OT: About America in this NG

The only commandment with "covet" is # 10: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Stealing is # 8:

"Thou shalt not steal."

If that were true, there would not be two commandments: 8 & 10

If I were to use covet in todays world, "covet" is the precursor to stealing.

I can give you a good story:

I want your money, I'll invest it for you, ala Bernie M.

Or I can be less transparent:

I want your money, I'll make your company better for only $x,xxx,xxx.00 , ala Bain Capital.

They both dis-obey both commandments.

The only commandment with "covet" is # 10: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Stealing is # 8:

"Thou shalt not steal."

If that were true, there would not be two commandments: 8 & 10

If I were to use covet in todays world, "covet" is the precursor to stealing.

I can give you a good story:

I want your money, I'll invest it for you, ala Bernie M.

Or I can be less transparent:

I want your money, I'll make your company better for only $x,xxx,xxx.00 , ala Bain Capital.

They both dis-obey both commandments.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Hamilton is in intense competition with Jamie and Schoen for getting the "village" certification. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

legroups.com...

On the contrary (but we'll save that for another time).

,

the

s

t.

Yes.

Yes, locally, but that's not necessarily good. Reconstruction's contribution to GDP will rise due to Sandy, but destroying people's houses isn't good for the economy, and, Sandy may (or may not boost) net national GDP.

NO! You were spot-on, up until there.

You're absolutely right that the person who gets the largess is better of, as are all the people he does business with, carried through several repetitions. There's a chain of benefit going forward that amplifies the impact of the original largess. True.

What you're missing--what divides America--is this: /that/ was taken from someone else. That's how the gov't gets their money. That person is hurt. Now, she won't be able to purchase the things she would've purchased (or go to school, save, invest, or buy whatever), the merchants who would have gotten that business from her are hurt too, and a chain of harmful effects radiates backward from her injury.

When all is tallied, for every chain of benefit from the redeployment of property going forward, there's a greater chain of harm going backward.

Gov't redeployment isn't 100% efficient either--there are losses in time, opportunity, and funds--making that worse.

Further higher-order harms compound these, but that's unnecessary to our topic right now.

There are many ways and attempts to hide these basic failings--such as shifting the takings in time (borrowing/deficits: this is what confuses Bill Sloman--he loses track of the money, and who pays what) or dispersing them over a wider population--but they don't change the essential fallacy: shuffling people's property around doesn't create more, it creates less.

--
Cheers, 
James Arthur

Their next competition is at the global level.

Doesn't Slowman hold that title, emeritus ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

oglegroups.com...

, .

ax,

f the

is

ent.

What you know, and keep on lying about, is that it isn't "taken" but borrowed, against interest.

They are hurt when the government borrowed money that they weren't spending or investing?

If she'd wanted to do any of these things, she wouldn't have lent the money to the government. It's a voluntary action, not coerced in any way.

Only if *you* are doing the tallying in your own uniquely dishonest way.

Keynesian pump-priming spending is an expedient. It's main recommendation is that it is less worse than doing nothing and watching the economy shrink by 6% per year. You don't happen to believe that Keynesian pump-priming stimulus works, but that's a tribute to your ideological purity, and your feeble grasp of reality.

Come on. Your powers of irrational invention have scarcely been tapped.

Someone who describes getting voluntary loans as "taking" has lost track of what words mean. I'm certainly aware of the down-sides of Keynesian stimulus spending, but I haven't lost track of the fact that it works and - despite it's defects - is less destructive than doing nothing.

Whereas leaving cash in a bank account or under a mattress creates more? This is simple lunacy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

...

g

em,

lt. But

tax,

of the

it is

nment.

may

ery

eople

erence

ts of

or

nt

ire,

duals

ng

lized

ly put

already

ation

ks and

esses,

he

hen,

er

t

on much

eally

c...

ot

James Arthur uses his flat earth economics to predict - once again - an explosion of debt on the basis that Keynesian stimulus spending isn't stimulating the economy (when it is) and thus will never become unnecessary when the economic growth gets close to 3% per year (as it should, if the Tea Party in congress doesn't manage to prevent it).

So who are the prophets without honour who did predict these "predictable" crises. Can you point to one who predicted two successive crises?

The Federal Housing Administration survived the sub-prime mortgage crisis in reasonably shape. It wasn't their loans that failed in huge numbers, despite James Arthur's claims at the time.

is

I wonder which right-wing nitwit he is quoting. Probably James Arthur

- John Larkin doesn't see him as an economic flat-earther, whose financial affairs should be put in the hands of a court appointed administrator for his own protection.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reminds us, once again, why he so richly deserves his title.

There's nothing unfair about getting more pay for more, or better, work. Paying a lower rate of income tax on that higher - justly earned

- reward is unfair, but that's the limit of my socialist convictions.

Scarcely. Communism in China produces a slightly higher level of income inequality (Gini index 42.5%) than the US (40.8%) or Russia (40.1%). Respectable countries - like Germany - have Gini indices closer to 30%.

The ruling oligarchies in China, Russia and the US are all collecting much the same unreasonably high proportion of the GDP in all three countries. The difference between Communists and Republicans is strictly ideological - in each case the fat cats at the top of the tree are convinced that their services are worth much more than everybody else's.

For all practical purposes, the US might as well be Communist, though it might have a better health care system if it was.

Jim keeps on forgetting that he is a large and not all that mobile target. If he tried to start shooting his neighbours they'd probably get him before he got them. Since he's been advertising his gleeful hopes of shooting his more liberal neighbours when the revolution comes for some years now, any sensible neighbour would be geared up to get his retaliation in first.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

,xxx.00

Jim got there first, with much more evidence to support his claim. For one thing, I can spell Thompson correctly, and he still hasn't learned that I spell my name without a "w" just like all the other people (most of whom live in the south-west of England) who inherited the same name from the same ancestors.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

g

em,

lt.

tax,

of the

it is

nment.

No it isn't. You're wrong, and you're rude. If you'd spend more time studying and less time insulting, we'd all profit by it.

The question indicts itself.

James Arthur

You may think projects such as those done by the CCC and WPA were/are worthless, but only if they did not produce something of worth to you. But many people benefitted directly, and indirectly, from the roads and bridges and trails they built.

345

We could do something similar today:

You should provide a link to explain:

and

I disagree. Of course, if the money for the giveaways comes from the already struggling middle class, it will definitely reduce their expenditures, and it may be a wash. But if the money came from those who have more than enough money, and whose main goal is to accumulate more wealth (often sent overseas to avoid taxation), then the results are much different. In any case, the money given to the unemployed and poor is spent in the local economy. But that is not all. Increased expenditures by new customers promotes hiring and purchase of more goods and materials, and there is a "trickle-up" effect.

Moreover, there are also taxes on these transactions which return to the

government which should at least be enough to pay the interest on the money which may have been borrowed to finance these programs. This is definitely better than providing corporate subsidies and bailouts, where much of the money goes to those who already have more than enough, and will not be induced to spend it, at least not locally. If they invest in offshore businesses and use foreign labor, the money IS dissipated and does not benefit the US economy.

The government is also unique in its ability to "print money". Of course, this does not necessarily involve paper currency or coin, but usually in the form of checks and bank transfers. The result of this may be inflation, which is really a normal sign of a healthy growing economy, as long as it is not excessive. One result is the diminishment of interest, so that with

5% annual inflation a debt of $1 trillion today will be only $950 billion in next year's dollars, and if it was borrowed at 1% and generated 5% back in taxes, the government would have $50 billion to pay the $10 billion interest payment and have $40 billion left over.

In a closed economic system, as long as there can be value added to resources to create products, there will be a net increase in the net worth of the system, due to the intellectual and physical contribution of the people in the system. As long as all are fairly compensated, each person

gains, and the only limit is the amount of resource available, including

energy. If the energy can be obtained from renewable, sustainable resources, such as solar and wind, it is essentially infinite as long as the population does not explode. If that can be controlled, our economy, and that of the world, will be in good shape.

Paul

c...

ot

is

This building cascade-failure is what I called a "tsunami" on sed a few years ago. I'd hoped we'd avoid it. It's still avoidable...I think.

If stimulus spending worked, there wouldn't have been a Great Depression, Japan wouldn't have lost two decades, and Greece would be a superpower.

It all flows from this basic accounting error: counting the benefits but ignoring the costs. In over-unity schemes it's the same: they tout the output, but neglect all the inputs. Add in those, and the supposed gains turn out to be a loss every time.

Inability to do that calculation divides America, and imperils her.

James

It's obviously a childish attempt at disrespect by intentionally changing your name in a derisive manner. I sometimes did that when I was in grade

school. I grew up. Some people apparently have not. It is typical of children to resort to taunting and "calling names" and making "ad hominem" attacks when they run out of facts or patience. It is a form of cyber-bullying similar to what Phil engages in, using expletives and making threats and trying to deflect from the topic being discussed by disparaging someone's credentials, knowledge, or intelligence. It is especially disturbing when someone uses someone's alleged or actual disability as an arguing point. Phil frequently "accuses" people of being "autistic", although the condition is often an asset to and common among engineer and scientist types. It would be disingenuous of me to misspell Michael Terrell's name as "Terribull", or call him a worthless cripple, but some of the banter here seems to degrade to that level. Yeah, I called Jim a "hillbilly", but that's what he is. It *can* be a good thing.

I think we all must realize that, in the case of non-hard-science topics

such as economics and sociology and religion and politics, none of us have all the answers. Our goal should be to seek the truth, and engage in discussion and action that will benefit most of us. We are all interconnected, among ourselves and with nature, and we should be open to explore and learn with open minds. I know that the premise of "why can't we all just get along" is laughed at by those who are fiercely individualistic and ruthlessly competitive, but the fact is that we need more of such attitudes and less of the "dog-eat-dog" mentality that characterizes many of the corporate bigwigs and their wannabees. Like it or not, we are a world-wide "pack" and we need to engage in constructive cooperation and dialog rather than what is often expressed on this (and other) newsgroups.

Paul

Fairy >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@e25g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

built.http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080805/NEWS02/8080...

Those projects are still losses, but we agree they're not as bad as free checks from Santa--at least there's something left when infrastructure projects are done, even if it's a remote cabin in some desolate woods.

We just spent $6 trillion in deficits. Are the roads fixed?

explain:

It's not a matter for disagreeing, it's a fact. It's a simple matter of adding up all those numbers. Add up all the inputs, and the outputs. The outputs are always less.

Or, if you want / prefer empirical confirmation, go to the BEA website and plot the impulse response of GDP to stimulus, or whatever else you want. It doesn't work.

Of course it comes from the middle and the poor. It hurts everyone. Obamatax applies to drugs, insurance, and gross sale price of medical devices. Do poor people use any of those?

That doesn't matter, may make things worse, and it's not the case.

But it's TAKEN from the economy FIRST. You're counting the benefits, and not counting the COSTS.

and

All this qualitative abstraction is just narrative. You have to at least pencil in some numbers to see if it's real.

Here's the "stimulus" proposition in life:

John (no relation) makes high-tech instruments. For "stimulus," we take an extra $20,000 from John, and convert that into 132 microcents on 100 million people's EBT cards or unemployment checks, enabling each to buy some extra fractional part of one M&M candy.

Hershey's is very pleased. They hire chocolatiers to meet the (temporary and artificial) demand.

Meanwhile, we're asked to believe that John will run out and hire more people because he knows that, with 100-million people buying an extra part of an M&M, he'll sell more instruments? No he won't. He's out $20k, and has $20k less to spend personally and on his business.

Since the economy sucks, we don't take it right now, we just tack it on the debt. But, John knows he'll have to pay this money back in taxes, soon. So, he plans for that by spending less and setting money aside. On top of that, he knows his operating costs are going to be permanently increased, separately, by this president.

Result: We've taken resources from John, and diverted them to a temporary, artificially-created need. NO EXTRA ECONOMIC OUTPUT is created, we've only reallocated $20,000 worth of production from instruments into chocolate. When we stop the stimulus, demand falls and Hershey's fires their added chocolatiers. John's higher costs remain permanently higher.

Nothing was gained. People were diverted from useful jobs to temporary jobs that disappear. No lasting positive-feedback recovery (the basic claim for stimulus) was initiated. The benefits disappear the moment the money stops. The costs linger.

James

You have just proven my point. Very first grade. Or hillbilly...

Paul

e:

Which involved digging holes and filling them in again. You didn't specify why somebody might be digging the holes - just blanket- specified that that particular activity wasn't stimulative, no matter what the motivation.

If you are digging the holes and filling them in just to stimulate the economy, it's not for it's own sake. You keep on deluding yourself that the market is rational, which drives you to irrational conclusions.

The catch with your argument is that you ignore that having people not working - for whatever reason - is not increasing the production of desirable goods and services. When an economy is in recession or depression, appreciable chunks of the work force, and the capital invested in idle machines and plant, are unproductive.

If you can boost "business confidence" so that everybody start investing their savings in new businesses, new construction and new machinery, that under-utilised capacity is brought back into action. You don't want to boost it too far and have people bidding up the prices of fully utilised goods and services, but that hasn't been a problem for a while now.

Deficit-financed stimulus spending is a mechanism for boosting business confidence. It isn't cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than leaving the economy declining in a death spiral, shrinking at 6% per year as it did during the Great Depression, and started doing in the first quarter after the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit.

But not as big as the loss that Hoover engineered from 1929 to 1933, and your idiotic policies would create now, if anybody was silly enough to take them seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney