense. A lot of what
Agree with the first half, and not with the second. Economics often
fails to abide by common sense.
> And if you don't agree, then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.
Someone worse than Hitler is still entitled to being called a "sir"?
--
This shepherd asks his dog to please go and round up the sheep and see
how many there are...
The dog obediently rounds up the sheep and tells the boss, "there are 40
sheep out there."
The shepherd says, "Are you sure? I thought there were only 37"
The dog sheepishly says, "But I rounded them up."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 12-7-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/380923.stm?
>>
>> The basic problems with the economy are multifold:
>
>
> Sure. I just meant the *primary* problem with government spending is
> that it's always "We'll spend like hell for 5 years, *then* make it
> up." I've never heard of a president with a four-year plan for
> anything. It's always a five-year plan for something, with the fifth
> year heavily loaded to make up for four years of making things worse.
>
Re-election is also an issue. Especially in your last year in government
you have to spend a lot to give people the feeling that it is getting
better because of your actions. At least that is how it works here. I
seldom see a initial 4 year spending. We have a 4 year cycle. After
change of government the first year a couple of things that were
promised will be implemented so people see the change with the former
government. Then follows a period of reduction in spending. That last
into the third year. The fourth year is a 'surprising' good one and
various thing that are important to the ruling parties can be
implemented. After re-election things turn out to be not as good as
'expected'. If not re-elected goto the first step.
If you have a five year plan, either the next government has to deal
with it or you will have an 'unexpected' bad year, so you can't make up.
Whatever the exact implementation, if you have a democracy, it seldom
pays to think ahead for more than a political cycle. Unless the voters
demand that you do so, which I don't see happening in the US that often.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/380923.stm?
They should show that first chart as a proportion of (projected) GDP or
something, otherwise I have no idea how big those numbers actually are.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |