Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
larryselbows
Banned
Alright guys, this isn't some kind of exercise in mental masturbation and the US economy shouldn't be treated as some kind of game. I get kind of tired of hearing extreme perspectives from people that follow Milton Friedman/Ayn Randian philosophies. Alternatively, the same goes for extreme egalitarianism. The truth is that practical ideas are the only thing that is going to get the country back to where it needs to be, not some simplistic ideological mantra.
Haha .. your claims that everyone is being vague and not answering questions are as pot-meet-kettle as it gets.
You throw around enclosures, Keynesian economics, Austrian economics, FDR .. whatever .. but give nothing in the way of substance, even as it relates to someone else's work. I'm heading out but will check back later .. for now, here's a question, NAOS. How relevant, on a scale of 1 - 10, are these historical theories as they relate to the U.S. today? How does modern neoclassical economics relate? How much difference does geography, our macro, and the different political parties/partisanship play a role in the comparable situations? That, for what it's worth, is a serious question .. rather than a baiting one.
Nice. You got me.
How dare you? That's revisionist history by the ideological right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
Yes.
The people demanding change, leadership that is capable and can't be bought, strict controls in place for purchasing, responsible budgets, open-bids, etc ..
The things we do in the private sector that lead to profitability vs. loss are crucial on a daily basis. Our government, I GUARANTEE is GROSSLY negligent in providing the same fiscal responsibility. I am not talking about eliminiating programs, I am talking about eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) corruption and mismanagement of funds.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
First off, I asked an honest question to people of a generally different persuasion than me, so if I haven't been forthcoming in this thread, then there is an obvious reason.
Secondly, yes, there is a lot to be learned from history when we think about the current issues. Is that weird? I'd say these lessons are an 11 out of 10 in importance. Your reticence on this issue smacks of leftist presentism... which is interesting.
My problem with the general Keynesian framework is that I don't think it'll work today without serious restructuring since the North Atlantic countries no longer have colonial hinterlands (in the same way they used to... does colonialism still exist? yes, obviously, but it is very different). And yet, the collective imagination still seems pretty limited to a Deregulation+Privatization vs. Spend+tax sort of thing.
I'd rather see "stimulus" money go directly to keeping people in their homes + to debt forgiveness (and, yes, there is a history for that too: https://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1933633867) + economic protection for collective ownership ventures.
I'm not 100% sure I understand the question i put in bold, so I'll wait for you to clarify. If you want more than I've given above, then I'll provide more. But, seriously, I'm still working this stuff out.... that's why I'm asking questions.
larryselbows
Banned
I agree with all of this if it can be enacted. It's amazing how much in common republicans and democrats actually have once you cut through the rhetoric.
I do believe that 20 or 30 corporate institutions have a massive amount of control over our country, and by extension, the world. And like you said, we need politicians that cannot be bought, but I think that this is overly optimistic. Anyone can be bought, and the only way we can handle corporate lobbying and the incredible control they have over our politicians is through restriction of contact with our politicians.
I'm skeptical of the idea of the laissez-faire economy and the self-regulating invisible hand that keeps markets fair to all. We have to remember that some of the poorest countries in world are capitalist and that the capitalist ideal is only for the accumulation of wealth-- which I am not advocating that there is anything wrong with that ideal-- but we must remember that capitalism is only an economic rationale, not a governmental one. So again, I would say that it is very optimistic to say that pure capitalism solves many of our countries ills as it comes from a myopic perspective.
I do believe that the wealthy are much more capable of shielding their wealth from taxes and other forms of governmental policies, and with such abilities, it is not an even playing field for the middle-class. How many middle class people do you know that have their own personal accountants and offshore accounts? The truth is that the wealthy, and moreso those that are born into wealth, come from a very different place than most of us. Most of us have to work to cover our most basic needs.
I think that there needs to be more equal treatment of one another in society. I have no problem with people being wealthy, but I do think that the effective tax rate needs to be the same for all of us, keeping in mind that the very wealthy can shelter their money much more effectively than the middle class. It won't solve all of our problems, many spending cuts will have to be enacted, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
1. ______Government should spend less money on copiers and other wasteful stuff____
2. ______________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________
Did I miss anything?
I agree, but only to a degree. Personally, I went from poor (searching for coins under couch cushions to walk to a market for a loaf of bread), to middle class (several years earning $45-70,000), to eventually being what most would consider wealthy. I have off-shore accounts, attorneys, and CPA's ... But I had to get there.
That is something I appreciate about this country. I took no gov't assistance, ever, never got a subsidy ... I have averaged about 22% in income tax in the past 10 years and I know that may seem very low .. However, I feel my write-offs have been not only legal, but legitimate. Further, had those write-offs not existed, I would have been unable to do the thigs I had in the entrepreneurial world. And for what it's worth, I have hired more than 5,000 people in the past 15 years.
One other thing. I can get behind cutting the military budget, large corporate subsidies, and other typical repub issues. My heart bleeds for those that are suffering and I am truly happy to help. I am only appalled at the idea that my taxes should be increased without those demanding it acknowledging the possible solution is found in an inefficient system that insanely overspends.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
another issue that I didn't mention:
I'd love for there to be different tax brackets based on HOW YOU MAKE YOUR MONEY. If you make money by simply moving money around and capturing a bit of it (a category that includes basically all high finance, a huge sector of the US economy), then I'd tax the **** out of you. If you make money in a small- to medium-sized business that employes a dozen to a couple of thousand people and you all are working to produce a desired item or service, then I'd only tax you the amount to cover any environmental restoration issues + what it took to fully insure the health of your employees (which would be much less than current rates if run efficiently).
What do you think? PKM, do you fit in the latter camp?
I'd love for there to be different tax brackets based on HOW YOU MAKE YOUR MONEY. If you make money by simply moving money around and capturing a bit of it (a category that includes basically all high finance, a huge sector of the US economy), then I'd tax the **** out of you. If you make money in a small- to medium-sized business that employes a dozen to a couple of thousand people and you all are working to produce a desired item or service, then I'd only tax you the amount to cover any environmental restoration issues + what it took to fully insure the health of your employees (which would be much less than current rates if run efficiently).
What do you think? PKM, do you fit in the latter camp?
I am a firm believer in studying and learning from history. I am also an advocate of Austrian economics, particularly some of those that have not yet been mentioned such as Lawrence White and George Selgin (as topics such as free banking interest me). My question for you was not whether we should study and learn from these theories and the associated historical data, but rather how well it meshes with our today reality .. and to that I think you roughly answered.
Not only would I prefer to address overspending prior to searching ideals, but I would also prefer to not ignore other more modern neoclassical economic progressions such as the random walk view of financial markets, human capital theory, signaling models, natural rate models of unemployment, etc.
Having said all that, I am so set in my mind that we have to get control of governement waste, that I can't bring myself to get overly excited about any theoretical approach to economic improvement.
I fit both, for the most part. I am a commercial and residential real estate developer. I have art galleries, furniture outlets, I dabble in private equity funds (that my firm manages) .. fairly diverse, I guess. I'm good with your theory, so long as it is tied to impact on environment and infrastructure rather than someones opinion as to how hard you worked (there are some things I do that would look easy to most, have very little to no impact on resources, but earn lots of profits .. but are gut-wrenchingly risky and result in a positive impact on societal concerns).
I could get behind a tax commensurate with use of resources .. makes sense. BUT, I would still want an overhaul of gov't spending (had I mentioned that?).