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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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