Two reports on the growing unsustainability of the welfare state
This WSJ piece and this one from RealClearMarkets both comment on the fact that the bills have come due for the welfare state. This is most readily apparent in Europe, a part of the world that has pursued the cradle-to-grave comforts of the system most relentlessly. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are a day late and more than a dollar short.
We need to start cutting programs left and right. Get back to basics and only fund things that are mandated for in the Constitution – like defense, highways and biways, interstate commerce, etc.
Everything else should be stopped and if they want funding they have to make their case agin from ground zero.
There are three reasons to do this.
1. There is Laffer Curve situation between government regulation/law and human freedom. Up to a point, you need laws and regulations to insure freedom and to create the conditions of possibility for human flourishing. After that point every bit of new guv involement decreases human flourishing – and I think it is exponential decreases and increases we are talking about, not marginal ones. At some point, there’d be a point of no return situation where total collapse, misery and human degredation (barbarism) is the only way “forward”.
2. It is grossly irresponsible and unjust on an ontic level, at the core of things, to spend more than we have, especially when the cost is passed on to the next generation(s) and to the final working days until death of people alive today. Today, we have people past retirement age paying for people in their 20s on welfare and food styamps, and for education they don’t get, and for unions, and for all manner of guv programs that do not do what they say and even if they did should not be done by guv. It’s called tyranny, and tyranny is not good even if it works (which it doesn’t).
3. The Common Good would be better served. Reagan was right – a rising tide lifts all boats. We need to raise the tide and that is impossible with all the government programs, laws and regulatinos we have.
We need to stop it all. We need to fire them all. We need to let them know again who we are and who they work for. We need to get back to good old-fashioned Amerivcan self-relaince, ingenuity, sharing and community, etc., etc. – and get the damn government out of our lives.
It’s us or them, and so far it’s them.
Mike, As a centrist conservative who used to be a liberal then moved to libertarianism in 1991 (I wanted an 80% cut in government) one thing I had to come to grips with is what is ‘sellable’, what id ‘doable’ and what is probable.
We cannot sell massive cuts to constitutional levels.
However we can FIX this country if we help people realize we need to make the reforms necessary. Reforms such as:
1) Flatter tax like the Dick Armey flat tax or the Forbes flat tax
2) Stop writing tax code that makes 1,000 exemptions for this or that.
3) Stop de-incentive-izing personal responsibility
With respect to #3. We do not need this country trying to move poor people into homes with interest only loans with no down payments. It’s that kind of mentality that toppled the GSE’s Freddy and Fannie and then brought us into this mess.
With respect to #3 we do not need the government providing health care or removing the free market from the equation. Medicare provides health care to the elderly. Medicaid provides health care to the poor. People who earn $75,000 or are here illegally do not need to be provided health care paid for by RESPONSIBLE people who get insurance in the market place.
Tort reform would help in that mess.
While I’d agree with you philosophically – we aren’t getting there any time soon. Even Doug Christie the new governor who is making cuts is not making the kind of cuts you are talking about.
We need to have a message that is sellable – one that doesn’t seem like we don’t care but one that rewards personal responsibility and doesn’t reward poor decision making.
Bak,
I’m more of the opinion lately that we need the hard sell.
I think this is the energy behind the Tea Party Movement. It’s been there for decades; it is probably a majority view (or at least a majority would say they want about 80% of the prgram); and the alternative – the end of America as America is unthinkable for most people.
Therefore, we scream, shout and kick up a fuss to cut govenerment 80%.
If we don’t do that, we’ll never get anything cut.
If that doesn’t happen, we’re over.
So it’s a matter of what is doable in the end – the end of the world is not doable. It’s the end of the world.
I say we fight.
I think Scott Brown was a big start. Is there any reason, in principle, why there could not be 536 Scott Browns? He was supposed to be impossible. He was impossible. He never happened, no way. Until he did.
Shame, ridicule, shouting, voting out Ds and Rs as a mere show of force until drastic and huge and mega and galactic cuts are made is what we should be doing.
My opinion.
But, if I heard a news report this very afternoon that starting tomorrow only defense, highways and biways and commerce were getting even one dollar of guv money, I’d say that’s the best day we’ve had in 100 years.
I wouldn’t have the slightest care or worry in the world about whether kids would be educated, sick people tended to, the hungry fed, etc., etc. I KNOW they would be anyway.
The problem therefore is…???
CS Lewis explained it with chilling accuracy in the words of the senior demon Screwtape “Whatever men expect, they soon come to think they have a right to: the sense of disappointment can, with very little skill on our part, be turned into a sense of injury.”
As an important aside, I had not realised until I reread Screwtape a few years ago how powerful the ideas were in undermining my liberalism in the 1970’s. It took time – about 10 years – but is part of why I am convinced that escaping from liberalism requires an uncomfortable self-honesty. I still have only partial sympathy with conservatives – but liberal pathology screams out at me from fifty meters away.
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that nobody can run a welfare state with open borders without going bankrupt? Most of the wealth will flee before it is confiscated and the dependents who do not produce multiply. We only have to look at California to see the results. The Federal Government is not far behind.
Chris Christie’s historic address brought tears to my eyes yesterday. He seems to be the first realistic politician to come along this century. The tea party revolt may just save us.
I believe I have posted about the “unsustainability” of our current spending curve here several times already.
In fact, it is glaringly obvious if you look at and understand the projections from supposedly objective, knowledgeable sources like the Congressional Budget Office, and the White House Office of Management and Budget (which, by the way, is apparently picking the rosiest of possible scenarios as its projection, in which everything goes according to plan, and Obama & Co.’s assumptions are truthful and realistic ones), or you look at the projections of the even more truthful Heritage Foundation, and if you also look at the President’s budget and its assumptions–and its gimmicks and smoke and mirrors, you have to come to the conclusion that within the next five, or ten, or fifteen years and perhaps much sooner, just mandatory entitlement spending alone–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Benefits and Veterans and Government Retiree pensions, Social Welfare program spending and Unemployment, as well as interest payments on the public debt–now consuming more than 60% of our entire federal budge–will inevitably grow to consume our entire Federal budget, leaving no money at all for “discretionary” spending for all the of the other items in the budget like national defense, and the working of the rest of the government.
And this is not even talking about our massive and skyrocketing deficit, and is also assuming that inflation doesn’t push interest rates much higher than the rock bottom rates they are at to day, thanks to government fiat.
This level of spending and borrowing, even a lot less than this level of spending and borrowing, simply cannot be sustained without disastrous results. It just, simply, can’t be done.
The debt racked up so far, and the greater debt projected each year into the future is so enormous that it looks like even if the wealthy were not just taxed but had their wealth confiscated and, in addition, every individual and every corporation were taxed at confiscatory rates, we still couldn’t pay off this Mt. Everest of debt, whose crushing weight our children and grandchildren will have to struggle under.
Simply put, out of control government has made wild promises of extras and luxuries (in order to curry favor and get votes) to needy/greedy citizens that it cannot keep because, if it did, our government would go bankrupt and our economy collapse, and we would likely end up repudiating our national debt and ruining our standing as an international borrower, meaning that there would be no counting on some other external country to bail us out, but that other countries would likely want to pick over our bones, and pick up companies and mines and raw materials at fire sale prices (China is already doing a little of this) and we would no longer be our own men; it would be UN control and breadlines for all.
Whoever is elected from now on–to any level of government–has to level with the electorate about the reality and gravity of this situation, and to propose and get voted into law massive cuts, if we are to survive as a free and sovereign nation, much less thrive.
We have 60 Trillion in obligations because of our “compassion”.
We are over-obligated with no way to pay…
That is clear.
When you take a 30 year loan for a house and pay interest on that debt – at least you have an asset when you are done. We won’t even have anything to show for it except for a more dependent generation of people who won’t be able to keep this country FREE !
“Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are a day late and more than a dollar short.”
Meaning: you don’t think you can afford it.
Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, estimated the Iraq/Afghanistan wars have cost USA in excess of $3 trillion – and none of it paid for from the current account at the time. Bush put it on the American credit card and made no provisions for any of the predictable costs falling due in following years. Stiglitz forecast US faced some bubble-bursting as all those no-bid contracts awarded during the post 9/11 years came to an end. Bush made hay while a naé¯ve population feared for their security. Now the people who happily cheered those wars on are staggered at the size of the deficit and debt and looking for someone to blame: the banks, the west coast, the poor, the east coast, the mortgage-holders. Anybody but anybody, except themselves.
A while back I saw one of the MSMs talking about some neighborhood where people had to go a long way to get anything but convenience store food. The MSM was playing up the sympathy thing but was highlighting some person or group that was delivering fruit to the people of the neighborhood. If that is what that person/ group wants to do I say that is their buisiness, but I could not help but notice the neighborhood had large yards full of grass. I kept wondering why these people did not plant their own vegetable gardens and fruit trees?
Last summer , thru the church, I worked with one the local Boy’s homes (boys whose parents will not or can not take care of them) I planted a small garden with some of the boys and they took care of it. This year we plan on expanding the operation. We have a little friendly competition though. One of the other local churches is doing a garden right next to ours with the boys. I want these boys to know they can grow some of their own food if they have a yard. I dont understand people going without food surrounded by grass in the yard.
Glenn Beck today was asking what are you doing to prepare for the likely coming economic collapse. I think among other things, one needs stored food and a way to replenish food supplies, water and a way to replenish, ways to prepare food without electricity, weapons and ammo, medicines, neighbors you can trust, among other things.
And you dont want to be in one of the big cities. LA riots and New Orleans showed us that.
Martyn: yes, of course, Obama had nothing to do with the current deficit, it’s all Bush’s fault, yada yada yada….(see this, not that you care).
As for Stiglitz—of course, he’s totally objective, and has no dog in this race.
jon baker–our ancestors here in this country would understand your attitude, were usually fiercely independent and wanted to be self-sufficient and in debt to no man, but the mindset and culture that fostered this attitude of independence is what has been very deliberately destroyed by the Left, in order to increase dependence in individuals and in society at large, and to foster helplessness and dependence on government and, thus, greater and greater government control.
I am reminded of all those people seen on TV during several recent natural disasters, who made no efforts to help themselves, but sat and waited for the government to help them, and often complained about the fact that the government had not immediately come to their rescue, or solved all of their problems.
The Road to Serfdom will lead us forward 🙂
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2010/02/the_secret_behind_the_hot_sale.html
Stiglitz has no idea.
People were in interest only loans and upside down in their equity because of the Iraq war???
Stupidity!
I forgot who said “The govt can’t do anything for you without doing something to you”. So true!
Beyond the money issue which is bad enough, i just long for the people i run into day to day not be so ignorant and self centered in their gimme little world.
There’s a certain perversity to the Democrat’s/Left’s situation right now. They would have stood a much better (from their point-of-view) chance of achieving their goals if they hadn’t abandoned the incremental approach–which would have required, of course, their continuing failure to gain control of all elective branches of government. They would have been better able to gain partial Republican congressional support, and the American people would have continued to be lulled into a sense of “things-aren’t-really-changing-are-they.” As it is, however, the American people–or at least what we may hope is an ultimately majority fraction of them–have been scared both awake and shitless. There may be a fighting chance that we’ll institute major changes. It’s true that Scott Brown is a stunning refresher, a solid signal, and a nation-wide wake-up. But Christie in Jersey is the real smacker. His speech, combined as it was with real actions, was astonishing, and provides real hope. I mean hope that the things Mike Mc lists and Baklava picks up, and Wolla and others of us clearly want, might actually be undertaken and pulled off. I’m wondering whether we can do it in Washington–there may be nothing quite like that awful amount of inertia, combined with the power and will to control, anywhere else in the entire world. It’s going to be enormously difficult to overthrow. We may stand a better chance at the state level. And heavenly days alive, what better place to start than for-crying-out-loud New Jersey??? We should all be watching Christie carefully, pulling for him, and helping as we can. And then we should be turning a similar focus on our own state capitals.
Martyn of England needs to look homeward. Things in Old Blighty are in decay, and it’s not because they’ve been spending excessive money on defense or respecting their own national sovereignty over-much.
neo-neocon
Thanks for your response, though you’ll have to translate ‘yada yada yada’ for me. Bush, Obama, McCain, Kerry, Gore, whoever. It’s up to USA who they elect as President. Competence and vision are the important factors – I’m not bothered with parties or personalities, just policies.
“As for Stiglitz–of course, he’s totally objective, and has no dog in this race.”
And the Heritage Foundation is totally objective? #;+)
It matters not whether you like Stiglitz. You might not agree with all parts of his estimate, but whether the wars cost $2.5 trillion or $3.5 trillion, they definitely came with a price ticket. Bush had a choice all those years ago: do I say ‘yes’ to these wars, and accept a $3 trillion cost, or do I say ‘no’ and accept the no-cost option by securing the handover of the bin Laden team and ensuring the UN weapons inspectors destroy Saddam’s weapons. It’s a no-brainer Dick — let’s go for the $3 trillion option.
Baklava:
”Stiglitz has no idea. People were in interest only loans and upside down in their equity because of the Iraq war??? Stupidity!”
People took on loans, and banks happily advanced loans because of the illusion of prosperity and the confidence that came with it. The banks could see a problem looming and took a more cautious approach – especially with each other. The sudden loss of momentum, and simultaneous affect set off several domino runs.
betsybounds
”Things in Old Blighty are in decay, and it’s not because they’ve been spending excessive money on defense or respecting their own national sovereignty over-much.”
Nowhere near as much decay as America’s bridges, roads, domestic airports and infrastructure. Actually, our infrastructure is in pretty good shape, thanks. Neither do we get power cuts for 2-3 days; our cables are buried underground. In fact, the last power cut I remember was sometime in the 70’s.
You’re wrong on your other point as well. We have been spending excess money on the wars — they don’t come for free! However, our main ‘hit’ was bailing-out the banks.
Neo,
Not sure you followed the trail of as to how many personnel our First Lady currently has – a staggering 22 compared to 1 for her predecessor.
Apparently, she feels as if she is entitled – that she is the “queen”. Surely she comes from the “entitlement” crowd.
“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” Kenneth Boulding
Martyn,
You fail to understand the difference between war and war games. Which is a bit thick of you, since your country owes much of the freedom it still chooses to retain to American support and sacrifice. You further fail to understand–I don’t know how willful your failure is, of course–the difference between self-defense in the face of a clear enemy attack and choosing to indulge in competition. How tiresome, and how typical.
You say that wars definitely come with a price ticket, and this of course true. So do subjection, defeat without contest, and the rot from within that is engendered by knuckling under in the face of attack. Which price ticket is the higher? The first duty of any country is self-defense. Americans know this, it is enshrined in our founding documents. Jolly Old England used to know it, as well. If you can’t pay for that, the rest will come to nothing.
Martyn,
You are a fool. ‘Nuf said.
I think it was actually JFK, not Reagan, who said “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Which only illustrates how far the Democrat Party has gotten from being a true American political party.
I fail to see how the Iraq war has anything to do with the housing bubble. It was mainly caused by foolish liberal government policies, which forced banks to lend to people who were poor credit risks, since time-honored lending standards were redefined as “racism”.
True, the Iraq war wasn’t directly paid for. Both American political parties have become much too comfortable with deficit spending over the years and now regard it as normal. The way we fought the war was expensive, too. Building civilian infrastructure, planting Western political institutions where they have never existed, winning hearts and minds, minimizing civilian casualties while bending over backwards to give the enemy Constitutional rights costs a lot of money. But I don’t think that style of warfighting will continue in the future. The next time America is attacked, we’ll just bomb the enemy countries to rubble and walk away. It’s much cheaper that way, and costs fewer American lives.
betsybounds
“You fail to understand the difference between war and war games.”
“You further fail to understand—I don’t know how willful your failure is, of course—the difference between self-defense in the face of a clear enemy attack and choosing to indulge in competition.”
What are you on about? Can anyone offer a translation? I’ll look at it in the morning.
Translation? That’s easy.
Necessity vs. choice. True life vs. games.
Top o’ the morning to ya.
We are precariously close to having more people in the wagon than pulling the wagon. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax. What is their incentive to cut spending? The Obama stimulus bill was designed to kick in for the 2010 elections and his reelection.
Once people get free money, they expect it to last forever. Feeding bears is not too dangerous unless you run out of food. The riots in Greece reveal how difficult it is to cut benefits. College students often refer to “my financial aid.”
Perhaps New Jersey and California will concentrate our minds.
Mr. Frank,
Well I am especially hopeful that New Jersey will concentrate our minds. You go, Christie!
And with respect to the nearly 50% of Americans who pay no income tax, I continue to think that those who pay no taxes should not be permitted to vote. In the last days, long ago, we said, “No taxation without representation!”
We should now be saying, “No representation without taxation!”
Martyn of England: “yada yada yada” can be roughly translated as “blah blah blah.” We have heard these arguments many times and refuted them many times, so it becomes somewhat tiresome.
The chart I linked to from the Heritage Foundation is actually originally from the Washington Post (as you may have observed if you read the article), not a publication known for its conservative bias.
No one here had said that Bush was a fiscal conservative (and most conservatives here were against some of his expensive policies at the time). But Obama is far, far worse in that regard, a point you ignore.
The point about Stiglitz is that he is biased towards the left. Virtually all economists—not just Stiglitz—have their biases, their dogs in the race. See this.
Martyn,
You are talking to an informed set of people here.
People are irresponsible if they bought homes with no money down with an interest only loan.
The government passed legislation making all this possible.
IN A FREE MARKET economy you can talk about this politician or that politician but it’s IDEAS that matter.
The ideas of personal responsibility. The Tea Party has no head because they don’t want a head for the government / media complex to go after.
We want issues discussed and we want the government AND people to be responsible.
The obligations that are unsustainable are NOT the wars. No matter how you feel about the war – it is really irrelevant to this thread. What matters is we are on an unsustainable path – just like the irresponsible people buying more home than they can afford (and then blaming it on wall street greed). It takes TWO to make that transaction.
Are you arguing that we are on a sustainable path Martyn? Make the case.
Wow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7252288/Greece-loses-EU-voting-power-in-blow-to-sovereignty.html
Greece loses voting power
Martyn: The US military’s Rules of Engagement have doubtlessly seriously inflated the costs of the Iraq/Afghan wars. It costs a lot in money and warrior lives to minimize deaths of “civilians” when the enemy is not uniformed. I personally would have favored the creation of a few Dresdens there. since nothing in combat is worse than the perception of being soft. That softness is forced upon us by our ever-loyal and all-wise media, and I include the Beeb in that.
However, the current huge costs could’ve/should’ve been averted had Bush I pushed on to Bagdad. It is always more costly when a problem isn’t fixed the first time out the gate.
Where is William Tecumseh Sherman when we need him? That’s what I want to know.
Bush I was under Colin Powell’s thumb, and that’s why we lost Gulf War I. Let’s not forget that. I’ve never understood it, although I see why it happened. Understanding and knowing are not the same thing. Powell was the affirmative action chairman of the JCS, just as he was the affirmative occupant of every post he ever held, both before and since. And we are still paying the price of it.
Although that’s not the whole story–yet it is more than a single chapter.
Martyn, when you posit the false choice of either
“the no-cost option by securing the handover of the bin Laden team and ensuring the UN weapons inspectors destroy Saddam’s weapons” versus going to war, there’s no sense talking to you. Securing? Ensuring? You make it sound so simple. That should be your first clue.
All actions have costs. All actions have consequences. You seem to come from a circle which thinks these airy dreams ever had a reality to them.
Consider the possibility that your sources and assumptions are not reliable. We do it all the time. A hefty percentage of folks here used to be left/liberal/progressive, but consider self-questioning a point of honor.
I notice how the phrase that Martyn chose to illuminate was the one aimed at the US. In the midst of his sneer he neatly chose to ignore the preceding sentence describing the problems of the european social utopia (dystopia?).
The difference is that we still have time to reverse course while they are much further down the road and possibly not recoverable.
Everything costs something and wars are very expensive. About the only thing more expensive are open ended social programs.
National economies can stand a lot of stress (such as wars) if they are healthy. They quickly sicken when the means of production are sabotaged. That sabotage is called socialism.
Oh and Martyn: for the 65 years of peace your crapulent continent has experienced without the need to budget to protect yourselves, you’re welcome. Feel free to kick in any time. All CONSTRUCTIVE contributions gratefully accepted.
“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”
Martyn of England
Why is it progressives never apply this to governments?
And who the hell are these progressive pompous pricks who think the average individual is the problem in that he dares to want life and to want it more abundantly for his family? Meanwhile these same pompous pricks get in with govt or a govt contributing union and make 35% more than the average individual, OFF THE BACKS OF, AND AT THE COST OF THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL.
Talk about unsustainable. The progressives in this world have no idea how close their free ride is to ending. Or maybe they do, and that explains why they are willing to shove outrageous laws and legislation at the average individual at any political cost right now just to keep their gravy train going if but for a day longer.
A day of reckoning is just around the corner and the progressives who have no problem stealing from another mans labor know it.
Bush put it on the American credit card and made no provisions for any of the predictable costs falling due in following years. Stiglitz forecast US faced some bubble-bursting as all those no-bid contracts awarded during the post 9/11 years came to an end.
Wait….
You say the defense spending during the post 9/11 years stimulated the economy creating high-paying jobs, and increasing tax revenue unlike the “stimulus package”?
Cool.
At least the war trillions were mostly paid to American personel and industries. Democrat trillions are going up a hogs ass called China.
I’d rather pay for security for my home than a brother-in-law to stay in my home for free, eat my meals and run up my electricity bill … and then call me greedy.
You are so right, Martyn! We certainly spent all that money on foreign wars when we had no dog in those fights.
Let’s see, when did that start? World War I? We just rolled up our sleeves and dug in and never counted the cost. I mean, really — what business was it of ours if the Kaiser ruled Europe?
And don’t talk to me about World War II! Why, we started helping the Brits before we were even in that war. We should have said to hell with them, let ‘em learn German. Then when the Japanese attacked, we could’ve focused all our attention on them. Why didn’t we think about “any of the predictable costs falling due in following years?”
Thanks for the lesson, Martyn. Hopefully, next time we’ll remember it.
P.S. Hard to believe, isn’t it, that only a generation or so ago, “progressives” were people who volunteered to go and fight fascist dictators!
Progressives like Martyn like to supply the needles to the drug users down the street, leave their house door unlocked, invite people into their home that they bought with an interest only loan with nothing down, use the rest of their paycheck to buy the SUV (like my liberal neighbor) then bad mouth everyone else for not using one square, not hanging out their laundry, and not using mass transit. 🙂
Martyn must not have seen the constant European TV reports on how sanctions were starving Iraqi children. Nor did he notice the severe underreporting of the beneficieries of oil for food. And Hans Blix was going to solve the problem with Saddam by appealing to his”honor.” I know it may be a bit crumbly like the rest of our infrastructure, but I have a really good deal for him on the Brooklyn Bridge.
One more item for Martyn: How is Britain progressing in its attempt to get rid of unisex wards in its hospitals?
Our roads, bridges, etc are not in all that terrible of shape. My fiance works for a municipal engineering firm, and says that the standards employed to make that judgment are unreasonable. (He sits on a water board as well as being the Pres of a sanitary district, so you can imagine what he says about water standards!)
Let me give you an analogy of what is happening
We are all sitting at a table… And we are all ordering stuff from the restaurant that is expensive. After all, the idea going in was that everyone at the table was going to split the check. But, everyone is having such a good time! In fact, in excess of their ability to pay easily. So someone gets the idea at the table to make things “More Fair”…And so the majority at the table decide that they are going to set up the check payment “Progressively”.
So what they do is they start to go over how much money each of the friends earns.[do note that when everyone was paying their share, everyone, rich and poor, were sitting at the same table, there was no classes. In fact they all came to the table to SHARE equally the fruits to be had, and associate freely]
so everyone gets a bit of say.. the poor person says I cant really afford to pay for the kobe beef I ordered…so the wealthy person said, why did you order more than what you could afford? Silence [the poor person was hoping that the difference was to be buried in the average]
Then the poor person said, but you ordered the kobe beef, and he ordered the kobe beef. And so on. Which only describes how the bill got so high. The poorer people at the table didn’t order according to what they could pay…And so kept the average down, they ordered believing they could hide the extra cost. So another bottle of wine is opened (house wine now)…And the discussion goes on
They basically argue that since the wealthy person could afford to pay the whole tab…And the poor person cant pay even their own share, that they should come up with …A payment way that would work. So like a plan I had with a girlfriend… the bill then was divided not by equal portions…But was divided based on what proportion a person earned as if it was a part of a whole. So they added together all their salaries…They figured out what each salary was in percentage of the whole…And that would be the figure that each would pay.
But it turns out that that wasn’t good enough. They figured that since they were able to collectively bargain a better fairness…Why not continue and bargain more fairness.By this time, as the discussion continued the wealthy person starts to lose patience. He realizes that if he stays, they are eventually going to argue that he pay their bill. So he gets up, and goes to the bathroom. He gives payment for his share of the meal, and a good tip to the waitress. And while they are still arguing… slips out the back door.. Leaving them to pay the whole bill they ran up.
Wahts more, is that before he was willing to sit and dine with them…They could, with that meeting, propose things that he might want to help with or be a part of. But he learned his lesson. There is no sense in the rich associating freely with the poor…The poor will not see the advantage in it, and only have larceny in their hearts…And they will disguise it as justice, fairness, and such… As there is always more of them
The story isnt over though.. On the way out, he meets another man.. A man who from the shadows said… I told you so. You havent changed and you want to be with them…But you have changed to them, and they see you as a meal. Why don’t you join me? And together we can fix it so that this never happens again…That they will never have enough to even think of coming to the table with us. After all, if they are not with you, they are against you
See how easy it was for them to rob their friend because of the circumstances of his life?
What kind of friends are they? Why don’t we talk to the politicians… I know… Turnaround is fair play, no? They wanted to take all you have, why don’t you take all they have..
And so, while they are washing dishes and cant go home for a few days…He is free to be fair, and if they think its fair to take all of someone elses earned.
Then I guess its fair if I take all that they have earned. And so.. we arrive at the same place of the feudal past…The poor no longer able to even sit at the table and present and change their future…A wealthy class that sees the poor not as equals with less money, but as cutpurses….A poor that sees the wealthy as not being fair (and do not see how unfair they are)
And so, a new feudal state is born..
What to do about the masses of poor who will take all you have if you let them stay? Maybe abortion? Maybe eugenics? Maybe spend your money convincing their children it’s a good idea. Be patient, stay apart, let the adverts to their work. Let the teachers you paid to do targeted research with fixed outcomes for money do its work…All you have to do is invert them. Convince them that freedom is slavery…That slavery is freedom…That progress is regress…That regression is progress
Why is it progressives never apply this to governments?
because progressivism is feudal politics, and they cant convert a free state where they are employees of the people and apt to be fired, and basically respected clerks… into a feudal state where they are lords.
this is why they mix up governing, with ruling. they think the latter is the former, and dont get that the first embodies getting out of the way, and preventing bad conditions (not creating good ones), and that all they can do is let the traffic flow where it wants to go… ruling on the other hand is i say something, you do it… their missives as to not haveing the power to govern, is really saying we HAVE the power to govern, we want the power to rule. then they will no longer be oppressed by the borgegie, they can take their natural rightful elite place as rulers of man, who are their minions/servants/pets…Capitalism oppresses KINGS and RULERS
so now to explain the question.. imagine you have a narcisistic friend, and dont know it. or a sociaopathic, freind, or whatever. you just got a brand new beautiful car. he asks if he can test drive it. inside he dosnt like that you have a house, property, a new job, a new wife, and a car. while he hasnt got that. so he decided to take you down a peg.. so he takes it for a spin, and blows the engine accidentaly.
now you know what they are doing to the economy. they are jealous and hate their oppressors, and they asked to borrow the car. every time they get into the car, they take the opportunity to drive it at a wall, run to 70 in first gear, tap the oil tank to half, put the wrong gfeul in the feul tank, and when uder the hood, cross a few wires. and yet, the car keeps going. which makes them fear the care even more.
but the point is that your friend when getting out of the car and tossing you the keys says. wasnt a good car, it couldnt take it. which is what they say of capitalism that is not really capitalism, but perverse and contorted economy of fascism (heading towards the wall of progressivism/socialism/communism)
what they are trying to get you to realize falsely is that, why use money. if we didnt have to pay the bills, our capacity could seem to provide all that. if its the bills that are the problem, then why not get rid of the bills by getting rid of the money? and soon you have little books.. one for the prols, one for the union/state gov people, and a third for the army and other organs of state. after all, if there is no more money, and you have to feed people i the cities, chits are the way. conscript money, etc.
once you do that, its easy to control people by saying, your brother wasnt nice about X, so i think he gets half rations. if you dont kill Y for us, we will cut rations for your whole family in half.
where do you go? what do you do? welcome to the realization of what is being constructed around you. if you dont realize the constructive machines function, your sure going to be suprised when they throw the switch. just remember, they are referring to themselves when they talk all this rhetoric about oppression. that is, without the actual context inside their heads, people assume the context they want. that doesnt mean that thats what those in the know mean.
its an interesting game, and such. the smartest people though dont usually get it. so they tend to be pawns who work for things without pay and are fodder for those in the know.
“”Unequal treatment to insure equal outcomes””
This pretty much describes the dynamic with progressives. To discriminate and merely claim good intentions behind the discrimination. And who thinks the discriminators of 1860 didn’t make the same claims? They are ONE AND THE SAME MINDSETS.
Martyn’s a moron; ignore him.
Rather, read Pete DuPont’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Nightfall in America:
” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page did an analysis of the federal government’s debt that will be held by the public over the coming decade. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2% of GDP. It rose to 40.2% the next year. This year it will be about 63.6%, next year 68.6%, then 77% of GDP in 2020. And the Obama administration’s budget estimates 218% in 2050.”
Expat,
Iraqi children were flying kites in the streets…
We are a baaaaaad nation.
Sadly, we cannot ignore the Martyns. Ignoring them is a big part of what got us into the fix we’re in. They are the enemy, and if ignored further will drag us all down with them.
http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/17/tom-i-me-mine-friedman-responds-to-the-global-warming-deniers-hilarity-ensues/
Tom Friedman
Al Gore
Barbara Streisand
Anybody recommending we only use one square.
Anybody recommending we use mass transit instead of cars.
Anybody recommending we spend 10x more on energy (hurting the poor) because of so-called crisises.
Baklava,
I’m so sorry. What can I do to make it up? Can I help you strap on that suicide vest? Or will it be enough if I campaign for cap and trade?
I think Friedman is trying real hard to regain the creds he lost for supporting the Iraq war. He will never step over the line again.
expat,
🙂 I’m a sane human being. Though I did “hear” that Michael Moore’s movie showed Iraqi children flying kites… I never watched it.
If you fight for cap and trade … please impose it on Barbara Streisand and Al Gore but not me. 🙂
Baklava,
I never saw any of Michael Moore’s movies, but apparently kids in that part of the world are really into kite-flying. The Kite Runner is excellent, and seems to capture it pretty well.
I know the Afghan kids are into kite and they were forbidden ba the Taliban. Don’t know about Iraq. Michael Moore would lie about anything to sell books. Some of his things sold better in Germany than in the US. And people ask, “Why do they hate us?”
Baklava: Selective cap and trade. That’s not a bad idea. Gore gets to exhale 10 times per day for free, then he can buy breathing credits from you because you don’t tool around the world in your own jet.
Martyn has no business lecturing us on anything:
http://tinyurl.com/ye8566t
betsybounds 17th 9.32pm
”Necessity vs. choice.”
Precisely. Necessary to have a stimulus package; a choice to go to war.
Neo-neocon 17th at 9.45pm
Thanks for the ‘yada’ translation. Three possibilities sprang to mind at the time — I thought it better to ask than guess.
“We have heard these arguments many times and refuted them many times, so it becomes somewhat tiresome.”
Sorry, I only found the site a few days ago and didn’t realise that new arrivals were expected to read through the archives before posting.
”No one here had said that Bush was a fiscal conservative. But Obama is far, far worse in that regard, a point you ignore.”
Not a point I ignore, but one that I take into account. The 2000-08 President had choices. The 2009 President took over when the economy was still in free-fall.
Baklava 17th 10.10pm
”People are irresponsible if they bought homes with no money down with an interest only loan.”
Not necessarily. Taking a chance on what might be the only opportunity to buy a home, in a climate of rising prices, has generally proved to be a wise and profitable move.
Condemning less intelligent —or naé¯ve, home buyers with limited ability to predict all future outcomes but not condemning government for failing to predict all future outcomes is a little unreasonable, wouldn’t you say?
Gray 18th at 12.34am
”Wait….You say the defense spending during the post 9/11 years stimulated the economy …”
Of course it did — it’s just another form of stimuli – only instead of the product going up in smoke, you get tangible benefits in your own country – and not a set of craters in somebody else’s.
expat: 18th 8.39am
”One more item for Martyn: How is Britain progressing in its attempt to get rid of unisex wards in its hospitals?”
I doubt Neo-Neocon wants hospital policy issues discussed on a Finance/Economics thread. People are already wanting to stray into WWII and other off-topic issues. Let’s wait until the appropriate thread appears.
Condemning less intelligent —or naé¯ve, home buyers with limited ability to predict all future outcomes but not condemning government for failing to predict all future outcomes is a little unreasonable, wouldn’t you say?
No. There’s no debtor’s prison….
That is what repossession is for: for being a dumbass.
Martyn treats “necessity” and “choice” as if they were different. This can’t withstand scrutiny. To say that one course of action is “necessary” is only to say that the chooser (or someone evaluating the values and decisions of the chooser) finds the alternatives unappealing. By this reckoning, neither war, nor government spending, nor speculating on houses is necessary, but a matter of choice. To say that something is necessary is to absolve the chooser of moral responsibility for his choice; in fact, it depends upon accepting assumptions about values that are not in evidence and never defended.
Responsibility is a different matter. It means that you choose, but you are willing to pay the price yourself if it turns out badly. This isn’t the case for people who bought houses they couldn’t afford; incurring the projected US debts to pay for political payoffs and entitlements strikes me as profoundly irresponsible as well.
Oblio – see Betsybound’s earlier posts at 9.11pm and 9.32pm on 17th.
#;+)
What I said applies to Betsy’s comment, too, but she will forgive me. 🙂
Betsy does you one better, Martyn, by providing a statement about the values and objectives that justifies calling a war a necessary choice. At least we can tell Betsy is fully aware of the world of unbounded games inhabited by rough and ruthless men (and women). Betsy is saying, rightly, that America has taken responsibility for the security of Western Europe and has paid the price; not least of which is suffering the ingratitude of increasingly infantilized Europeans.
Everyone’s responses to Martyn were informative, but I thought I’d address his throw-away line about underground power cables. The reason that power cables are above-ground is that they cover areas in which burying electric cable isn’t feasible; e.g. across fault lines. They also were more cost-effective and less dangerous to use elevated lines in international power transfer; for example, lines over the St. Clair River from power plants in the US to “Chemical Valley” in Ontario. One of the cities that lost power during the last blizzard was Detroit, which has a combination of buried and elevated lines.
I won’t go into all the details, but Canadian and American utilities are a cross-continental system that truly boggles the mind with the amount of red-tape, shoddy maintenance, and unforeseen consequences of policies on both sides. The Black-out of 2003 was a wake-up call, but it’s not as if we can scrap it all and have a provincial-based system that has no effect on the States. Or vice versa.
From what I understand, cables in the English Channel
I was just viewing useful blog posts for your project research and my spouse and i happened to stumble after yours. Thanks for the actual helpful material!