public unions versus the public

[caroljane]

Rand's view of ordinary people, as demonstrated in your use of the term, comprised a very small part of civil society; she depicted the potential of ordinary in Eddie Willers, and frequently said that every individual is capable of becoming rational and more intelligent. However I do not think she had much hope that every individual would do this. Her ordinary people all seemed to be western Europeans and Americans anyway. ||Aboriginal Americans, in their millions, she dismissed as uncivilized, and of the rest of the planet she seldom commented upon.

Only the best and the brightest belong in Galt's Gulch, or deserve their lives at all, if they would just think about it.

[Mikee]

Rand's view of ordinary people, as demonstrated in your use of the term, comprised a very small part of civil society; she depicted the potential of ordinary in Eddie Willers, and frequently said that every individual is capable of becoming rational and more intelligent. However I do not think she had much hope that every individual would do this. Her ordinary people all seemed to be western Europeans and Americans anyway. ||Aboriginal Americans, in their millions, she dismissed as uncivilized, and of the rest of the planet she seldom commented upon.

Only the best and the brightest belong in Galt's Gulch, or deserve their lives at all, if they would just think about it.

Complete nonsense. I ask you again: why are you here? If it is to enjoy writing this kind of nonsense to admirers of individual freedom and of Ayn Rand you are a troll. You obviously loath Ayn Rand and enjoy tormenting her admirers. Or else you are incapable of rational thought.

Ayn Rand on racism

[caroljane]

I guess I win the essay contest.

[caroljane]

Let me give you an example from 'economics:' the 'definition' of GDP

GDP = G + C + Inv + (Ex-Im)

where

GDP = Gross Domestic Product

G = total goverment spending

C = total private consumptive spending

Inv = total private investment

Ex = total exports

Im = total imports

It is widely touted as a measure of economic 'growth' of something called 'the economy.'

Look at that, it looks just like mathematics; inexorable. Undeniable. But wait...it is packed with political assumptions. here are unseen factors which must all be assumed to be +1.0, as in

GDP = 1.0* G + 1.0 * C + 1.0 *Inv + (1.0 * Ex - 1.0 * Im)

That is math, too. If we assume all those factors are 1.0, then that 'equation is not written that way. But... what does it mean when we assume all those factors are = + 1.0?

It is a political assertion. It is the assertion that, when defining a measure of economic 'growth', $1 of Government spending is exactly equivalent in every way to $1 of private spending.

Which is to say, $1 of public debt fueled public spending is equivalent in every way to $1 of private debt fueled private spending.

And yet, if you think about this even a little bit, it is clearly not the case, especially given all the creative ways the governments can take on debt.

If Congress were to sign a piece of paper. granting itself the right to tell a secretary to run a laser printer, print out another piece of paper, then walk over to the fed window and accept $1T in freshly printed cash in exchange for that paper(a promise to tax/borrow more in the future), and then throw that money at 'the economy' (really, the economies, by way of selective and crony based government 'spending')...would we say that 'the economy' has 'grown' by $1T?

And what of the implied equivalence, not only between $1 of government spending and $1 of private spending, but of public debt and private debt? What is the difference between public debt and private debt? That is easy to understand.

My available credit and your available credit and the CEO of FedEx's available credit on behalf of FedEx is all finite. When we take on debt, we consume available credit. Not only that, we create incentive -- in ourselves -- to freshly go out into the future and create new value, in order to paydown that debt, lower interest payments, and restore our available credit. It is thus seen as a kind of investment in the future economies. It projects economic activity -- human creative effort -- forward into the future.

Compare with public debt. When public debt is taken on(how? By painlessly signing pen to paper and extending the debt ceiling on our unlimited credit), not a single human being anywhere in the world wakes up the next morning with any incentive to do anything. The debt just grows, unbounded. It creates no incentives at all in future economies. It is thus seen as a pure de-investment in future economies (because all that remains is the future obligation for our children to be taxed to pay the increased debt service.)

And so, a $ of G is not equivalent to a $ of C, and that 'equation' defining GDP is really a political assertion, it is not 'math' even though it looks just like math.

In fact, in terms of defining a healthy, growing 'the economy', not only is the implied 1.0 suspect, but so is the implied '+' in front of it...

Think about this the next time we hear some cheerleader on the radio announcing "1.1% growth in 'the economy'" ...what the Hell does it mean?

This excellent post confirms what I do instinctively feel when I hear, and especially read, such reports, not that I understand the math, but I do understand "lies, damn lies and statistics.".

The leader of our government is a free-market economist (you may have heard he does not get on that well with Obama). I did not vote for him of course, but I am a fatalist and in a long life found things to adjust to change, mostly by unintended consequences, in ways I could not predict. Even my dice throws were more accurate than those of the economists.

[caroljane]

This previous post was In Memoriam for Paul the Octupus, sadly deceased.

We shall not fish for your like again.

[Selene]

I guess I win the essay contest.

Now that is hilarious.....

I see I am going handicap this debate.

[caroljane]

You will get your cut like always. Have I ever let you down?

Mikee mistakes my stream of consciousness style of posting for a deliberate attack on his values. He doesn't know me but sees me as part of a collective. Fair enough.

[Selene]

You will get your cut like always. Have I ever let you down?

Mikee mistakes my stream of consciousness style of posting for a deliberate attack on his values. He doesn't know me but sees me as part of a collective. Fair enough.

You, despite your intelligence, are not to palatable to certain types of folks.

[caroljane]

How well I know that. My just-mentioned hero Paul the Octopus was even more unpalatable than me, lucky for him. In a suspenseful moment of his life, he was guaranteed to be on display and not on the menu, -- well, you really have to be a Paul fan to understand. Whoever wrote that Wiki entry is a genius.

[Mikee]

You will get your cut like always. Have I ever let you down?

Mikee mistakes my stream of consciousness style of posting for a deliberate attack on his values. He doesn't know me but sees me as part of a collective. Fair enough.

That explains the complete lack of rational thinking.

Continue with the burlesque, I'll program a key on my keyboard to "ba-dump-bump" and press when needed.

[caroljane]

Let me give you an example from 'economics:' the 'definition' of GDP

GDP = G + C + Inv + (Ex-Im)

where

GDP = Gross Domestic Product

G = total goverment spending

C = total private consumptive spending

Inv = total private investment

Ex = total exports

Im = total imports

It is widely touted as a measure of economic 'growth' of something called 'the economy.'

Look at that, it looks just like mathematics; inexorable. Undeniable. But wait...it is packed with political assumptions. here are unseen factors which must all be assumed to be +1.0, as in

GDP = 1.0* G + 1.0 * C + 1.0 *Inv + (1.0 * Ex - 1.0 * Im)

That is math, too. If we assume all those factors are 1.0, then that 'equation is not written that way. But... what does it mean when we assume all those factors are = + 1.0?

It is a political assertion. It is the assertion that, when defining a measure of economic 'growth', $1 of Government spending is exactly equivalent in every way to $1 of private spending.

Which is to say, $1 of public debt fueled public spending is equivalent in every way to $1 of private debt fueled private spending.

And yet, if you think about this even a little bit, it is clearly not the case, especially given all the creative ways the governments can take on debt.

If Congress were to sign a piece of paper. granting itself the right to tell a secretary to run a laser printer, print out another piece of paper, then walk over to the fed window and accept $1T in freshly printed cash in exchange for that paper(a promise to tax/borrow more in the future), and then throw that money at 'the economy' (really, the economies, by way of selective and crony based government 'spending')...would we say that 'the economy' has 'grown' by $1T?

And what of the implied equivalence, not only between $1 of government spending and $1 of private spending, but of public debt and private debt? What is the difference between public debt and private debt? That is easy to understand.

My available credit and your available credit and the CEO of FedEx's available credit on behalf of FedEx is all finite. When we take on debt, we consume available credit. Not only that, we create incentive -- in ourselves -- to freshly go out into the future and create new value, in order to paydown that debt, lower interest payments, and restore our available credit. It is thus seen as a kind of investment in the future economies. It projects economic activity -- human creative effort -- forward into the future.

Compare with public debt. When public debt is taken on(how? By painlessly signing pen to paper and extending the debt ceiling on our unlimited credit), not a single human being anywhere in the world wakes up the next morning with any incentive to do anything. The debt just grows, unbounded. It creates no incentives at all in future economies. It is thus seen as a pure de-investment in future economies (because all that remains is the future obligation for our children to be taxed to pay the increased debt service.)

And so, a $ of G is not equivalent to a $ of C, and that 'equation' defining GDP is really a political assertion, it is not 'math' even though it looks just like math.

In fact, in terms of defining a healthy, growing 'the economy', not only is the implied 1.0 suspect, but so is the implied '+' in front of it...

Think about this the next time we hear some cheerleader on the radio announcing "1.1% growth in 'the economy'" ...what the Hell does it mean?

This excellent post confirms what I do instinctively feel when I hear, and especially read, such reports, not that I understand the math, but I do understand "lies, damn lies and statistics.".

The leader of our government is a free-market economist (you may have heard he does not get on that well with Obama). I did not vote for him of course, but I am a fatalist and in a long life found things to adjust to change, mostly by unintended consequences, in ways I could not predict. Even my dice throws were more accurate than those of the economists.

Minor correction, as you are probably aware we do not vote for a federal leader, only our local representatives. I meant that I did not vote for the Conservative candidate in my riding. The government leader of course is the head of the party that wins the most seats.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's view of ordinary people, as demonstrated in your use of the term, comprised a very small part of civil society; she depicted the potential of ordinary in Eddie Willers, and frequently said that every individual is capable of becoming rational and more intelligent. However I do not think she had much hope that every individual would do this. Her ordinary people all seemed to be western Europeans and Americans anyway. ||Aboriginal Americans, in their millions, she dismissed as uncivilized, and of the rest of the planet she seldom commented upon.

Only the best and the brightest belong in Galt's Gulch, or deserve their lives at all, if they would just think about it.

Oh? How'd that truck driver get in?

--Brant

truck driver (400,000 miles)

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's view of ordinary people, as demonstrated in your use of the term, comprised a very small part of civil society; she depicted the potential of ordinary in Eddie Willers, and frequently said that every individual is capable of becoming rational and more intelligent. However I do not think she had much hope that every individual would do this. Her ordinary people all seemed to be western Europeans and Americans anyway. ||Aboriginal Americans, in their millions, she dismissed as uncivilized, and of the rest of the planet she seldom commented upon.

Only the best and the brightest belong in Galt's Gulch, or deserve their lives at all, if they would just think about it.

Complete nonsense. I ask you again: why are you here? If it is to enjoy writing this kind of nonsense to admirers of individual freedom and of Ayn Rand you are a troll. You obviously loath Ayn Rand and enjoy tormenting her admirers. Or else you are incapable of rational thought.

Ayn Rand on racism

Every decent site should have a resident troll.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Thanks Brant. \Please drive safe as you navigate your rig across the bridge I live under

[Selene]

Thanks Brant. \Please drive safe as you navigate your rig across the bridge I live under

Is this some kind of coded international kink? hmmm

"safe" "navigate your rig" "across the bridge" <<<I think the international moral police need to call the NSA and pull up those "communications!"

[caroljane]

Adam! Good heavens, what a misconstruction.

I will have you know I usually thank a gentleman at the end, not the beginning.

[Selene]

Of course.

Sounds like an awkward date though...

A...

[caroljane]

Yeahwell, I've had plenty awkward dates. As I mentioned to Frediano I dated an eagle once and that was no flight in the park. Well, actually it was... still shudder to think about it.

[Frediano]

In the definition of GDP, can government spending fueled by taxes or debt (promise to tax in future)be net stimulative, to grow something called 'the economy?'

We have been running the experiment now... for five years.

Consider this. We have local government taxing authorities that cover the nation. On top of them, we have county taxing authorities that cover the same dirt with a second layer. On top of them, we have state/province taxing authorities that cover the exact same dirt with a third layer. Finally, there is a national/federal taxing authority ... that covers the same dirt with a fourth layer.

The surface of our nation is well covered by four completely overlapping taxing authorities. These taxing authorities are granted the right to demand taxes from those who create value in the economies, and who then turn around and hand those taxes back selectively to some, demanding stuff in return for the well traveled cash. For them, take away the give and take of taxes, and basically, government shows up and demands shit for free. For others who aren't demanded to pony up actual shit that they make or create in exchange for tax dollars handed back to them after they just forked them over under threat of penalties, they end up creating things and losing part of their IOUs for having created something to begin with. But at least, they all receive government goods and services.

But...where do those government goods and services come from? Does the government manufacture them? No... the government procures them from the people who do the work...paying them with money that they just took from them or borrowed from their kids. or just printed.

How can that be stimulative? The argument is, after all, that the government is 'spending' the money just taken from the economies in the economies for necessary goods and services ... provided by those same economies. Or maybe for national defense... using the lives of the people of the nation who actually provide that defense, using goods and materials actually manufactured by some other of those same people of the nation. There is no national government goods/services manufacturing plant that we are exchanging value for value with. At most... we are providing the value for necessary government, which we agree there is a finite amount of. As well, the lives that die in battle. But an ever increasing arbitrary amount of that beyond what is necessary to fund required government cannot possibly be net 'stimulative,' and I will show that below. It is just disruptive of the economies, especially when, in the extremes of our current $3800B federal gluttony going nowhere, it is managed by political cronies and crony statism-- at most corporatism and nowhere near free market capitalism.

Here is proof that these four redundant overlapping levels of 'necessary government' cannot be net stimulative, just because they return the money just taken from the economies back into the economies elsewhere.

Imagine a giant silver orb speeds from deepest space and suddenly hovers over the White House one day, an alien species. In a display of overwhelming technological power, the beings in this orb shut down all power in the world for 30 minutes. (Yes, The Day The Earth Stood Still, the morality play about the Paradox of Violence.) Humans are powerless in the face of this confrontation with an advanced species, like Spaniards in South America.

But it turns out they are deal makers. What they want is for everything to go on exactly as before, but on top of the existing four layers of redundant taxing authorities, they propose to add a fifth layer(why not? If 1 can become 4, then 4 can become 5.) Their argument goes as follows: "Your federal, state, county, and local taxing authorities will continue to tax the exact same dirt they do now. Nothing will change. We will tax anything that is 1 Angstrom above the dirt or more. We will add a new taxing authority, and anything that is 1 or more Angstroms above the local dirt or floor will pay us a 40% yearly tax. But don't be concerned, because what are we going to do with this additional tax? We are going to spend it in your economies, thus 'stimulating' them more than they are now.

So they are going to tax us all an additional 40%, but then they are going to take those same tax dollars, turn around, and spend it with some of us, in exchange for which we will turn around and hand them over goods and services that they will do with as they see fit. Maybe build a new sky version of the Imperial DC Capital area. It will be beautiful, complete with monuments.

So when the dust clears...cancel out the tax money to and from the silver orb, a new emperor has shown up, and we are making stuff and handing it over to them for a brand new layer of 'necessary government.'

If that is net 'stimulative' to something called 'the economy' , then so is a giant whip. If people -still- believe that federal spending is 'stimulative' then why wouldn't we all be looking to the stars and praying for that silver orb to show up, and save our economies by...driving them into the ground with yet a fifth layer of taxing authority?

It might have been stimulative when the base level of taxation was $100B, as in JFK's America. (However...he cut taxes, and his economies roared.)

The current experiment has no suggestion at all that in today's $3800B/yr federal skim, that additional federal taking is stimulative at all.

[Selene]

Yeahwell, I've had plenty awkward dates. As I mentioned to Frediano I dated an eagle once and that was no flight in the park. Well, actually it was... still shudder to think about it.

Yes, those talon marks on your back take a long time to truly heal...

However, I am truly confused....eagles mate for life, like Cardinals[non papal types...the birds...geez...it is getting soo difficult to communicate in the age of communications], so, you found the one cheating eagle? Impressive.

A....

[caroljane]

I only wish. He was so possessive and controlling, but anytime I tried to open honest communication he would see another squirrel, and make excuses to break off dialogue, and he would never even let me cook them and he KNEW I hated squirrel anyway. Would it have killed him to predate on a nice rabbit sometime?...Don't get me started.

[caroljane]

And he made fun of my Eaglish all the time, even though that stupid language only has 78 words. And he only knew 62 of them.

[Selene]

I understand.

Sometimes the males of species other than human have a very clear program...survive, or, die.

Squirrels and rabbits are a renewable food source [just trying for PETA points an essay contest...ssh] and sooo distracting.

A...

[caroljane]

Go ahead, take his side. Just what he used to say, he would die if he had to listen to me any longer...

[Selene]

Go ahead, take his side. Just what he used to say, he would die if he had to listen to me any longer...

Well, there is that "screech" auditory level that women have, that pierces any complicated and calm male mind...