The Fall of Empires

[moevillini]

Also, when you consider that teh Chinese economy...
...is why they were able to outcompete us.

I'm stuck mulling over the idea of outcompete. Outperform I understand, outcompete is a little puzzling.

Funny how the ad completely ignores China's own post-revolutionary history. Also funny how China is being used as an example against government waste when for years there was not much more than "government waste" to fuel whatever economy existed in China.

 

[franklin]

The race-baiting comment was made in the first reply to the original post. As for the rest, I'm still trying to parse some of your sentences. I'll respond in more detail when I think I've made sense of what you're trying to say.

Strict balance the budget requirements do not work with debt-based fiat. Our system requires countercyclicals. What do you propose we do when monetarism fails as ZIRP, etc. are now?

 

[Stickler]

Thank you, franklin. That's vaguely what I thought you were saying. I was having a hard time understanding why you thought the things you mentioned would pose any problems at all, until I realized you might not understand how budgeting typically works, outside of a governmental framework.

The easiest solution to the problems you imagine would be for the budget to be based on the previous fiscal year's income, or (more likely) on an average of incomes from the previous few years. Standard practice in business.

The requirement for a balanced budget would not be "strict" in terms of a real-time 1:1 equation. Nor would it function (at least not for decades) on money "in the coffers." Nevertheless it would be "balanced."

 

[catzies]

Chinese is a race?

Chinese is not the preferred nomenclature, Asian American, please, dude.

 

[franklin]

Thank you, franklin. That's vaguely what I thought you were saying. I was having a hard time understanding why you thought the things you mentioned would pose any problems at all, until I realized you might not understand how budgeting typically works, outside of a governmental framework.

You mean where profits act as buffers, and really bad years run in the negative, or, unbalanced?

The easiest solution to the problems you imagine would be for the budget to be based on the previous fiscal year's income, or (more likely) on an average of incomes from the previous few years. Standard practice in business.

The requirement for a balanced budget would not be "strict" in terms of a real-time 1:1 equation. Nor would it function (at least not for decades) on money "in the coffers." Nevertheless it would be "balanced."

Hardly easy. The rolling averages sound better to me, but again, what about years when revenue collapses? Governments are not businesses. You're looking at either making drastic cuts that will feed back on revenue, or looking way out on the horizon to fully implement cuts. That's more of a [near term debt led] soft landing approach and congress couldn't possibly discount the correct value to cut. It's a nice idea, but impractical.

 

[Stickler]

You mean where profits act as buffers, and really bad years run in the negative, or, unbalanced?

Of course. But primarily I mean: Where the budget is based upon expected income. That's how budgeting works. (Federal Budgets not included.)

Hardly easy. The rolling averages sound better to me, but again, what about years when revenue collapses? Governments are not businesses.

Naturally, there would be years when that problem occurred. But so what? You adjust and move forward. These "problems" are inherent and unavoidable. At its best, careful budgeting is educated guesswork. Is it your intention to nay-say every possible alternative to the status quo in order to express your preference for the status quo? The status quo is idiotic.

You're looking at either making drastic cuts that will feed back on revenue, or looking way out on the horizon to fully implement cuts. That's more of a [near term debt led] soft landing approach and congress couldn't possibly discount the correct value to cut. It's a nice idea, but impractical.

Is it your position that governmental spending is so out of control that no correction is possible?

 

[LORDZEDD]

plus chinese isn't a race, the preferred term is oriental if i'm not mistaken.

the word oriental is a hard word to use regarding China alone, for example, the orient was used by the ancient greeks to refer to the evil persian empire as they called it and to exceed said colonial power towards that of India. it is actually a term more looseley used to refer to eastern and its counterpart, the word occidental.

 

[Gameface]

Chinese is not the preferred nomenclature, Asian American, please, dude.

All those people in China are Asian Americans? Good to know. Just like all those folks in Africa are African Americans.

If you can't beat 'em join 'em, as they say.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

the word oriental is a hard word to use regarding China alone, for example, the orient was used by the ancient greeks to refer to the evil persian empire as they called it and to exceed said colonial power towards that of India. it is actually a term more looseley used to refer to eastern and its counterpart, the word occidental.

you are adorable.

 

[LORDZEDD]

you are adorable.

thank you sir.

 

[franklin]

Of course. But primarily I mean: Where the budget is based upon expected income. That's how budgeting works. (Federal Budgets not included.)

Ok, so what would you suggest for 2009 when federal receipts plunged? Adjust over the next how many years exactly? What exactly would you cut?

But so what?

Self feeding liquidity trap, that's what.

Is it your position that governmental spending is so out of control that no correction is possible?

No. I am asking and waiting for a complete thought that makes your balanced budget idea at least remotely plausible under the current monetary structure.

Again, you'll need sufficient countercyclical monetary policy to assure your budget cuts in drastic times don't pull revenue down more, which leaves you with, guess what, a budget deficit. Current monetary policy isn't exactly working.

 

[Stickler]

franklin... Of course when you cut spending dramatically, there have to be cuts to governmental programs. Of course when your income drops, your spending must drop in subsequent years to account for the decreased income.

If you want to know EXACTLY what I would cut if I were in charge, that would be a completely different conversation, involving my "38 point plan for America." Which, naturally, is too detailed for this conversation -- and also, naturally, is little more than a thought exercise. There is zero chance that my "38 point plan for America" will be implemented, and therefore, of course it is utterly impractical.

(A few highlights: prisons become traveling labor camps a little bit like a slave-labor CCC; many drugs legalized; traditional military eliminated and rolled into a civic improvement/defense force; drastically simplified legal code; new school system embracing apprenticeships, volunteer work, self-teaching, and allowing for individual paths through a wider variety of subjects; the establishment of a world-class, federally-funded National University where tuition is totally free and 20% of the student body is selected by lottery.... I could go on all day.)

We might be past the point in the history of our country when major changes such as balanced budgets are "practical."