Keynesian Theory Destroyed By Sandy Storm!!!!

image

Consider how the above relates to Obama and his views on taxation.

It’s been announced that in the most recent quarter, the US has seen an economic contraction. 

Since the global economic crisis has ensued, Keynesian theory has been embraced and enhanced to deal with the crisis. 

For those not familiar, much of it can be easily expressed in this manner…..  the government hires a person to dig a hole and then hires another to fill it back up.  This would put capital in people’s hands and stimulate and spur economic growth.  What is really sad about all of this is that even before that theory was formalize, it was already addressed by Bastiat in his parable of the broken window…….

Bastiat’s original parable of the broken window from Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas (1850):

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

In this particular case Keynesian theory would see the broken window as a good thing.  Consider then, today’s example of millions of broken windows.  The storm Sandy.  And then consider the recent news of our economy contracting. 

The Commerce Department report showed the economy shrinking for the first time since 2009.  Nearly all interpretations of this report cited one-time events as the cause.  Indeed the Commerce’s report specifically cited the storm Sandy as one of the culprits. 

Superstorm Sandy likely also dragged on growth by closing factories, disrupting shipping and shutting down retail stores. While the department did not specify its effects on GDP, it estimated that Sandy destroyed about $36 billion in buildings and other private property and $8.6 billion in government property. 

Now, it is clear that recovery from the storm is not complete, in spite of the posturing and posing of president Zero and Governor Moby Dick.  Still, we can say it is nearly complete.  Most of the electricity has been restored, most of the services have been restored, shops are back up and running and people are returning to their homes and rebuilding.  People from all over the country have swarmed the places affected by Sandy because of the jobs the storm created.  From construction workers to government aide workers, to linemen to insurance adjusters and any and everything in between.  Stores had to be restocked so the job creation extended well beyond the confines of places where Sandy stuck. 

It is true a Sandy relief bill was just signed, $billions have already been funneled to the areas harmed by the storm Sandy from insurance companies, and federal and state monies.   For two months there’s been nothing but frenzied activity to restore the damaged areas. 

So, if government intervention, or any intervention in such cases helps an economy, how is it we can blame Sandy as being partly responsible for the economic downturn?  Under Keynesian theory, this should have had a positive affect on our economy. 

Here’s a list of pinheads who embrace this sort of economic stimulation and have openly advocated this as the path to our economic salvation.  From wiki

Economist Robert Shiller had begun advocating robust government intervention to tackle the financial crises, specifically citing Keynes.[62][63][64] Nobel laureate Paul Krugman also actively argued the case for vigorous Keynesian intervention in the economy in his columns for the New York Times.[65][66][67] Other prominent economic commentators arguing for Keynesian government intervention to mitigate the financial crisis include George Akerlof,[68] Brad Delong,[69] Robert Reich,[70] and Joseph Stiglitz.[71][72] Newspapers and other media have also cited work relating to Keynes by Hyman Minsky,[18] Robert Skidelsky,[12] Donald Markwell[73] and Axel Leijonhufvud.[74]

About these ads
This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

312 Responses to Keynesian Theory Destroyed By Sandy Storm!!!!

  1. Latitude says:

    ok, I see your evil plan….you’re trying to make me blow dinner, aren’t you?

    • suyts says:

      LOL! No, that’s just a happy side affect!

      • Latitude says:

        I knew there was some kickback to it! LOL

        I keep trying to figure out the ways to make “new” money..not just recycle the same money around

        Mining, growing crops/etc…..that’s creates something new
        ….as opposed to you scratch my back and I scratch yours

        What are some of the ways to make new money??

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, mining, growing crops, fishing, lumber, drilling, ranching, construction, manufacturing. All these things create or enhance real wealth. Government, service, tourism, these are things that just shuffle money around, but generate no wealth. In fact, they usurp resources that could be used for wealth creation.

  2. Latitude says:

    It’s all over news about those schools that are arming themselves…
    ..of course this is right above the headline of some teacher that’s having sex with her students
    and/or some cop that’s beat the hell out of someone, or the cops that broke into the wrong house and erased everyone…….

    There’s no easy way out..is there?

    • suyts says:

      No…..it takes an entire rethink about the things we value. Just like the previous post pointed out. Cali could easily run down the felons and crazies they know have weapons, but, they’d rather destroy businesses trying to protect some fish that needs no protection. That’s what they value more than life.

  3. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    Governor Moby Dick
    <<

    I like the term. I’m going to steal it and give you credit. 8-)

    Jim

  4. philjourdan says:

    Drama Queens. My wife loves to use that term whenever one of my kids gets on a “woe is me” kick. But it surely applies to the helpless children of New york and New Jersey.

    3 months later, and they are still “waiting”. What happened to the victims of the Hurricanes in the other states? Well except for some drama queens in New Orleans, they picked themselves back up, grumbled about luck, and rebuilt. NY & NJ? Kicked out the help, sat on their arses, and whined.

    Neo-Keynsians at work. Or not actually.

  5. miked1947 says:

    I found this for your listening pleasure:

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    So, you never really studied Keynes? Where, exactly, has the U.S. — or any other government — actually tried Keynesian theory (“theory” not “hypothesis,” a distinction that is probably lost on anti-Keynesians).

    • suyts says:

      Well, yes, Ed, I have. If you want to make semantic distinctions, that’s fine. I was referring to how Keynes’ thoughts are put into common practice. (See the list of people referenced) If you want to discuss the fine distinctions between his writings and the common practices feel free to expound. Or, are you just here to be pedantic?

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Please be specific: Where has there been any Keynesian-theory spending to make jobs. Name the country, name the program — if you can, tell us how much.

        You list the emergency insurance backup for Superstorm Sandy — about half of that was to cover shortfalls in the FEMA fund, to cover insurance people had purchased. Unless you can cite something in that bill otherwise, there’s not a dime of stimulus in it, is there?

        You claim to know what Keynes proposed, you claim to indict his theory, but you offer nothing that qualifies as stimulus spending at all.

        Be specific. Where was the spending, for what, by whom, and how much?

        Or are you here just to blow off steam?

      • suyts says:

        Ed, you were the one taking exception. Let’s hear it. What, specifically, is your exception? Are we talking economics or specifics about Sandy? As far as Keynes, tell me what part of the stimulus spending wasn’t aimed at reducing unemployment…… specifically. And then, tell me how that doesn’t relate to Keynes.

        Ed, I have a hard time with people like you. Do you want to talk specifics or are you just blathering? I’d be happy to engage in an exchange of thought but, you’re going to have to narrow it down a bit. What is it, specifically, that you have a problem with?

        As far as Sandy, WTF do you think the money gets spent for? Are you daft? Where and why do you think the money comes from? But more than that, how is it that you distinguish intent on the money spent? Doesn’t a repair of a broken window, for the purpose of protection from the wind = the same money spent on the repair of a window for aesthetic purposes? According to Keynes, this is the same.

        Ed, bring something of substance or STFU. What’s your objection? My characterization of Keynes?? Or my characterization of the money spent? Or is it something different?

        • Scott says:

          LOL James, it reads like you had a beer, two, or more before writing that. Not because of the grammar or anything, but because of the looser emotion than normal, LOL.

          -Scott

        • suyts says:

          Sigh, …. yes. Good call! :) Usually, I try to exercise a bit more patience. And, I’d elicit a more cerebral response if I responded in a different way. Still, it’s plain to see I’m being baited. If Ed genuinely wished to exchange thoughts, he’d done so already. He’s just trying to be pedantic, which irks me. It wouldn’t irk me so much, except Ed’s a sharp guy. I don’t understand how people can be smart and so small at the same time.

          It seems to me, intelligence lends to character and character lends to intelligence. But, then, there’s people like Ed. …..

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Ed, you were the one taking exception. Let’s hear it. What, specifically, is your exception? Are we talking economics or specifics about Sandy?

          What part of the spending for relief of Sandy do you claim was stimulus? While there would be some stimulus effect from rebuilding homes, the intent of the legislation is simply to restore some of the damage.

          You’re an expert on Keynes. Explain where Keynes argued that rebuilding was something special, or that rebuilding wasn’t a normal function.

          Keynes didn’t say “spend money.” He proposed specific types of spending, spending that creates paychecks that would not be there otherwise. How is storm recovery Keynesian in any regard? Especially when, as with Sandy recovery, so much of the spending is simply insurance, how can you call it “Keynesian?” It’s not.

          As far as Keynes, tell me what part of the stimulus spending wasn’t aimed at reducing unemployment…… specifically. And then, tell me how that doesn’t relate to Keynes.

          You’re moving goalposts. The stimulus bill now four years old saved our nation, but was not large enough to gives the goose to the economy we really needed. But that spending was targeted in too few types of spending, in too few places. It worked spectacularly at the time — contradicting your claims completely, by the way — but it’s done.

          Now you’re mislabeling all spending as stimulus. It’s not. That’s the problem.

          That’s why I asked you to specify the spending you claim is stimulus. If you do, you’ll see that you’ve mislabeled it.

          Ed, I have a hard time with people like you.

          No doubt. I’ve asked you for specifics to an argument you’ve made that is incorrect in its premises. You appear not to have thought this through in specifics.

          Do you want to talk specifics or are you just blathering? I’d be happy to engage in an exchange of thought but, you’re going to have to narrow it down a bit. What is it, specifically, that you have a problem with?

          I have a problem with your labeling all government spending as “Keynesian.” What Keynes proposed to reduce recession and depression specifically is government spending that creates paychecks for work done, real work on real projects, that private enterprise can’t do. Keynes understood both ends of supply and demand. His proposals are specific to create demand for products that otherwise is not present in a recession, in order to stimulate the private economy to gear up to create supply to meet that demand.

          Take a look at your quote from Bastiat. Assuming that’s an accurate account of what he said, he’s not talking about stimulus. He’s talking corruption.

          Keynes didn’t say “give money to the legislatures’ cronies.” Keynes didn’t say “plunder the treasury.” From the get-go, the argument presented runs off the Keynesian rails into an anti-government rant.

          It’s not Keynes fault if others’ accounting is faulty. Bastiat’s error on the broken window parable is legendary — but we’re not talking broken windows, except with the Sandy bill, and much of that is insurance. It’s not fair or accurate to argue insurance spending is stimulus specifically because of the broken window fallacy. Also, for accuracy, Keynes didn’t argue for breaking windows to make jobs. Keynes argued for a sort of economic Hippocratic oath philosophy, ‘first do no harm.’

          Where is there Keynesian-style spending? Especially, where is such a program that doesn’t work spectacularly, like the 2009 stimulus?

          <blockquote?As far as Sandy, WTF do you think the money gets spent for?

          A huge chunk of it gets spent to fill the FEMA insurance coffers, to pay flood insurance claims. Surely you’re not arguing that insurance money, owed due to contract, is the sort of stimulus.

          Are you daft?

          No, and I hope I’m not so rude as you, either.

          Where and why do you think the money comes from?

          Not all government spending falls into the pot we call Keynesian.

          What difference does it make where the money comes from? Private insurance money is being paid out, too — is that magically Keynesian stimulus? Please explain.

          But more than that, how is it that you distinguish intent on the money spent? Doesn’t a repair of a broken window, for the purpose of protection from the wind = the same money spent on the repair of a window for aesthetic purposes? According to Keynes, this is the same.

          Please show me where Keynes made that argument. In your original writing, you attributed it to Bastiat.

          Keynes’s argument is relatively simple: In recessions, when private spending is curtailed and people are out of work, the government should step in and spend to create jobs doing work that needs to be done (though there can be a lot of good done in simply offering a paycheck for work that does NOT need to be done; Keynes pointed to government projects that provide lasting value). If necessary, Keynes said, the government should borrow money to do that, because most of the time private industry cannot borrow money. As a side note, we’re in an odd circumstance where private business is sitting on an enormous pile of cash, liquid assets that could easily and quickly be directed to fixing the problem, were private companies of a mind to benefit the economy the way Henry Ford did when he first doubled the wages of his workers; but private business is not moving, they say because there is no demand.

          As a secondary side note, Keynes argued governments should collect taxes and run surpluses if possible, to save that money for the next recession; giving tax breaks would send money to the wealthy instead of the working man, and that would create an economic bottleneck that destroys economies. When Clinton handed Bush surplus payments that would have completely obliterated then-existing debt, Bush blew away the surpluses and gave the savings to the wealthy, creating the bottleneck we have now. A rich guy only needs so many houses, so many cars, so much food and so much clothing — when a rich guy gets the money, it is often effectively taken out of circulation, and that hammers at the foundations of real economies.

          Keynes said the government’s role in a downturn is to put people to work to get paychecks, which then will be spent and thereby create the demand that pulls the economy out of the recession.

          Show me the programs designed solely to put people to work for a paycheck that have not worked out spectacularly. Heck, even spending for storm recovery would have a stimulating effect, as the full-employment war economy of the U.S. did after 1941, completely blowing away the Great Depression.

          Ed, bring something of substance or STFU. What’s your objection? My characterization of Keynes?? Or my characterization of the money spent? Or is it something different?

          You’ve mischaracterized Keynes’s arguments. You’ve misallocated all government spending into that mischaracterized argument. When I ask you for specifics, you offer none, except Sandy, which should obviously not be considered Keynesian stimulus.

          When I ask you for specifics, you get rude and profane.

          Not all government spending is Keynesian stimulus, and right at the moment we need a lot of stimulus again. Cutting spending on government programs is a path guaranteed to deliver recession — see what happened to FDR’s recovery after January 1936, when, as an anti-Keynesian, he agreed to cutback on all spending to reduce deficits which were argued to be harming jobs. Instead, the cutbacks created a new recession, remedied only with more stimulus.

          As yet another sidenote, any spending for good purposes by the government is good spending; spending into deficits is not evil per se. The deficits we had coming out of World War II were larger, proportionately, than those we have now — but the government under conservatives who rejected Keynes with their lips piled on more spending for the Marshall Plan, for the largest housing aid program in world history, for the largest educational aid program in history, to build an interstate highway system (“dig holes and fill ‘em,” it was ridiculed), and especially to spur science and technology development. Farm aid programs were expanded. The result was an enormous economic boom that literally carried the world along for the ride.

          Stimulus spending is good, and deficits are not necessarily bad. We have deficits because we have a recession, contrary to what appears to be an assumption of your arguments that we have a recession because of deficits. Your premises are in error, and your prescriptions could lead to disaster.

          That should become more apparent to you if you properly account for spending you complain of.

          Where is there Keynesian spending? Not in the Sandy relief bill. Not in expanded SNAP or unemployment compensation. Not even in the Affordable Care Act, though it should stimulate the economy in a number of beneficial ways.

          What spending are you complaining about?

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, you blew your entire argument when you claimed: ” The stimulus bill now four years old saved our nation, but was not large enough to gives the goose to the economy we really needed.”

          The stimulus did no such thing. It merely diverted money to the cronies of Obama, and stimulated nothing. People, for some odd reason, think that economic history started 80 years ago. Yet the country itself is over 230 years old, and there were crises long before then. Crises that the government did nothing about, and which went the way of all crises – they were overcome.

          Obama could have spent 100 trillion dollars (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=100+trillion+dollar+bill&id=6A4A4D51F6EDEDB768533BE1355668823508ABE5&FORM=IQFRBA), and it still would not have made any difference. Keynes was wrong. But worse than that, modern Keynesians do not even understand their god.

          The supreme stupidity of liberals is demonstrated when their programs do not work, and instead of going back to the drawing board, they merely shove more money at it. Indeed, that is all they have done for a very long time, and the programs have still not worked. And yet, their answer is always more money. Eventually, more money just gets you larger denominations of a worthless commodity.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Suyts, please see Mr. Jourdan’s first comment, third sentence:

          The stimulus did no such thing. It merely diverted money to the cronies of Obama, and stimulated nothing.

          Thank you.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Phil and others:

          1. Look at the unemployment rate, and every other sign of economic disaster. We were in economic free-fall in January of 2009; within four months of the passage of the stimulus, that free-fall stopped.

          We didn’t get 25% unemployment. We didn’t get breadlines.
          That bill stopped disaster.

          2. Cronies? Name them. Tell us how much each got. You know the White House has the books for that bill on line, so you should have no difficulty pointing out the “cronies.”

          Or, maybe, you consider every honest, patriotic American a “crony?”

          3. Yes, we’ve had lots of panics and recessions. The recession of 1784 and on, the panic of 1797, the Depression of 1807, depression of 1815-1821, Panic of 1837, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1873, Panic of 1893, Panic of 1907, Depression of 1920-21, Great Depression, the post-WW II recession (very short-lived by most measures), 1973-75 recession, which slid into the early 1980s recession, and the current recession, which is one of the worst.

          And you’re right, the government did little or nothing to get us out of most of them — and that was a key problem. The depression of 1815-1821 was caused in part by the almost-total elimination of government spending, when the government ran out of money to prosecute the War of 1812. One man, shipping magnate and banker Stephen Girard, stepped in to carry the burden, but it damaged our economy. Most of the other recessions and depressions were caused by speculative bubbles bursting, often land development bubbles — just like this current one. Through the 19th century, there was always another land scheme brewing somewhere: Railroads, mining in the west, gold in California, farmland in Kansas, farmland in Texas (which led to the Dust Bowl, but that’s just a related crisis for this discussion). In 1907 the nation again faced collapse, and the government had no money to do anything. J. P. Morgan wrote the checks from his personal accounts to save major banks and save the nation. Morgan noted that the economy was almost too big to do that anymore, and we got the first move by the federal government to set up a federal reserve — that didn’t work well in 1913, so we got a new structure.

          Sure, we got out of those crises. But we can’t count on that anymore. There’s no more frontier land to give away to miners and farmers. We killed the Morrill Act formally in the 1970s. There are no more massive tracts to give away to railroads to stimulate the economy, as we did with the four transcontinental railroads. (Abraham Lincoln was behind both the transcontinental railroads and the Morrill Act — too bad the Republicans have abandoned all parts of Lincoln’s legacy; he was a real republic builder; and we saw how he dealt with republic wreckers, which may explain a lot the current NRA paranoia, you think?)

          The crises were overcome with massive infusions of federal aid other than money, or with massive influxes of cheap immigrant labor, or with dramatic catches by individuals who had more money than the federal government and couldn’t afford to let their personal fortunes slide (Swiss bank accounts didn’t exist for the most part; the Caymans had no banks like today — Americans had to keep their money patriotic, too).

          Or they weren’t overcome much, and lingered for a decade or two, smashing American families and American industries, needlessly. FDR’s anti-Keynesian philosophy probably prolonged the Great Depression. He bought the old line about deficits being too big, and tried to reduce them in 1936, and disaster followed. After 1938, he just couldn’t add to deficits, and the Depression lingered — until World War II created more-than-full employment. (See our host’s comments above about broken windows; using wars to boost economies is a bad idea, only topped by the really bad idea of not using wars to boost economies, and letting debt from the war pile up and drag the economy down into quicksand; once we warred with one George and put him out of office for that, but Washington died in 1799, and no one wanted to get rid of Bush that badly; so we suffer.)

          We’ve got a lot of experience with downturns, recessions and depressions. Not one of them was resolved by cutting government spending. Not one of them was not made worse if and when the government cut back on spending (see especially the post-WW I smashup).

          To often we appear to have learned nothing at all from history. Keynes wrote a bit about the American financial crises, and as all competent economists including von Mises, von Hayek and Friedman note, he had a point on stimulus spending — don’t ever cut government spending in a downturn, they warned; that way lies complete disaster.

          Keynes was wrong? Where? Have you read Bernanke’s big paper on the Japanese crisis? (Here’s a link to a WSJ article that sort of explains it; didn’t find a link to the actual paper in a search; it’s probably out there somewhere. Maybe here, in this book chapter by Bernanke, “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?”)

          Where is there an undrunk, competent economist who urges cutting government spending now, before employment rises a lot, before other indicators show a healthy economy? Got one? Point us to the essay, please.

          More good discussion of Bernanke’s paper, and the U.S. situation, here — but of course, you won’t like the author. (Don’t like Krugman? Listen to Stiglitz — funny how all the Nobel winners say “don’t cut deficits now,” isn’t it?)

          You’ve got nothing but a snarky paste-up picture of a $100 trillion bill.

          Nothing of substance. Still. Again.

          Anything to back the claim that Keynes erred?

          Oh, yeah, you called somebody stupid. In the real world, pique is just ugly, and it certainly doesn’t contribute to discussion.

          Anti-Obama People: Willing to sacrifice America to make Obama look bad, and cat got their tongues on economics (with claws the cat got it, so they curse).

          Is that fair? That’s all I’m seeing here.

          In the long run, all economic crashes go away. In the long run, of course, we’re all dead. (You’ll recognize that line, if you’ve read as much as you claim to.) Alan Greenspan noted the great flaw of U.S. sending money to investors instead of to the middle class and other workers: While new jobs spring up from “creative destruction,” it takes 20 years or so; everyone who loses a job probably dies off before they can get another good job. It’s their children and grandchildren who get the new jobs. We crush people and families, but point to new jobs.

          That’s immoral, and it’s not good enough for America, not now, not even if it was, once.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry Darrell – we were not in free fall. Indeed, the recession was running its course and did so. A rooster crowing does not cause the sun to rise. The truth (as stated by Obama) is the stimulus had NOT been spent by the time the recession ended. There were no shovel ready jobs, just pork for unions. Period.

          Coincidence is not causation. The stimulus was basically a budget busting pay back to the supporters of Obama. It accomplished nothing except guaranteeing our first trillion dollar deficit.

          Those are the facts. If you want to argue with Obama about when the money is spent, be my guest.

          But I could caution you to look to history for lessons. First, look at the recessions of the 30s. The “stimulus” of FDR killed every recovery that started during that time. As did Obamas.

          Next, look at the Recessions of 1981 and 1895. Both far worse than the latest one (actually the second latest since we are in another). And what stimulus was spent to get the economy going? Zip, nada, zilch, nichts. What got the economy going after EVERY recession prior to 1930, and most of the ones since then was a simple combination.

          #1 – Government getting out of the way. No onerous regulations were implemented. The private sector was allowed to do its job.
          #2 – Less confiscation by the government of the means of capital to grow business.

          Now look at the facts. What do we know?

          #1 – The Stimulus could not have ended the recession because it was not spent.
          #2 – The recession ended as all recessions do.
          #3 – Additional regulations and additional taxes and spending by Obama dried up the capital and aborted the recovery.

          Those are the lessons to learn. Your diatribe is merely excuses to make sure the same mistakes are done again the next time.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Dear Host,

          Post in moderation, probably for the number of links to economic papers and discussion. Please spring it.

          Thank you.

  7. suyts says:

    More, back to Ed or anyone else.

    I have an entire body of work about economics, right here on this blog. I typically write something about economics every day. At any time feel free to jump in and challenge what I’m talking about. I’d truly love to hear the rational about how I’m wrong. But, you should probably state the reasons why I’m wrong as opposed to simply asserting that I am wrong. Get jiggy with it!

  8. suyts says:

    Ed, thanks for your verbose, yet, thoughtful responses. First, let’s address your #2. No one in this thread or post mentioned anything about cronies but you. While it is well documented that a lot of money went to Obama supporters, I don’t regard that as particularly relevant to the current discussion.

    Now that that is dispensed with, we can move on……. I’ve a post to put up and will be back soon.

    • Scott says:

      James,

      Phil mentioned President Obama’s “cronies” here:

      http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/keynesian-theory-destroyed-by-sandy-storm/#comment-49988

      Now he did mention it after Ed did first (6:27 vs 2:17), but I thought I’d bring it up so no one would try to use the “no one” against you when you should have said “you brought it up first”.

      -Scott

      • suyts says:

        Quite right. Acknowledged. I’m still on my first pot of coffee. Thanks!

      • philjourdan says:

        Scott, thanks. I thought I had, but figured it was another thread. For clarification, when I mentioned “Obama’s cronies”, I was not referring to Big Sis or the Godfather. I was referring to the AFL-CIO and public unions. The Stimulus went mostly to 3 areas.
        #1 – A small tax cut
        #2 – Public employment union workers (teachers and other local employees)
        #3 – Shovel ready jobs

        Now of the 3, one did affect many (#1), one affected very few (estimated to be around 200k employees in the nation) and one was non-existant (shovel ready jobs).

        So before the recession ended, a small part would have actually taken effect (part of #1). None of #2 or 3 would have (since the Public employees were retained, not hired and they had jobs at that time – and the construction projects took 18 months to break ground on average).

  9. DirkH says:

    Ed Darrell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 10:36 am
    “We didn’t get 25% unemployment. We didn’t get breadlines.
    That bill stopped disaster.”

    You didn’t get 25% unemployment because the U6 unemployment figure is no longer computed (counts the people out of the workforce).

    You didn’t get breadlines because Obama gave out foodstamps.

  10. DirkH says:

    Ed Darrell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 10:36 am
    “Where is there an undrunk, competent economist who urges cutting government spending now, before employment rises a lot, before other indicators show a healthy economy? Got one? Point us to the essay, please.”

    If one would name an economist you would call him drunk or incompetent, in other words. So I won’t name one.

    If you think printing and spending money will decrease unemployment think again. Government spending correlates positively with unemployment.

    http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/higher-investment-best-way-to-reduce.html

    The government “investment” (think Solyndra, or Fisker) goes to ever more marginally profitable endeavours to the point where the interest on the debt exceeds any return from the investment (if there is a return at all).

    Assuming that the government is interested in, or able able to invest in projects with a high ROI is an extraordinary claim. From what I see, whether in the EU or in the US, the projects chosen by government are ludicrous in terms of ROI – for instance global warming research or renewable energy. Sure, they create some economic activity. It is impossible to spend money without creating economic activity, so that’s nothing remarkable. But the debt that is accumulated will have to be served.

    BTW, the depression of 1920 under Harding didn’t make it into the history books. Harding cut government spending and the depression was over in 18 months.

    How long did it take FDR to “fix” the depression? Oh, he only got out of it by declaring a war command economy.

    • suyts says:

      Heh, I hadn’t read your response before I posted mine. For some reason, Harding doesn’t make the study list even though his response to the crisis is a shining example of how to naturally recover from an economic hardship.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      If one would name an economist you would call him drunk or incompetent, in other words. So I won’t name one.

      Haven’t so far. If you had an economist who made the arguments with the numbers to back them, why in the world wouldn’t you shout that to the world?

      If you had economic research to back the claim, you’d post it regardless the sobriety of the economist.

      Conclusion: No support for your arguments from economists.

      • philjourdan says:

        How many do you want? Sowell? Williams? Friedman? Rapp? etc.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Offer the references. I asked for one. No one’s been able to do that. As I noted, Friedman’s on the other side of the argument. His text argues Keynes erred in pricing mechanisms, but not on the basic stuff of government intervention to spend money to create jobs to stimulate demand, etc., etc.

          If you’re offering Sowell or Williams, offer their papers, not their rants in newspapers unsupported by economics.

        • philjourdan says:

          No Ed, stop your lying. What you said (quoted) is: “If you had an economist who made the arguments with the numbers to back them, why in the world wouldn’t you shout that to the world?”

          I had 4 plus more. Indeed, most of the economists that I studied under and with would agree with me and say you are merely ignorant of the science. So I provided what you asked for. Now you want to move the goal posts. Acknowledge you are wrong, and we can continue. Double down on your ignorance and there is no purpose in it as you will merely continue to move the goal posts.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Show us the goods.

        • philjourdan says:

          I gave you what you asked for (even going so far as to quote you so you could follow along). I have no intention of presenting anything else until 2 things happen.

          #1 – You admit you are wrong, and accept the answer to your first challenge.
          #2 – You learn how to phrase your requests to reflect what you want.

          The first will prove you are interested in the discussion, and want to learn. The second will prove that you have stopped watching your radio and learned to write.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          I gave you what you asked for (even going so far as to quote you so you could follow along).

          I missed it. Can you provide a link?

        • philjourdan says:

          #1 – You stated it – try to remember the crap you are stating.
          #2 – I already Quoted it – if you cannot read, or understand what you read, that is NMP.

          Stop stalling. Man up or shut up.

  11. DirkH says:

    Ed Darrell says:
    February 1, 2013 at 10:36 am
    “While new jobs spring up from “creative destruction,” it takes 20 years or so;”

    No; 18 months. (Historical evidence)

  12. suyts says:

    Ed, towards your point, #1….. “1. Look at the unemployment rate, and every other sign of economic disaster. We were in economic free-fall in January of 2009; within four months of the passage of the stimulus, that free-fall stopped. We didn’t get 25% unemployment. We didn’t get breadlines. That bill stopped disaster.”

    You should go back and look at when the monies actually got spent. The overwhelming majority of it was spent well after the passage. Indeed, most of the money was spent in 2010. Only $235 billion of the stimulus was spent in 2009. So, unless your position is the additional 235 is what stopped the recession, what you stated is invalidated. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

    I’ll get to more specifics soon, Ed, but, what you seem to miss is the fact that these contractions will stop on their own, just like the most recent one. It is the government intrusion which exacerbates the situation. Note the great depression. Further, you’re mischaracterizing people’s position on spending and the available remedies which do not include federal give aways. The problem is many people, apparently yourself included, seem to think economies are derived from govt actions or inaction when it is government with inhibits economies.

    Further, what many people miss is the fact that recessions are necessary cleansing events. If we don’t let them naturally correct the things that caused the recessions, then the underlying weaknesses remain. We would be in a much better position today had the govt not done anything. You mentioned the Depression of 1920-21. Check it out.

    • DirkH says:

      Oh I see, he mentioned the 1920 depression in his list of panics but says not a further word about it. I guess it’s a bad example because it was fixed with the opposite of government intervention.

      Rule #1 – maintain your confirmation bias.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Government actions to end the Harding-era troubles helped set up the Great Depression, and coincidentally but not without more great harm, the Dust Bowl.

        I listed the depressions, even those you can argue weren’t solved by Keynesian spending. One out of thirteen — is our current recession based on a stupid farming bubble, the rapid slashing of federal spending and cutting of federally-paid workforce, and any other conditions of 1920?

        Or is it more like 1930, or 1973. The 1970s and 1980s are weird times — stagflation, for example. Jimmy Carter got Paul Volcker to get us out of that, by sticking to tight money policies. Oops — there goes your hope that we don’t need a Fed.

        Rule #1 – Stick to the facts, even if they run counter to your bias. Truth wins in a fair fight.
        Rule #2 – Any argument that relies on missing the facts, covering up the facts, or in some other way stifling the facts, is probably fatally flawed. By the way, the “fatality” involved will be your own.

        • DirkH says:

          “Government actions to end the Harding-era troubles helped set up the Great Depression”

          AFAIK the 1920 depression ended while Harding was still president, and Hoover after him blew up the bubble that led to the 1923 depression.
          “Warren Gamaliel Harding (November 2, 1865 – August 2, 1923) was the 29th President of the United States (1921–1923)”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding

          “The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I. It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921″

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

          Your statement is trivial. Yes, what came before the Great Depression led causally to the Great Depression, because that is the direction of time. As long as you can’t get more specific it’s meaningless.

          And as you can see the first depression was over in 1921. Calling them the “Harding-era troubles” is misleading, bordering on the Orwellian, as Harding was still president when that depression was long over. You make it sound like Harding’s era was an era of troubles.

          You have a reason to do that. See my rule #1.

        • philjourdan says:

          The 70s and 80s are hardly weird times – just sloppy research. The 70s begat the 80s. And the 70s were caused by again government meddling. We had a crises back in the early 70s, called the Oil Embargo. The law of supply and demand was not terminated, so the cost started to rise in all sectors since we are an oil based economy (from plastics to transportation). Nixon then decided to institute an insanely stupid policy called “Wage/Price Controls”. The only thing controlled was the wages, as manufacturers easily found ways around this (ever wonder where the practice of rebates came from?). Once they were lifted (since they had no affect on prices, just wages), that set off a spiraling round of inflation as wages bounded up to get to the equilibrium level they had not been allowed to attain during the government created crises (see a pattern here? Government -> Crises).

          Carter, instead of cooling the situation, merely poured gas on the flames of inflation, such that it was soon out of control. Reagan and Volcker decided that inflation had to be wrung out of the economy, so they did the only thing that would work – they tightened money. It did work. And brought us the roaring 90s (government was not doing much as Clinton was fighting a real conservative congress).

          Econ 101. Weird is for the ignorant that do not understand economics.

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, it’s fascinating that he’d mention that we should learn from history….. well it’s a start. :)

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Sure, all contractions end on their own. Just like, when someone gets an injury, all bleeding stops on its own.

      The question is, can the body stand the bleeding before it stops on its own? Hit a big artery, outside intervention is required, or the victim bleeds to death.

      Same with economies. All economic bleeding stops on its own. Should we wait to see? Do we have that much blood to waste?

      • suyts says:

        That’s an interesting point. Do we have that much blood (deficit spending) to waste? I’d say, no, we don’t. We’re in debt at 100% GDP. How much more before people recognize this as a very big problem.

        Ed, even with some very optimistic views on our economy, the interest on our debt is expected to reach $500 billion annually by 2017. Any benefits from the spending, imagined or real will be usurped rather quickly.

      • philjourdan says:

        Government intervention into the economy is a very recent occurrence in the time scale of humanity. And yet every one prior to then always ended. It is easy to anthropomorphize things, but rarely is it accurate.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      I’ll get to more specifics soon, Ed, but, what you seem to miss is the fact that these contractions will stop on their own, just like the most recent one.

      The most recent one didn’t stop on its own, and it threatened to kill America. No recession stops on its own, really — something else happens to stop the freefall, we hope. Too often, that something is war. Preparing for, and waging war, was how Germany stopped its post-WWI economic catastrophe, for example.

      Any student of history understands that “letting the disease run its course” is a wise policy only if there is nothing else that can rationally and economically be done. And then, the disaster still hurts.

      You can chart the Great Depression — and recovery in most measures starts, literally, within a few days after FDR took office. The bank holiday helped enormously, to save the banking system. The work programs put money in the economy to stimulate demand. The tragedy is that FDR refused to adopt Keynesian policies and stimulate to kill off the Depression.

      Most recently, Japan thought they could just ease some of the symptoms of their depression, and let it cycle out. What they’ve discovered is that a depression can and will extend itself, over decades, unless the underlying causes and damaging symptoms are dealt with. 20 years on, Japan has lost nearly two generations of development.

      The U.S. can’t afford that.

      It is the government intrusion which exacerbates the situation. Note the great depression.

      Government “intrusion” saved millions of lives, billions of dollars of GDP and investment — but for the government intrusion, the U.S. would now be history, perhaps speaking German in the east, and Japanese in the west.

      Santayana’s Ghost sheds tears at such comments.

      • philjourdan says:

        “No recession stops on its own, really” – That is the most asinine statement I have ever heard. Your history consists of the 20th century, and nothing more. Every recession that has ever occurred has ended on its own once the correction was over.

        The US has been in some wars. It has had many more recessions,. They are a cyclical event that always come, even when wishing they would not. And they end the same way. Even when wishing that pork spending was the solution – instead of a sugar pill.

      • suyts says:

        History tells us a different story. Look at the duration of the depression under FDR’s guidance. And, we should also note other nations earlier exit from the depression as opposed to the US. The quote from FDR is classic leftist projection. The depression stared in 1930. 12 years? Unemployment was still 15% going into 1940. FDR was elected in 1933. The policies of FDR are instructive. We were out of the depression in 1936-1937. But, the levels of spending were unsustainable, so FDR cut spending and raised taxes, which shot us back into the depression. In other words, FDR created an economy entirely dependent upon unsustainable printing and largess. Once withdrawn, as all must eventually be, it destroys the economy, not by natural fluctuations and ebbs and flows, but because of, and only because of govt intervention. This is the damning part of such policies. We can only afford largess when the economy is good, but the push for more largess increases when times are not good. It creates an unsustainable reliance on wealth confiscation in distribution. It has to end, as it always does. But it only ends when forced to address the bankruptcy of a government …… when times are bad.

        And, we’re here, again. Our largess and printing is unsustainable. So we have to move to lower our deficits. Which entails either increasing revenues or decreasing spending. But, to do both is an absurd response because we don’t have a strong enough economy to absorb the hit at both ends. Even the ludicrous CBO understands that the tax increases harm our economy. The decreases in spending should be met with tax decreases to allow for the private sector to make up for the public loss.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          And, we should also note other nations earlier exit from the depression as opposed to the US.

          Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Tojo’s Japan. Point made.

        • philjourdan says:

          France, England, Belgium, Norway – enough said. Actually, you need to remove Japan from your list since it was not part of the “depression”. Japan was emerging from a 3rd world status and entering the first world (much like the reason China today is avoiding the malaise of the current socialist recession). They barely hiccupped before moving on.

          Next time, try not to be so flippant. At least that way you can catch your mistake before hitting the post button.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          A nation with perhaps the most modern navy in the world, who 25 years earlier destroyed the Czar’s Navy, isn’t exactly third world status.

          You have a lot of gall to chide anyone else for flippance.

        • philjourdan says:

          The Imperial RUSSIAN Navy? Yea, that is gall (unless your are a Russian). That is like saying Germany’s navy was superior to Englands because it had more people than anyone else! Get real! And learn some history. Japan did destroy the PACIFIC Russian navy, but it was 3rd rate to begin with. I did not say Japan “started” to emerge in 1930, I said it “was emerging”. So try again. Your petty insults are really starting to bore me.

          Japan WAS an Emerging nation. It also did not have a lot of trade with Europe and America, so was not as adversely affected by the downturn over in that part of the world. This is not “speculation”. This is history. A subject you seem to be lacking in.

          next time you want to play with the big boys, bring big boy pants. Silly pejoratives, and exclamations of ignorance are not tools of the trade.

  13. suyts says:

    More, in response to Ed…… you stated, “Sure, we got out of those crises. But we can’t count on that anymore. There’s no more frontier land to give away to miners and farmers. “

    And yet, this nation’s largest land owner is,……… you guessed it, the federal government. But, even more, the government directly exercises control on much more land than it owns. All of it comes with restrictions and economic inhibitions. We can note the latest example as the federal govt. closed off millions of acres from oil and gas drilling. You can argue the merits of the move, but, you can’t argue that the govt in that case isn’t inhibiting economic activity. And, it is completely within the govt’s authority to simply let private economic expansion occur. And, that’s my larger point. The government doesn’t have to do anything other than let people do what they naturally do.

  14. suyts says:

    More…… Ed you mention Japan. I don’t expect you to know this, but I’ve written extensively on Japan and their condition. While there are many similarities to note between the US and Japan, it’s an apples to oranges comparison and should be done with extreme caution.

    Why? Because the underlying economic motors of each nation are entirely different. Japan is done, and there’s really nothing they can do about. There never was anything they could do about it. Japan is an export nation. They’ve very little in the way of natural resources. Their economic emergence was predicated upon cheap labor. Well, they don’t have cheap labor anymore. Many other nations, mostly in Asia are opening up their labor markets. What is happening to Japan is what will happen to all nations who are dependent upon exports and cheap labor to drive their economies. Sooner or later, some one will figure out how to do what their doing except cheaper. All the monetary manipulations in the world won’t change this fact.

    The US is in an entirely different position. We don’t have to rely on cheap labor. We have all the resources we need right here. The things that motor our economy start with the resource extraction and can run the full range from refining to production to end markets. Any federal intrusion into this simply thwarts natural human activity.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      The things that motor our economy start with the resource extraction and can run the full range from refining to production to end markets. Any federal intrusion into this simply thwarts natural human activity.

      Except, of course, the mineral extraction is dependent on government subsidy, and the giveaway to the mining company.

      You call it “federal intrusion.” Everyone else recognizes it as economic development.

      • DirkH says:

        “Except, of course, the mineral extraction is dependent on government subsidy, and the giveaway to the mining company. ”

        You see property rights as a gift given by the government?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          No, but I understand mining law.

        • suyts says:

          Dirk asks Ed…. “You see property rights as a gift given by the government?”

          Ed responds…. No, but I understand mining law.”

          Ed’s very next statement….. “Government didn’t usurp the land; government gave it away for free for a long time; government gives the minerals away for almost free …..”

        • Ed Darrell says:

          So, Dirk, how did you think those big mines got opened in National Forests and BLM lands? You thought mine companies owned ‘em?

          I own the land, and the minerals. So do you. Why are you so complacent about the government giving them away — and what makes you think someone else should be able to take your property from you, by right?

        • suyts says:

          Ed, not to be picky, but to clear up any future misunderstandings, Dirk is a German national. We’re talking economic constructs here.

          And, while, you weren’t directing your question to me, I’ll answer.

          Ed, we don’t own that land. Ownership assumes that we could do something with it. We can’t. We have no rights or standing in regards to any federal lands. As to the government giving us something, that by your own words, we own, how exactly is that possible? It’s ours but they can give it to us? As to the use of the land, are you doing anything with it? No? Wouldn’t it be best put to use by….. oh, I dunno, maybe creating jobs, creating a larger tax base, maybe even get a little cheaper fuel and energy to grease the wheels of an economy? Whose side are you on? (I couldn’t help it.) :)

          Of course, this totally ignores the larger point about govt intrusion into all lands regardless of ownership. Which then, in turn, begs the question as to what “ownership” really means.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          You would do well to learn about public land law. The land is held in trust, by the government. Just as our government is a government by the people, so each citizen holds a stake in those lands — that is the trust the national government protects.

          Yes, we can do a lot with those lands, and do.

          The intrusion on my land is by the mining companies. You presume that government regulation interferes with their ownership rights; they don’t own it (exceptions are coal mines in eastern states, but even then neighbors have right to quiet enjoyment).

          It’s not government intrusion to regulate lands the government holds in trust for the people. The question is what is allowed for private intrusions, especially private intrusions for profit.

          In all but a very few cases, in most of the 13 western states where this mining occurs, title does not transfer to the mining companies.

          Public lands are public lands, truly, and not private lands.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, are you really…… we all know this already. We’re not talking about law, we’re talking about economics and the intrusion of the law (read government) into economics. The government has no business being in the land and mineral rights business. We shouldn’t have public lands with very, very few exceptions. It constrains our economy and grants power to the government which wasn’t intended, nor healthy for a free society.

          Now, let’s move to a little more abstract thought here. You said, “The intrusion on my land is by the mining companies. ….
          LOL, okay, your land. Tell me, what does the word “my” imply?

          Even still, preventing these intrusions restrains the economy. You can argue the merits of preventing the intrusions, but it isn’t arguable that this doesn’t inhibit economic growth.

        • philjourdan says:

          Your problem Darrell, is you are trying to apply 18th century philosophy to 21st century reality. IN theory, the government owns it in trust. In practice, the government is a behemoth that is no longer a construct of the people but an entity on its own. Obama has stated as much. Skynet has arrived, and POTUS is the evermind.

        • Me says:

          Is that the same Government for the people, by the people, and you didn’t build that Government he is refering to?

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, apparently, the government built that land and now owns it. ….. or something.

        • Me says:

          So Ed what is the problem then, is Gobblement on the take then and it’s not for the people by the poeple and it’s you didn’t build that?

        • suyts says:

          Well, it’s his and mine, except we’ve no control over the land. Ed doesn’t like the mining companies that come in there and creates jobs and wealth, and I don’t like that the government often prevents jobs and wealth creation. But, its ours! Or something. Imma going to go build a house on my land! Oh, wait…..

    • suyts says:

      No, it isn’t dependent upon any subsidy. And, if the government hadn’t usurped the land and issued mandates about what and where things can and can’t be done, this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion. The land and mineral rights issues occur only because of governmental intrusion.

      This subsidies (tax breaks) are only needed because of the over-taxation to begin with. It’s a silly argument. The government confiscates wealth and then gives a small portion of the confiscated wealth back and people call it a subsidy.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Government didn’t usurp the land; government gave it away for free for a long time; government gives the minerals away for almost free, and provides subsidies for coal mining, strip mining, oil and gas extraction, and a variety of other extractions. There is no over-taxation — U.S. taxes on mineral extraction are among the lowest in the world.

        There was no government confiscation — it is land and minerals held in trust for the American people.

        Again I wonder, whose side are you on?

        • philjourdan says:

          Logical Fallacy #1 – The lack of taking is not giving.

          While there are indeed some subsidies in the US, Oil is not one of them. The government gives nothing for oil.

      • suyts says:

        You views on government ownership is a bit worrisome.

        Yeh, taxes on mineral extraction is low, corporate taxes, not so much. And, all of the other taxes inflicted upon the mining and drilling outfits have a cumulative effect of not being so low.

        Tell me, if the government removed itself from the equation, how many good paying, wealth creating jobs would we have?

        I’d be on the side of the American people. You?

  15. suyts says:

    More in response to Ed……

    “To often we appear to have learned nothing at all from history. Keynes wrote a bit about the American financial crises, and as all competent economists including von Mises, von Hayek and Friedman note, he had a point on stimulus spending — don’t ever cut government spending in a downturn, they warned; that way lies complete disaster.”

    Do you consider that if we didn’t have a stimulus package that would be considered a cut in spending?

    You are correctly noting what many economists have stated. However, you are misinterpreting my advocacy. Further, I seriously doubt any of the above mentioned economists ever considered the possibility of some numbnutted politicians and bankers increasing spending when already indebted to 100% of the nation’s GDP!

  16. suyts says:

    Last response to Ed unless he wishes to continue the conversation.

    Ed, you stated, “Anti-Obama People: Willing to sacrifice America to make Obama look bad, and cat got their tongues on economics (with claws the cat got it, so they curse).

    Is that fair? That’s all I’m seeing here.”

    Perhaps that is all you’re seeing. But, that certainly isn’t all that has been stated on this blog. I’ve a rather large body of work discussing economics both specific to the US and in general and several other nations. It is true that many of my headlines are snarky and insulting to the powers that be. It is so because these people were told, but they ignore what is stated and obliviously continue on a path to economic oblivion.

    The name “Obama” holds very little meaning to me. I would be against anyone else who has pursued the policies Obama has. If his name was Smith, I’d be writing the same thing except Smith would be substituted for Obama. It is my desire for American success that drives these posts. Because of the policies and actions of Obama, I see him as working against this nation and the people in it. He and his supporters are the ones sacrificing America.

    Ed, we’ve covered several topics on this thread, each one deserving of much more discussion than what is provided. Believe it or not, I appreciate your contribution. As opposed to having to run down alternative views and respond to them, you’ve brought them here. I thank you for that. There’s much more to respond to, but, you seem to have lost interest in this thread. No worries. I typically try to write a post on economics about once a day, though, it isn’t always specific to the US. Sometimes I write more, other times, not so much, but there’s almost always a recent post or two in which the discussion is fresh. In fact, I’ve one up right now discussing are latest employment numbers. Feel free to bring us your perspective. :)

    • philjourdan says:

      Ed Stated: ““Anti-Obama People: Willing to sacrifice America to make Obama look bad, and cat got their tongues on economics (with claws the cat got it, so they curse).”

      And there is the rub. Obamaphiles are neither honest enough or competent enough to debate the fact that Obama is the most liberal president in the history of the country. And that fact alone, not his name, race or intelligence, is enough to trigger massive rejection of his policies and edicts. In all the time he has been acting president (with the emphasis on acting), the left has yet to engage in an honest and open debate. Instead they retreat to silly ad hominems and juvenile pejoratives to describe the opposition instead of engaging them in a rational debate. The reasons are not unknown. It is clear they do not want a rational debate because they would have to admit to the American people that Obama is a raging liberal, who is an announced socialist as well. And that is still an anathema to the majority of Americans. So, with the willing cooperation of the MSM, they hide Obama behind screams of racism and “unfairness”.

      The proof is that those screams were unheard of during Bush (no great shakes himself), and indeed, the MSM was leading the charge with the screams against Bush.

  17. Me says:

    So what group do you belong to Ed?

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, are you really…… we all know this already.

    For several posts, you’ve been denying. Now you tell me you know about public lands. I’m from Missouri (not a Public Lands state); show me.

    We’re not talking about law, we’re talking about economics and the intrusion of the law (read government) into economics.

    Still not sure why you think this is an “intrusion.” Bizarre view, that the entity that holds title to the land can’t determine what happens on it at all, but is instead an “intruder.” Here in Texas we’ve had several people arrested for trespassing on their own land when they’ve protested pipeline development — you think that’s right? That’s where you’re standing, right now, behind the claim that a landowner trespasses on his own land.

    You’re not talking economics. You’re reading Lewis Carroll. Or Eugene Ionesco.

    The government has no business being in the land and mineral rights business. We shouldn’t have public lands with very, very few exceptions. It constrains our economy and grants power to the government which wasn’t intended, nor healthy for a free society.

    Why not? Why shouldn’t a king own his lands? Why cannot a nation own lands? That’s a bizarre claim, wholly outside legal constructs of property and government.

    What constraint on our economy comes from government ownership of land? You yourself touted mining as a great idea. Now it’s a constraint?

    Not only am I now skeptical of your concept of land, and your ideas about mineral extraction; I wonder if you know what economics is about? In what legal system has government ever NOT had the power to control lands it holds title to? This idea dates back in law through Rome and Greece; it was a concept well written about in China. The topic of land ownership was well fleshed out in the Code of Hammurabi, including the fact that the God of a city owned the land, and the people were just tenants there; and the concept of the Crown holding land in various forms.

    Your claim that government has no business in land is contrary to history, law and common sense. Your claim that government hold land constrains the economy is wholly without evidence, and contrary to U.S. history (tell me about how the government stood in the way of the railroads, eh?).

    Economics should be first a pragmatic understanding of what goes on. You’re making arguments from Cloud Cuckooland.

    Now, let’s move to a little more abstract thought here. You said, “The intrusion on my land is by the mining companies. ….”
    LOL, okay, your land. Tell me, what does the word “my” imply?

    A more correct view of land ownership than your view that the mining companies own public lands.

    Even still, preventing these intrusions restrains the economy. You can argue the merits of preventing the intrusions, but it isn’t arguable that this doesn’t inhibit economic growth.

    There is no intrusion. Title holders may regulate development of their land — in U.S. history, the government has been way too fast and loose with giving the stuff away, no constraints at all.

    You can’t make a good argument that the federal government constrains development by holding land in trust. That’s contrary to history, the history of the development of the transcontinental railroads, the history of the disposal of lands as laid out in the various Northwest Ordinances of 1784 or 1785 and onward. It’s contrary to land development history, and it’s contrary to facts.

    You think Glen Canyon Dam is a constraint of trade? Make your argument. You think the Tennessee Valley Authority hurt trade in the Tennessee Valley, or anywhere else? This will be rich to see you argue absolutely contrary to history — but make your case.

    You think the agricultural development of Kansas, Nebraska, the Texas Panhandle, Colorado, the Dakotas, the great copper mines of Montana, Utah and Arizona, were all restraint of trade?

    You’ve gone beyond Aristophanes, beyond Carroll, beyond Ionesco, into the land of the absurdly absurd, wholly divorced from reality, and not even parody.

    But, if you think you can, make the case. Let’s hear it.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Should have been “government-held land.”

    • suyts says:

      Ed, you’ve made some very bizarre claims about my positions. What, exactly am I denying?

      You’ve entirely mischaracterized what I’m advocating. You stated, “Here in Texas we’ve had several people arrested for trespassing on their own land when they’ve protested pipeline development — you think that’s right? That’s where you’re standing, right now, behind the claim that a landowner trespasses on his own land.”

      I’ve in no way ever advocated such a thing nor was there anything I wrote that could possibly be construed as such. Are you being intentionally dense?

      You stated, “Why not? Why shouldn’t a king own his lands? Why cannot a nation own lands?” I should just let that statement stand w/o comment. It perfectly fits with another of your statements……”The topic of land ownership was well fleshed out in the Code of Hammurabi, including the fact that the God of a city owned the land, and the people were just tenants there; and the concept of the Crown holding land in various forms.

      So, now, are we to bend a knee to our king or no? I’m not sure you quite grasp this concept of freedom and liberty and such. Sure, compared to the history of the world, this experiment into freedom we call the US is quite new. But, I still can’t quite come to grips of your ignorance of such.

      You stated, “A more correct view of land ownership than your view that the mining companies own public lands.”

      I never said they owned public lands. Ed, I think you’re intentionally playing daft, and it’s most irksome. I’ll spell it out for you. The government should relinquish the lands to the people who rightfully own the lands. Then the people would be free to mine or not mine to their hearts content. See how easy that is? Suddenly some of the constraints of the government are gone, and more freedom and liberty to pursue prosperity is conveyed to the people. That’s really not a very hard concept to understand. In fact, in the strawmen you created, you gave examples of just exactly that happening.

      As to your strawmen….. you stated, ,“You can’t make a good argument that the federal government constrains development by holding land in trust. That’s contrary to history, the history of the development of the transcontinental railroads…..” and then you continued demonstrating the few times government may have got it right. Now, this phenomena is something I’m beginning to understand. People from the left have a difficult time with the present participle. You see Ed, those events are in the past. That means the government did do those things, but they’re not necessarily doing these things now. Nor does a few examples mean this is par for the course. Currently, we see that the government just withdrew the availability of mining from millions of acres of land….. (I stated this earlier)…. so, we see that presently… not in the 1800s but today, our government is constraining economic growth.

      But, did you notice that in some of the examples you gave of the government getting it right, it was exactly as I’m advocating, now? Ed, it’s a horrible thing to know history but fail to understand it. Please put a little more thought into this if you’re going to pursue this conversation.
      And, do try to keep your comments a bit shorter in that it’s time consuming to respond to each absurdity you written.

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s time consuming to try to understand the absurdities you put down. If you can’t clarify them, that should be a clue they aren’t worth holding to, don’t you think?

    Ed, you’ve made some very bizarre claims about my positions. What, exactly am I denying?

    As best I can tell, you’re denying that the federal government has any capacity in law or reason to hold lands, and to develop them or manage them for the gain of the government and the people.

    No? What are you saying, then?

    You’ve entirely mischaracterized what I’m advocating. You stated, “Here in Texas we’ve had several people arrested for trespassing on their own land when they’ve protested pipeline development — you think that’s right? That’s where you’re standing, right now, behind the claim that a landowner trespasses on his own land.”

    I’ve in no way ever advocated such a thing nor was there anything I wrote that could possibly be construed as such. Are you being intentionally dense?

    I cast your argument, that the government is a “constraint on development” into a different scene. Are YOU being intentionally dense? How is the government a constraint on development, and why doesn’t the government have a perfect right to develop its lands, the lands it holds in trust for the nation, as it sees fit?

    Here in Texas the state government has taken that right away from people who hold title to the land. Is that not what you are advocating for the federal government, that it lose that right, too?

    You stated, “Why not? Why shouldn’t a king own his lands? Why cannot a nation own lands?” I should just let that statement stand w/o comment.

    Or, you could clarify by answering the question. That would be more enlightening, more polite, and more productive.

    You said — you stated, no question:

    The government has no business being in the land and mineral rights business. We shouldn’t have public lands with very, very few exceptions. It constrains our economy and grants power to the government which wasn’t intended, nor healthy for a free society.

    Why should you let it stand, and thereby dodge the question? Why do you say such a thing, inconsistent with the history of free peoples and free government? How is land stewardship “not healthy for a free society?”

    Your letting my question stand, unanswered, doesn’t answer it.

    It perfectly fits with another of your statements……”The topic of land ownership was well fleshed out in the Code of Hammurabi, including the fact that the God of a city owned the land, and the people were just tenants there; and the concept of the Crown holding land in various forms.”

    So, now, are we to bend a knee to our king or no?

    Are we citizens of the government? Then we owe duties of citizenship to the government.

    You said governments don’t have the right to hold land. I pointed out that in the oldest legal code we have, 5,000 years old, the legal code Abraham is said to have lived under, the government held land, the law recognized that right, and the laws fleshed out the obligations.

    So, why do you run contrary to 5,000 years of history? Can you explain your deviation? (It’s becoming clear you can’t, but at least I can try to clarify the question for you, again.)

    Among those duties of citizenship is offering wise counsel.

    You claim the government has no right to hold land, right? Why? That’s not wise counsel, not in the real world, not in any well-functioning government in history.

    Why do you make a claim contrary to 5,000 years of history, and then act as if you don’t need to explain the claim?

    I’m not sure you quite grasp this concept of freedom and liberty and such. Sure, compared to the history of the world, this experiment into freedom we call the US is quite new. But, I still can’t quite come to grips of your ignorance of such.

    Don’t try to change the subject. As you know, Locke’s statement, which Jefferson edited, was that every person has a right to “life, liberty and property.”

    Locke did not say, nor did Jefferson, that the person of the government does NOT hold the right to own property.

    Why do you abandon that principle of liberty here?

    In fact, the Philadelphia convention specifically granted that authority over land to the federal government, in Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. Can you explain where they goofed, and why you think it was a goof?

    You stated, “A more correct view of land ownership than your view that the mining companies own public lands.”

    I never said they owned public lands. Ed, I think you’re intentionally playing daft, and it’s most irksome. I’ll spell it out for you. The government should relinquish the lands to the people who rightfully own the lands.

    You questioned why I said the public lands are “mine.” I explained that was a more accurate view than the one you argued for, with mining companies holding full sway over the land. Perhaps you missed that key distinction, but I didn’t.

    But, why shoudl the government “relinquish” lands? Is not our government as it states, “We the People?” Why must the people give up lands we’ve decided have great value to hold? What’s the advantage? You claim there is an economic problem, some “constraints,” but you won’t tell us what that problem is. I offer examples of economic development of public lands and public resources that have been the foundations of our economic growth as a nation. Now, out of the blue, you claim the government should get out of the business?

    Why? It doesn’t increase any citizen’s liberty, and in fact it would steal liberty from 99% of our people.

    Why shouldn’t the government hold land and manage it?

    Then the people would be free to mine or not mine to their hearts content.

    In a free system, no one is ever free to mine to their heart’s content. Waste and nuisance are not allowed at common law, nor have they been for thousands of years. (I’m using both of those terms in their property law meanings.)

    Are you suggesting that the government has blocked mining unfairly or unwisely? Where?

    See how easy that is? Suddenly some of the constraints of the government are gone, and more freedom and liberty to pursue prosperity is conveyed to the people.

    No, that’s not what happens. A rich elite gets title to the lands (see West Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas), and controls the government to constrain individual citizens from enforcing their rights to their own lands, to clean water and clean air, to their right of quiet enjoyment, and to their own economic development.

    You’re advocating trampling the liberties of millions for the gains of an elite few. We have a Constitutional bar on titles of nobility, and we should avoid offering the trappings of royalty in any form — it’s not just the titles of nobility that do harm, but the actions of creating an elite upper class that reaps all the harvests of other working men and women. That’s unfair, and unjust, and not what we do in America.

    Why shouldn’t the people get the benefits of public lands?

    That’s really not a very hard concept to understand. In fact, in the strawmen you created, you gave examples of just exactly that happening.

    In England, poaching deer is a crime against the crown. Fair takings of wildlife, fair use of the public resources, such as a controlled, licensed hunt, allows public use of the resources in perpetuity.

    You’re advocating giving up those rights, and selling off the public assets. Both Jefferson and Native American law noted that we don’t really own the Earth, we borrow it from our grandchildren.

    We don’t have the right to give it away as you advocate.

    And you’ve still offered no good reason to do so.

    As to your strawmen….. you stated, ,“You can’t make a good argument that the federal government constrains development by holding land in trust. That’s contrary to history, the history of the development of the transcontinental railroads…..” and then you continued demonstrating the few times government may have got it right.

    Your claim is that the government most often gets it wrong. But you offer not a single example.

    On evidence, I’ve got the argument.

    You still offer not a single example, nor any line of reasonable reasoning, to get to your conclusion. I’ve offered several examples. You’ve offered none.

    Do you have any evidence to back your claim, any argument that would hold up to scrutiny?

    Now, this phenomena is something I’m beginning to understand. People from the left have a difficult time with the present participle.

    People stuck with erroneous thought must claim anyone pointing out their error is of an opposing political stance. Demonize “the other.”

    My conservative credentials are better than yours. You err in so many ways when you assume, and when you don’t bother to see that your facts are right, your history straight, and your logic, logical.

    You see Ed, those events are in the past. That means the government did do those things, but they’re not necessarily doing these things now.

    Where is the government not doing those things, wisely, now? What development is constrained, unwisely? What economic growth is prevented? Who says ruining the land with mines is the highest or best use of it? We can’t eat lead, but we can eat the cattle who used to graze on the lead mine slopes. On what basis do you decide that pulling ore out of the ground is more valuable than farming, or ranching, or using the land as watershed?

    Nor does a few examples mean this is par for the course. Currently, we see that the government just withdrew the availability of mining from millions of acres of land….. (I stated this earlier)….

    I missed that. Where did that happen? Why was that a bad idea? Give us specifics.

    so, we see that presently… not in the 1800s but today, our government is constraining economic growth.

    Where is your evidence that the mining was more valuable than other uses of the land? Oil leases on public lands are up; mineral leases on public lands are up; timber leases are up.

    You’ve falsely accuse me of setting up straw men when I flesh out your arguments with reality. But you really are begging the question. You assume your conclusion is correct — but I don’t assume that. I’m from Missouri on this issue, and I want some evidence. You claim mining is the acme of economic development. Mining has often been the nadir of economic destruction for surrounding farms, rivers and towns. We see that more often in privately-held lands, where oligopolies trample the liberties of local residents.

    You’ve asserted that is an example of greater liberty, but West Virginia is a live example showing that it’s less liberty, and greater destruction.

    Be specific. Why shouldn’t the federal government hang on to Yellowstone National Park, nor to the surrounding National Forests? Where is the economic advantage for the most people, for the American people?

    Or pick another example. Justify your claim. I think if you try, you’ll understand your claim is wrong.

    But, did you notice that in some of the examples you gave of the government getting it right, it was exactly as I’m advocating, now?

    No, I didn’t notice that at all. You claimed that the federal government should get out of the land business, and that it has no right to hold land, manage it, or convey it. I offered examples where federal management of the land, federal title-holding, has offered development (not always wise, but not rapacious as you advocate), and has promoted economic growth that you say it prevents.

    Did you notice that you’ve offered not a single counter example, anywhere?

    Ed, it’s a horrible thing to know history but fail to understand it.

    I wouldn’t know. And I’m not really interested in your demonstration. Please just answer the question: Why shouldn’t the federal government be in the land business?

    Please put a little more thought into this if you’re going to pursue this conversation.
    And, do try to keep your comments a bit shorter in that it’s time consuming to respond to each absurdity you written.

    You’re right, I’m obviously wasting my time. You don’t have a single example to back your generalized argument, and when I use several examples it must frustrate you beyond measure to have nothing at all in response. I don’t think you understand basic property law, let alone the law of public lands in the U.S. — and we haven’t even touched on water law, which you blithely assume doesn’t exist (hint: a lot of public land law is in managing water resources).

    I’ve written no absurdities. I’ve run a few of your claims out, reductio ad absurdum. But my shining the light on your erroneous claims is not making them absurd. Your examples are already absurd — otherwise, by now you’d have been able to provide some evidence and reasoning to justify the absurd claim.

    • Me says:

      Long story short what does the constitution say?

      • Me says:

        Because there is your answer, until other people start stomping all over it..

      • Ed Darrell says:

        http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

        Article IV, Section 3:

        The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

        • Me says:

          There you go tha that goes for every other part of the Constitution.

        • Me says:

          So don’t ever try to pic and choose what parts you don’t like ever.

        • suyts says:

          Heh, the words immediately preceding what Ed wrote from the same section…..Article IV, Section 3

          New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

          He has no view of context. The constitution was explicitly talking about territories and paths to statehood. And the lands which were claimed by the US in defining its borders.

        • philjourdan says:

          Now see how West Va was created. Ever wonder why there really are not 50 legal states?

        • suyts says:

          I should clarify. The courts have upheld the govt’s right to administer federal lands many times. I don’t advocate changing that. Indeed, they have to continue with the ability because of the District of Columbia and the various military bases around the nation. I’m just advocating that they not be in the land and mineral rights business.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Context. You left out the history, both before an after. Start out with the Northwest Ordinances, which predate the nation, carry it through the Morrill Act and the Land Grant Universities, the grants to the builders of the transcontinental railroads, the gold rushes in California, the Dakotas and Alaska, the land wars between sheep and cowmen, the 17th Amendment, the great fires of 1908 and the creation of the Forest Service, the creation of the National Parks, the Antiquities Act, and the Sagebrush Rebellion. Context? You didn’t even know it was in the Constitution, and still, you don’t know what it means.

        • suyts says:

          How do you figure I didn’t know it was in the Constitution? I quoted the part you conveniently left out!

        • Ed Darrell says:

          First, you don’t appear to have known that was in there in the first place. Second, another reader asked for a direct quote after I gave the article and section. Third, after I gave you the link, you quoted the language before, as if it changed the meaning of the section I referenced, completely oblivious to the history and legal meaning of the section I quoted, the section you quoted, and the context of public lands management.

          What evidence is there you know what you’re talking about? I’m not seeing it in discussion.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, what I quoted it is part of the same section. Words in the section don’t bear on the meaning of the section? Ed, I’m done with your obtuseness. If you had read fully what I stated, then you would also know that I referenced another part of the constitution through implication and judicial judgements.

          Yes, I ask the reader to know and understand the subject matter of what we’re discussing. I also expect the reader to be able to apply context, which clearly, you are incapable of doing so. I don’t spell everything out as if I’m having a discussion with a 4th grader. It prevents wasted verbosity. Those volumes you’ve written in several comments you’ve made, do you expect people to read them? You can’t even stay topical! While I don’t have a hard and fast rule about doing so, go back and read your inanities and see if you can relate them to the topic of the post even in the most general way.

          This is why I asked you the most general question relating to the post in which you’ve never answered. Let’s try it again….. How do you believe wealth gets created?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Ed, what I quoted it is part of the same section. Words in the section don’t bear on the meaning of the section?

          Sure they do. Words in the same section don’t nullify other sections of the Constitution. You claim other sections and laws don’t apply?

          I told you what the Constitutional basis is for federal land holdings. Words in that section do not say “but this is not what we intend,” nor do they say “the only use for these lands is mining.” If you wish to argue a legal basis for your claims, by all means do so. Article IV does not support your claims. You’ll have to look somewhere else.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, what exactly do you believe I’m claiming? I didn’t say one part nullified the other part, but, I thought it best to give “Me” the full section. And then, I wrote, for clarification what I thought of the implications. Or, did you miss that part? (Again) Why are you selectively picking what I’ve stated while ignoring the other parts of my statements which are directly related and sequential? Do you think I or anyone else won’t notice? Ed, it’s a horrible practice of yours and it is a form of dishonesty. I don’t expect everyone to for all times to be entirely honest, but when you lie about what your host has stated, it goes well beyond the pale.

        • philjourdan says:

          Amendment 5: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          In other words, the state of Texas can Condemn your land, but it has to compensate you for it. And then it is no longer YOUR land. Hence, once it has honored the Constitution, you are trespassing on the STATES land, not yours.

  20. suyts says:

    Alright, I’m not going to respond to your entire list of inanities.

    “As best I can tell, you’re denying that the federal government has any capacity in law or reason to hold lands, and to develop them or manage them for the gain of the government and the people.”

    Do you understand the difference between “should” and “is”? No, apparently not. Do you understand the difference between advocating change and stating what is? No, apparently not. Do you understand that the government is not a person? Apparently not, you think people still have a king except in the form of several people as opposed to one.

    “You claim mining is the acme of economic development.” I’ve made no such claim, but it is a wealth producing venture and essential to any future prosperity this nation may have.

    “Are we citizens of the government? Then we owe duties of citizenship to the government.” That’s backwards Ed. Very backwards. We don’t serve the government, it is suppose to serve us.

    “You’ve falsely accuse me of setting up straw men..” No, that’s exactly what you did. I never stated that the government doesn’t occasionally get something right. But, you provided examples to prove that sometimes the government gets it right. That’s a classic strawman.

    Nor does a few examples mean this is par for the course. Currently, we see that the government just withdrew the availability of mining from millions of acres of land….. (I stated this earlier)….

    You stated, “I missed that. Where did that happen? Why was that a bad idea? Give us specifics.”

    Of course you missed that. You miss about every other word I type. I’ve tried to keep the words small for you, but, to no avail.

    I mentioned it here….http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/keynesian-theory-destroyed-by-sandy-storm/#comment-50048 I didn’t say it was a bad idea, I stated that it constrains economic growth. You do understand the difference, right? You can read about it here…. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling Here’s another example….. http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/05/obama-administration-to-withdraw-millions-of-alaska-acres-from-development/

    Now, I seriously doubt you’ll comprehend any of this, so it was probably a waste of my time to run that crap down for you.

    As to the rest of you blithering inanities, Ed, I can’t help it if your reading comprehension is so poor as to not understand what I’m stating. I asked you to keep it short and take it one point at time, but you’ve insisted upon the opposite. Apparently, your happy to mischaracterize what I’ve stated and not ask for a clarifications on specifics without writing pages of nonsense that I have to sort through to do so.

    On several occasions you’ve mal-attributed things to me which I have never stated. You will stop that.

    Ed, I’d like to have a rational conversation with you, but you seem intent on not having one.

    Lastly Ed, to the most general point, how do you believe wealth gets created?

    • Ed Darrell says:

      “Are we citizens of the government? Then we owe duties of citizenship to the government.” That’s backwards Ed. Very backwards. We don’t serve the government, it is suppose to serve us.

      The government owes no duty of citizenship to citizens. It’s not backwards — you don’t understand what citizenship is. There is a difference between a right of citizenship, and a duty of citizenship. Yes, we have rights. But we also have duties.

      Here, you can start with this. I can sign you off on your blue card if you can explain requirement #1: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scouting/BSA/Citizenship_in_the_Nation_Merit_Badge

    • suyts says:

      Ed, I understand duty. I understand citizenship. I’m really wondering if you do though. . And again, the government serves us, not the other way around. And please Ed, don’t try to send me on an errand on my own blog and I’ll try not to laugh at your referencing the BSA as an authority on citizenship.

      For the record, I’ve never advocated not paying taxes or any of the other things on the little list.

      • Latitude says:

        And again, the government serves us, not the other way around.
        =============
        we are the only ones that have it that way…….that’s confusing to the rest of the world…and some people too

        • Ed Darrell says:

          The lack of a concept of good citizenship is disturbing. This is not a situation of royalty in reverse. None of you were ever Scouts? None of you ever participated in your school studentbody government? None of you has military service? None of you participates in the governance of a church, or synagogue, or neighborhood association? Help me out here — how did you miss out on basic civics education?

          I suspect this lack of experience and knowledge fuels a grossly skewed view of how government works. It’s not Uncle Sam’s Diner, and it’s not Uncle Sam taking the place of the escaped Frederick Douglass.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, every one of the BSA badges are VOLUNTARY. In other words, not a single person is forced to earn one or partake in the sacrifices to attain one.

          Your BSA analogy fails there. You are stating “requirements”. The BSA is talking about voluntary actions.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Citizenship is not “voluntary.” Every Boy Scout knows that. Are you as good a citizen as an 11-year old kid? That’s the question.

          You’d do well to study what citizenship means. You might want to compare U.S. citizenship to citizenship in the Roman Republic at the time of Cincinnatus, for example, Washington’s role model.

          Doing one’s duty to one’s nation is voluntary in many respects. You may choose not to follow the laws on speed on the highway. You may choose not to follow the laws on registering your dog, or in getting a building permit. Those are violations of rules of citizenship (and laws, in some cases).

          U.S. citizenship is not a free for all.

          Your answer, sadly, confirms my concern that there is a general lack of understanding of what it means to be a citizen, and what duties a citizen owes to her/his nation.

        • philjourdan says:

          Citizenship is indeed voluntary. Ask any illegal. Some will say they want it, others just want a paycheck. You can renounce it at any time if you are a native born.

          Citizenship is not following laws. Every American criminal behind bars still retains their citizenship. Yet the fact they are behind bars shows they did not follow every law.

          You confuse citizenship with responsibility. But then so does a great many Americans who think their responsibility is to get a government check.

        • suyts says:

          ED, are you really that stupid? I’m a vet RA1988-1992. I was raised on military bases.You’re talking about things you know nothing about. Earlier, you mentioned Lincoln. I’m wondering if you can interpret a part of a quote of his…...”Government of the people, by the people, for the people….” That “for the people” thingy, what does that mean to you?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          ED, are you really that stupid? I’m a vet RA1988-1992. I was raised on military bases.You’re talking about things you know nothing about.

          Can’t see it in what you’ve written. Nice claim — hoping to see some evidence.

        • suyts says:

          What, you want me to post my DD 214? I’d like to see some evidence you know what you’re talking about…. but, I don’t think it’s forthcoming.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Lastly Ed, to the most general point, how do you believe wealth gets created?

      Labor.

      See Abraham Lincoln:

      Labor is prior to, and independent of,capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could not have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

      Lincoln in the Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861

      Where did you think it comes from?

    • Ed Darrell says:

      I mentioned it here….http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/keynesian-theory-destroyed-by-sandy-storm/#comment-50048 I didn’t say it was a bad idea, I stated that it constrains economic growth. You do understand the difference, right? You can read about it here…. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling Here’s another example….. http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/05/obama-administration-to-withdraw-millions-of-alaska-acres-from-development/

      Now, I seriously doubt you’ll comprehend any of this, so it was probably a waste of my time to run that crap down for you.

      The rudeness quotient remains at a very high level. It’s a waste of your time to make bizarre and false claims, yes. It’s a waste of my time, too, but I am ever hopeful that enlightenment may strike you, though I’m reminded of Woody Allen’s line about “nothing wrong here that couldn’t be fixed with Prozac and a polo mallet.”

      It’s important to understand that oil and gas exploration and development and production increased at near record levels in President Obama’s first four years. In fact, in 2011 the U.S. became a petroleum product-exporting nation again. Production and exploration increased in the first three years to equal Bush’s eight years.

      Human Events? If, in another thread, we criticize The Onion, shouldn’t we note that the acknowledged parody paper has greater credibility than this one? Oy.

      In your first example, you cite a long-standing study that set aside 1.6 million acres in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, for non-development that requires drilling. You failed to note that the same press release also announced opening 807,000 acres for oil shale and tar sands development. The article you cited said:

      Interior’s Bureau of Land Management cited environmental concerns for the proposed changes. Among other things, it excised lands with “wilderness characteristics” and areas that conflicted with sage grouse habitats.

      Under the plan, 677,000 acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming would be open for oil shale exploration. Another 130,000 acres in Utah would be set aside for tar sands production.

      Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling#ixzz2JlXhOntw
      Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

      I fail to see any problem with the tiny set-aside for wilderness. You don’t identify any beyond your imaginary and harmless “constraints.” I’ve about given up hope that you’ll ever explain what the problem is.

      But “millions of acres?” Context. History, law and fact.

      It sounds like a lot, but it’s not what you want us to believe. Let’s see the facts. 1.6 million acres in three of our larger states, three of the “public lands” states. 1.6 million acres would be a tiny fraction of any of the three states, but it’s less than 1% of all three of them.

      ==> Utah: 54,338,560 acres
      ==> Colorado: 66,387,200 acres
      ==> Wyoming: 62,147,200 acres
      ==> 3 State Total: 182,872,960 acres.

      1.6 million acres is not quite 0.9% of the three states.
      1.6 million acres is 54% of Hudspeth County, Texas. (2,925,440 acres, or 4571 sq mi); it would be 32% of Utah’s San Juan County.

      You seem to think that’s a lot, but you don’t bother to tell us why it’s a problem to tie up what is a fraction of one county, especially spread over three states. Millions more acres of all three states are open to oil and natural gas exploration, coal strip mining, timbering, and other mineral extraction.

      In short, that’s not really a significant set aside, compared to the total land in those states, and especially when compared to the energy development in those states, which dwarfs 1.6 million acres, and especially when it sets aside huge areas for the dirtiest possible energy development in shale and tar sands.

      There’s no historical or contemporary context offered, and consequently the claim is misleading by factual omission.

      You missed the announcement a few days earlier of the leasing out of 20 million acres for oil and gas development:

      10/25/2012 – Interior offers 20 million acres offshore Texas for oil and gas:

      http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/obama-administration-offers-more-than-20-million-acres-offshore-texas-for-oil-and-natural-gas-exploration-and-development.cfm

      That’s more than 40 times the land set aside you complain about.

      You missed the opening of 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands, also a few days earlier (that’s an area larger than the entire state of Utah):

      11/27/2012 – speeds up process removes barriers for 56 million acres of Indian trust land

      http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/salazar-finalizes-reforms-to-streamline-leasing-spur-economic-development-on-56-million-acres-of-american-indian-trust-land.cfm

      76 million acres opened to greater oil and gas exploration, you complain about 1.6 million set aside for non-development. 76 million acres is 47.5 times as much land as the 1.6 million. You’re looking through the telescope backwards.

      Your sources even miss the easy press releases from Interior on the oil and gas lands leased out:

      As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced that onshore oil and gas lease sales conducted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2012 generated $233 million for American taxpayers. In 2013, the BLM will hold 33 lease sales around the country. Since President Obama took office, domestic oil and gas production has grown each year, with domestic oil production in 2011 higher than any time in nearly a decade and natural gas production at its highest level ever. Foreign oil imports now account for less than 50 percent of the oil consumed in America – the lowest level since 1995. These sales build on that record and the President’s goal of responsibly leveraging our domestic resources.

      The Human Events story takes the parodies offered by Alaska Rep. Don Young, and offers them as fact. The story contains this knee-slapping whopper:

      Obama has effectively blocked oil production on federally controlled property including the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and onshore drilling in the lower 48 states, Kish said.

      Yeah, with record leases, record exploration, and record production.

      In fact, Interior speeded up review of the North Slope stuff, and they granted a permit to a drilling company to explore offshore. The drill rig couldn’t meet the minimal safety requirements, had difficulty finding the ocean bottom, and to avoid paying taxes it was moved a few weeks ago, whereupon the tugs moving it lost control and it ran aground on the rocks, an incident that the owners and other oil companies have argued for years could not happen. One drill rig, one crash disaster — 100% fail rate on the part of private industry so far up there on off-shore drilling. But you offer the parody paper Human Events showing a parody rant by Don Young . . .

      In short, for your original argument that the federal government stewardship by itself produces “constraints,” you’ve offered not a whit of credible evidence — and what you offer is dwarfed by the facts of leasing and exploration and production of mineral resources. You’ve offered no rational reason to take theses lands and sell them off into private ownership, no advantage to any national or public interest; you’ve not even offered any hint of a justification that it would be advantageous to the lucky billionaires who would end up with the luxury estates at public expense.

      In the conversation about public lands, you’ve ignored history, law and the Constitution, and not yet made an economic argument that withstands cursory review.

      Go on, convince me you know what you’re talking about.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Typo. 20 million acres is more than 10 times 1.6, not 40 times.

      • suyts says:

        Only in your mind Ed, only in your strange and bizarre mind. I did just about choke when you mentioned rudeness. I’ve been more than patient with you. I’ve exceeded what I would generally tolerate from most people in an effort to communicate with you. I have never ignored history, the constitution, nor the law. Of course, none of them have any relevance to what I’m stating.

        If you can’t see that closing off lands which were marked for exploration and drilling is a constraint on economic activity, then there’s little else to discuss.

        I didn’t mention the other lands becoming available because it isn’t relevant to the point. Your argument appears to be that because they didn’t close off all of the lands that closing off some of the lands isn’t a constraint, when clearly it is. Again, these are strawmen.

        As far as the off-shore area, history, law, and constitution…… I recall when the Obama administration put a moratorium on drilling in the gulf. Do you remember that? Do you remember when a judge declared it illegal? Now, answer this. Did that moratorium constrain economic activity. A simple yes or no will suffice.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          The moratorium on unsafe development certainly constrained the unsafe development.

          Do you know how much the Horizon disaster has cost, so far? Care to justify this astonishing “negative externality?”

          One of the duties of a citizen is to be responsible, especially to neighbors and other citizens. A duty of any property holder, including leaseholders, is to avoid nuisance, and avoid damaging the quiet enjoyment of other property holders.

          Are you seriously claiming that the Horizon disaster should not have required a thorough analysis of all deepwater leases and operations?

          Do you claim that this seriously impinged on any development in the U.S., to stop to clean up the messes, literally and legally?

          “Liberty” should not include the liberty to destroy the estuaries which provide the livelihoods of thousands of citizens, nor to pollute the beaches, nor ocean.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, I’m not addressing whether it should or should not have been done. I’m stating that this is an example of constraints on economic activity. It really, really isn’t this hard to understand. I’m not talking about citizenship, nor am I talking about applications of liberty. I’m discussing economic activity and governmental constraints on such.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, the authors of the GOVERNMENT report on the Horizon Disaster did not feel it constituted a need to stop the exploration. Obama purposefully changed the report to support an illegal action of his. He is President, not king. And therefore subject to the same laws everyone else is. The problem is that he also owns the cops, so no one prosecutes him for his crimes.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          I didn’t mention the other lands becoming available because it isn’t relevant to the point. Your argument appears to be that because they didn’t close off all of the lands that closing off some of the lands isn’t a constraint, when clearly it is. Again, these are strawmen.

          How is the leasing policy for energy development, and leases completed and acres opened to leasing, “not relevant” to your claim that there isn’t such leasing activity going on?

        • suyts says:

          Ed, I’ve told you about misrepresenting what I’ve stated. You will stop it or you will be gone. I never stated there isn’t any leasing activity going on. And there’s nothing in this post which can be construed as such. The very links I provided showing the constraints clearly demonstrates that there is leasing which is occurring.

      • philjourdan says:

        Ed, you are still trying to claim that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise. You are pointing out facts with no critical thought behind the reason for those facts. Until you actually understand what you are talking about, you will never be able to explain yourself rationally,

        As an example, you state: ” production increased at near record levels in President Obama’s first four years.”, yet you reference nothing he has done to create that situation. Most likely because it happened in SPITE of his actions, not because of them. And the production increases have come from primarily private fields, where the rising price of crude has made more expensive extraction methods economical. Both of those things Obama has no control over, nor did he create a program or grease the skids to enable them to happen. So you try to imply some sort of ownership for Obama when the actual fact is he was an incompetent bystander to the market forces that were occurring.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Make your case, Phil. The claim here is that there are severe constraints on trade and economic activity simply by who has title to the land.

          I pointed out there is no evidence of constraint, as measured by the classic measures of economic activity in oil and gas production.

          The facts don’t back your case. Don’t blame me for the case someone else tried to make.

        • philjourdan says:

          I made my case Ed. I clearly stated that coincidence does not prove causation. I am not here to prove your case. I merely pointed out you are not proving your case. You have offered no proof of your case. I merely pointed that out. Do not confuse your case with my case.

          I would suggest you read “Why Nations fail” by Daron Acemaglu. It will not help you prove your point, but it will provide all the evidence you need to understand the difference between “state” ownership and private ownership.

  21. DirkH says:

    Peter Schiff Jan 31 2013
    Think the Obama Recovery was bad? Just wait until the Obama Recession!

  22. Latitude says:

    this gave me a headache

  23. DirkH says:

    Ed Darrell says:
    February 2, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    “Human Events? If, in another thread, we criticize The Onion, shouldn’t we note that the acknowledged parody paper has greater credibility than this one? Oy.”

    A parody paper has “credibility”? You are a very confused person and probably confuse Jon Stewarts daily blatherings with information (like other liberals).
    (We even have a Jon Stewart knockoff in Germany. VERY bad. But I’m an objectivist. You might actually enjoy the idjit.)

    • Ed Darrell says:

      The Onion has more socially redeeming value than Human Events, yes, and one can tell which way is up from the former, but not the latter.

      Human Events hasn’t been the same since Tom Winter left, and with that inaccurate reporting cited in this thread, you can see why.

      • philjourdan says:

        I can see why you misconstrue Suyts words, and basically fail to provide any factual support for any of your positions. You appear to think Parody sites are gospel, and that opinions are facts.

    • philjourdan says:

      I think Ed is trying to give credence to the Daily Current since he was taken in by the recent parody.

  24. LLAP says:

    @James: I found the link to this article over at S.D.A.:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/29/his-queeg-moment

    Here is an excerpt:

    Obama’s second inauguration speech may be his Queeg moment — an undeniable demonstration that, in an emergency, he is incapable of grappling with reality. For all his unceasing invocation of the word “change,” the outstanding thing about Obama has been his apparent inability to react, even to an imminent crisis. Like Queeg, he stands frozen on the bridge as the waves grow higher, or obsesses over issues like homosexuals and women in the military as the typhoon rises.

    Faced with the worst looming fiscal cliff-fall in world history Obama, like Queeg in the typhoon, has done nothing at all, but has, increasingly, resorted to meaningless words. His pseudo-Keynesian fiscal notions and a mantra-like repetition of old and failed ideas, suggest a serious lack on mental versatility.

    Economics is not an exact science, but some of its rules are now well-known, and one is that a government cannot spend its way out of a recession.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Economics is not an exact science, but some of its rules are now well-known, and one is that a government cannot spend its way out of a recession.

      That’s funny. In economics, the theory holds that governments CAN spend their way out of a recession, and that cutting spending in a recession is disaster. Supply-side partisans kept saying they would provide numbers to back their claims that spending doesn’t work, but no one ever has.

      This time around, even Laffer is quiet. There simply is no economic theory to support a claim that “government cannot spend its way out of a recession.” Urban legend, like the “choking doberman,” or “vanishing hitchhiker,” good for a ghost story around a campfire, but not rooted in reality.

      • suyts says:

        LMAO!!!! Laffer isn’t quiet! His curve is screaming all over the world! Have you checked out Greece and Spain lately? France?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Laffer is screaming?

          Can you show us the article he wrote that lays out the case for cutting taxes, with numbers included, in the economics journals?

          I’d love to read it. Got a citation?

          Or is he still promising to provide numbers that he simply can’t, and hasn’t been able to provide for more than 30 years, because the real numbers don’t support his case?

          He’s awfully quiet in the journals . . .

        • suyts says:

          Ed, you really do have a reading deficiency. “His curve is screaming all over the world!”

          Now, obviously a curve can’t scream. Nor does my reference to his curve imply that Laffer has recently wrote anything on the subject. However, I did list a few countries, whose tax policies seem to confirm the notion behind the curve. All have raised taxes, all have received less revenue from the taxes than they anticipated, all have had significant economic troubles after raising their taxes. I’ve written extensively on their troubles and documented the many times they’ve raised taxes in response to their budgetary shortfalls, which causes a continuation of their contractions. Spain and Greece are both now at about 25% unemployment and are relying on finances from the ECB and the IMF to maintain their governments. You can just type in the name of the country on my search bar and you’ll seem many examples of the Laffer curve effect. I realize you probably don’t recognize me as an authority, so you can read Dr. Mitchell’s thoughts on this….. here’s a good place to start…. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/01/13/question-of-the-week-has-the-european-fiscal-crisis-ended-n1488095/page/full/ You can follow his links for more details.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          The Laffer Curve is bogus. Doesn’t work. That’s the point — Laffer said it should work, he promised to publish a paper showing the hypothesis behind it and how to test it — but it failed, spectacularly, in the Reagan administration. The numbers do not add up.

          Bogus economics. It’s like creationism, or flat-Eartherism. Entertaining, but bogus. Not for making policy.

          And for a citation, you offer another parody site, TownHall?

          I thought you were serious about economics.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Even Wikipedia debunks Laffer:

          In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called “Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates”. This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper’s most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for — plus interest — by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers.[15] The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper’s analysis.[7]

          Bogus economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

        • philjourdan says:

          Guess Ed has never heard of William Connelly. Ed, even an Elementary teacher will tell you never to use Wikipedia as any kind of authoritative source.

          The Laffer curve is proven daily. Suyts gave you the real world examples.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Which William Connelly do you refer to? Certainly not the politics professor, not after you claimed the policy economist Robert Reich is not qualified.

          What did Connelly say that you claim justifies Laffer’s odd views that you claim I missed?

        • philjourdan says:

          Reich is not qualified. I am not arguing the point. I stated a fact. period.

          And since you do not know who William Connelly is, I doubt you know much about Wiki and hence why you blindly trust it. When not even grade school kids do.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, do you know who Dr. Mitchell is? The Laffer curves works, and is shown to work every day. The examples I mentioned show that it does indeed take place. Okay, you don’t like Dr. Mitchell’s views, try Dr. Sowell’s. http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2010/10/26/brass_oldies

          But, I’ll give you bonus points if you can identify the author here, who is articulating the premise behind the curve…….

          “Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more–and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.”

        • DirkH says:

          Ed Darrell says:
          February 3, 2013 at 1:56 pm
          “Even Wikipedia debunks Laffer:”

          First you confuse a parody news site with a news site, now you’re confusing the wikipedia’s opinion statements with information. You must be a VERY confused person. What’s the next source you’ll cite, Colbert?

        • suyts says:

          That’s because he doesn’t understand the Laffer curve. So,he quotes something that doesn’t refute the Laffer curve, but he just thinks it does. I thought about trying to explain the Laffer curve to him, but he misunderstands everything I type, so I thought it of little use.

        • kim2ooo says:

          NOW you’ve done it ;)
          You referenced Dr. Sowell.

          Mr Ed thinks : “- Sowell was in a coma in those years, and missed them.”

          http://climaterealistponderings.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/2002/

        • suyts says:

          Sowell is one of the greatest thinkers of his generation.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Ed
          The Laffer curve is real it can’t possibly not be, it is just common sense. You might argue about how to measure it and it would be fair to say Laffer couldn’t do this as it is very complex. It would come up with different numbers for different countries anyway due to cultural differences.

        • philjourdan says:

          “Common Sense” is a misnomer. It is apparently not very common.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          But, Dirk, I admitted when I got snookered.

          You guys live on snookery here. Not even one confession yet.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, why would anyone admit to something that was not true? You were snookered because you WANTED to be. So far, no one else has been.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Well, you’re right, Phil. Some people need a 12-step program to figure things out. Simply admitting error is a life-shattering experience, and not one they are likely to undertake in a discussion, just to get to accuracy.

          I underestimated the investment some have in their errors. So far wrong, it looks like “right” to them.

        • philjourdan says:

          So you admit you are wrong and go through a 12 step program when you are not wrong? That could well be part of your problem.

          But then so far, you have yet to be right, so perhaps you just assume you are always wrong? A wise assumption on your part.

      • philjourdan says:

        Sorry Ed. That is flat out false. In NO economic theory does it say that government can spend its way out of prosperity. In Keynesian economics, it states that a short term deficit spending (12 months or less) may be needed in order to prevent a contraction of the money supply. However, it does not say that is getting you out of the recession. Instead, Keynesian theory says the deficit spending makes money available for private enterprise to invest in capital that gets you out of a recession.

        Your ignorance of economics is understandable as you appear to be listening to the Obama flunkies and Krugman, none of which knows thing one about economics.

        p.s. Do I need to define “flunkies” for you?

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil I am starting to warm to this guy Keynes and am finding out that the modern believers have severley distorted his theories if you and Ed are correct. I admit my ignorance is my own fault for not actually reading about him only listening to left and right argue when it appears to me both are probably wrong if talking about Keynes original theories. I am guessing you meant “spend its way to prosperity”

        • philjourdan says:

          DOH! Post in haste, repent in leisure. Thank you for the catch. I was thinking of “spend its way to prosperity” and “spend its way out of a recession” and combined the 2 to come up with a totally incomprehensible statement.

        • philjourdan says:

          BTW: While Keynes was wrong about deficit spending, he was not stupid about it. He was merely advocating a different way to money easing – i.e. using the government to infuse money into the system. But the key to both the Keynes solution and the Austrian School solution is the same – easing money.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Go argue with this guy. http://robertreich.org/post/42027318818

      Don’t count on government, either. Government spending continues to head downward. The White House has already agreed to major spending cuts, some to go into effect this year. Coming showdowns over the next fiscal cliff, appropriations to fund government operations, and the debt ceiling will likely result in more cuts.

      More jobs and faster growth should be the most important objectives now. With them, everything else will be easier to achieve – protection against climate change, immigration reform, long-term budget reform. Without them, everything will be harder.

      Yet we’re moving in the opposite direction — following Europe’s sorry example of failed austerity economics.

      • suyts says:

        That’s fascinating. Instead of listening to the blithering idiots, have you bothered to look at the actual numbers?

      • suyts says:

        Here, in case you were still wondering what I meant by going to look at the actual numbers, Reich insists that govt spending “continues to head downward” When one bases a premise on an errant thought, the premise is wrong. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2007_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_F0t

        Spending isn’t going down, it’s increasing.

        • Latitude says:

          Didn’t the democrat congress increase spending the last two years of Bush?..and haven’t they increased spending since then?
          ….so haven’t we tried increasing spending for the last 6 years?

        • suyts says:

          We sure have. I guess Ed’s, Reich’s and Krugman’s argument is we haven’t had enough of the deficit spending…… weird. When Bush was pres, they railed against it as unpatriotic and the like. Now that they’ve doubled the deficits, they scream for more.

        • Latitude says:

          so we’ve tried this “increase spending” thing for the past 6 years….and it’s FAIL

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, maybe if we just printed some more money….. that should do it!!!! :D 6 years of fail and they still refuse to recognize the truth.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          We sure have. I guess Ed’s, Reich’s and Krugman’s argument is we haven’t had enough of the deficit spending…… weird.

          Not enough spending where it counts to boost the economy. In the lead in argument here the broken window argument was fairly criticized. The question is whether you can apply that argument outside of a textbook or whether, like Feynman’s Brazilian students, you can’t figure out what goes on when light strikes the ocean before your very eyes.

          When Bush was pres, they railed against it as unpatriotic and the like.

          Gotta be careful to identify “they.” “They,” the GOP and neo-cons (and you from all I can see at this blog), were silent on rocketing deficits. When Dick Cheney said the policy is “deficits don’t matter” the usual jackals and hyenas joined in braying at the snark.

          Now, of a sudden, deficits are supposed to matter again?

          Now that they’ve doubled the deficits, they scream for more.

          The wars were costly, but as this blog host points out, war boosts can be deceptive, especially if they are broken window type stimuli. The bank bailouts rocketed the deficits, but they were targeted ONLY at saving the financial system — they didn’t provide the economic stimulus everybody hoped would result at least indirectly. Turns out, economics systems tend to respond to demand, and the bank bailouts did nothing at all to stimulate demand, leaving the house owners broke and, too often, homeless.

          “They” who doubled the deficits were the Bush administration with complicity from Congress — doubling the deficits for mostly unnecessary war and protect-the-rich bailouts.

          Now we need stimulus to push demand among middle class workers and poor, to boost earnings of those who have jobs, and create jobs for those who don’t.

          The doubling of the deficits were not targeted at those areas, and contrary to Laffer’s claims and the best wishes of supply siders and congenital tax cutters, they did not produce a booming economy.

          Now we need economic boom, nationwide. You’re willing to double the deficits if it hurts the government and damages the nation, but unwilling to increase deficits at all to save the nation and help average citizens out. I find that odd.

        • philjourdan says:

          I do not recall the exact time when Suyts created this blog, however, I am fairly certain it was well after 2008, which means your claim that he (or anyone else) was not complaining about huge deficits before Obama is an outright lie.

          Second, while Bush had enormous deficits, unlike Obama, not all were of his making since he had 4 years of democrat control of the senate, and they spent like drunken sailors. But he is guilty of not saying no (the kinder, more compassionate conservative). Obama has had the senate all 5 (soon 6) years of his presidency, and the house for 2. And while he talks about deficit being unpatriotic (where you got your misquote from – it was always the democrats saying that), he made sure that everyone knew he was the least patriotic American in the history of the country. By his own words and measures.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Great. Those links are where?

        • philjourdan says:

          Suyts, can you provide a link for Ed on when you started your blog? I do not care to waste the time since he cannot find your history on the right side of the page.

        • suyts says:

          I certainly can! It’s fun to trip down memory lane! Here was my very first post…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/nh-snow-spring-20yrs/ March 16, 2011.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, your entirely ignore the fact that while Bush did double the deficit in 8 years, Obama spent the same amount in 4. I will grant you that many so-called conservatives were entirely too quiet about Bush’s deficits. I, and many other here, hated the bank bailouts. It was the ultimate sell-out of conservative principles. It is when the real conservative wing of the Repub party said enough was enough. Most people miss out of the fact that the TEA party came into existence in response to the bank bailout, not Obama. As far as prior to this madness, you have to understand that the real conservatives didn’t have many media outlets. Many didn’t hear us because we had no voice. If you want to take a peek inside what’s going on with conservatives vs. Repub establishment, go here….. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/03/Rove-declares-war-Tea-Party

          It’s a distinction I don’t expect many outside the argument to understand, yet. But, this has been going on for quite some time. For the record, Bush’s second term was a horrible disappointment to me and most other real conservatives, while the likes of Rove and team kept pushing him in the wrong direction. 9/11 probably gained Bush more mulligans than what he would have otherwise gotten from conservatives.

        • philjourdan says:

          What I have found one of the most frequent liberal arguments for Obama is “Bush did it first”. They make great Fahrenheit 451 firemen – they race to fire and pour fuel on it and think that solves the problem.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          What I have found one of the most frequent liberal arguments for Obama is “Bush did it first”. They make great Fahrenheit 451 firemen – they race to fire and pour fuel on it and think that solves the problem.

          What I have found one of the most frequent dilettante, and wrong, arguments for killing the government is the claim that pointing out where and when spending occurred, is “blaming it on Bush.” Of course, that’s wrong. The debt and deficits rose much more under Bush than anyone else, including Obama.

          Even some non-dilettantes say it, which raises questions about their motives, or understanding.

          But the rebuttal that it’s just saying “Bush did it” is neither responsive to the argument being made — that the spending for for two wars Bush started, and to bail out the banks, not Keynesian-style stimulus spending — nor accurate.

          Here, see what contributed to the deficits: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/06/10/193267/what-caused-the-budget-deficit/?mobile=nc

          Only through ’08, but you can get the idea: http://timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/debt-and-spending-increases-in-national-debt-to-2008-from-marion-young.jpg

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, that lie has already been debunked countless times over. The only way it increased more under bush is if you assign the Obama porkulus to Bush. Which is stupid. Bush did not propose it or pass it. Period.

          And with all that, you still did it. You blamed bush for Obama’s spending. I told everyone that liberals are so predictable.

          BTW: Did you get a chance to read Suyts first Article? He is coming up on his 2 year anniversary soon. Let’s see, if my grade school math is not rusty (since I do not have a study to prove the following), 2 < 4. Can you check me on that Mr Ed?

          Stamp your left foot for each year Obama has been in Office. Then stamp your right foot for each year Suyts blog has been around. Which foot stomped more?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Ed, your entirely ignore the fact that while Bush did double the deficit in 8 years, Obama spent the same amount in 4.

          So, your claim is that Obama should have scrapped all the bailouts done under Bush that had spending still going on during Obama’s time?

          The fact is that spending asked for by President Obama is dwarfed by the spending asked for by President Bush, and passed into laws signed by Bush.

          Some of that spending continued through the Obama years, but to claim it was Obama’s spending is to make Bush out to be a complete nothing. That’s in accurate as history, and law, and budgeting.

        • philjourdan says:

          Now I recognize you! You are Steve. A troll that does not know how to debate, but merely constructs straw men to best and then crow about how you “wupped” everyone.

          Here’s a clue for you Ed/Steve. No president can be forced to sign any bill proposed by a predecessor. None. He does not even have to sign the pay checks of SS and Medicaid. No past congress can indebt a future congress. That is why they have to vote – every year – on spending.

          So every penny spent by Obama was spent under his own signature. It matters not that FDR passed the SS Act. Obama does not have to fund it. he CHOOSES to. period.
          End of debate. now run along and tell everyone how you bested all those others with your inferior intelligence.

        • suyts says:

          Ed, it wasn’t Bush that passed the $800billion stimulus and other programs totaling nearly $1 trillion in additional spending for 2009. Many of the programs passed under Bush were left to the discretion of Obama, including the 2nd half of the bank bailouts. Do the math.

        • Latitude says:

          Wasn’t that Pelosi and a democrat congress?

        • kelly liddle says:

          I am very sympathetic to the arguments here. So it seems all agree that Obama and Bush was and is not the best. Arguing about how bad Bush was is a little irrelevant now and so to about arguing about how bad Obama is (because you are stuck with him for 4 years). The question is where to go from here and if you believe Obama is not doing the best, how shoud the public try to change his mind.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Here’s a clue for you Ed/Steve.

          I didn’t realize Dunning Kruger disease could run so deep and affect powers of discernment — or imagined powers of discernment. You’re making stuff up, or if you don’t see that, you’re hallucinating.

          Click on the name, follow the profile, Phil, or whatever your real name is.

          No president can be forced to sign any bill proposed by a predecessor. None.

          Sign, no. Follow the law, yes. Unless Congress passes a law repealing, or in those few cases where there is some executive discretion, the sitting president takes an oath to uphold the laws signed by his or her predecessor.

          He does not even have to sign the pay checks of SS and Medicaid.

          The president doesn’t sign the checks — the Secretary of the Treasury does. And the Secretary is bound to follow the laws, unless Congress repeals them; and the President is required to see that the Secretary of the Treasury follows the law. No president could simply order checks not to be paid for Social Security or Medicaid, nor Medicare, nor SNAP, nor civil service employee paychecks, nor payments to contractors.

          With precious few cases of allowed impoundments, which Congress can easily override, the president must execute the laws of the previous adminsitration.

          Bush signed the spending laws. Congress did not repeal them. The tally for the cost goes on Bush’s record, not Obama’s.

          No past congress can indebt a future congress.

          No past Congress can require that a future Congress pass any particular law. A past Congress cannot require that a future Congress pass a future authorization or appropriation bill — but the Social Security funds are not annual appropriations. It’s a fund held in trust by the federal government at the Treasury. Not subject to annual appropriations (or the GOP would have killed it by now to make more beggars out of old people). The laws that pay Social Security and Medicare are non-sunset laws. Congress does not vote on annual appropriations to Social Security; that money is paid by taxpayers, and it held in trust for them. Congress could not order that it not be paid with any ease, and if they found any loophole it’s likely the courts would close it.

          That is why they have to vote – every year – on spending.

          Some programs are called “entitlements” because the payees are entitled to the payment. Social Security is beyond that annual appropriations vote.

          Only if the Treasury itself is empty, can the president order that the debts be paid with IOUs instead of checks — and even that may not be legal. Heck, the debt ceiling may not be Constitutional, some scholars argue — precisely because it could hypothetically leave the Treasury unable to pay Social Security, defaulting on obligations the government has, contrary to the Constitution.

          So every penny spent by Obama was spent under his own signature.

          It matters not that FDR passed the SS Act. Obama does not have to fund it. he CHOOSES to. period.

          You’re really hallucinating now. By what mechanism could a president refuse to pay Social Security checks? Why didn’t Reagan do that? Why didn’t Bush I? Bush II. Please explain for us by what Constitutional mechanism, or legislative mechanism, any president can simply say “I refuse to carry out the law as the Constitution requires.”

          In the interim, you may want to check the dates, for example, on TARP:

          The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

          Bush signed it. It became law prior to Obama’s taking office. Congress has not repealed it.

          Phil said:

          End of debate. now run along and tell everyone how you bested all those others with your inferior intelligence.

          End of debate? There’s no debate here. You’ve made a wholly specious claim, that the president may simply refuse to pay the obligations of the U.S. contrary to the Constitution. You’ve provided not a whit of a scintilla of an iota of support for the claim.

          Nor have you mentioned the cost of the wars, nor the Defense Department spending, nor the prescription drug stuff, nor the massive Bush tax cuts and the deficits they caused.

          Here are the rules for impoundments, in a shorthand discussion that is quite accurate. If a president ever had the ability to just refuse to pay appropriated money, it’s gone now.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed – The president is not violating the law by not signing new spending. Period. So even “entitlements” must be authorized by congress every year. Seems you suffer from your own malady.

          never the less, you are wrong about what is called “entitlements” and what is “entitlements”. Simply put, the only “entitlement” is the servicing of the debt. ALL else is subject to legislation. SS? It changes every year, so you are not “entitled” to anything. The government is “legislatively” required to pay you. But the legislation can (and has several times) be changed. SS and Medicare are the 2 most common items called entitlements, and they are the closest to an entitlement. All the rest (which occupies 2/3rds of the budget) is DISCRETIONARY spending. No one is entitled to welfare, but the clowns in DC call it that. So all but about $360b of the budget (of more than $3.5t) is discretionary. Period.

          SS is not a trust fund or a lock box. It is a Ponzi scheme that is constantly renewed, tweaked and fiddled with as it slowly burns down to nothing. There is no trust fund in the treasury. There are a bunch of paper IOUs for the rest of the deficits that are spent. That is the fact.

          As far as not paying SS, you would have to ask Obama since he threatens to every time the debt ceiling arises. Of course they lie about that as well. Without an increase in the debt ceiling, government does not shut down. A lot of it is stopped or suspended, but since revenues continue, and amount to about $2.5t per year, that is enough both to fund the service on the debt, and the “entitlements” of SS and Medicare, and still have enough left over for congressional pork! Just not a pig’s feast. So you are wrong again. So how many times have you been wrong so far in this one wordy diatribe? I lost count, but suffice it to say that you are 0 for whatever.

          Perhaps you just need a class in English comprehension. Your problem Ed/Steve is that you think Congress writes the dictionaries. And that sound bytes are irrefutable facts. But all you have proven is that you can recite talking points, but not think very well for yourself.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          So even “entitlements” must be authorized by congress every year. Seems you suffer from your own malady

          It’s not discretionary spending, and it’s not authorized each year. It’s mandatory spending, not authorized each year.

          I’m quite willing to be educated, if you have some documents that show a different process — but what you describe is contrary to the Social Security Act, contrary to the structure of the Social Security System and trust fund (key words: “trust fund”), contrary to the process for the budget laid out in the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, and contrary to history.

          But if you have a really good source, let’s check it out. Got anything?

        • philjourdan says:

          An act does not trump the Constitution. The act cannot indebt the government. They can choose not to fund it. Period. It is discretionary. Note Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.

          That is why Congress has to pass budgets (or CRs) EVERY YEAR. No exception. No pass, no pay. Period. The only money DICTATED by the Constitution that has to be spent is servicing the debt (Amendment 14, section 3). Obama was thinking of using that to get around the debt ceiling but the truth is that would not work since the service on the debt is still less than the revenues. And that is why he did not try.

          The amount of money paid out in SS has been changed in the past. Part of the overhaul that Reagan signed changed the retirement age. By your reasoning that was impossible. No it is not. Shortly, you will have to be 67 to receive full benefits. The original law said 65. How did that change? Simple law, not a constitutional amendment.

          Again, you need to learn the meaning of words instead of using talking points for the definitions. There is no trust fund. The money is spent every year, and IOUs are placed in the stupid lock box.

          many things are contrary to the spirit of the original SS Act. Politicians, mostly being lawyers, are famous for saying “did you get that in writing?”. If not, then all the promises you hear, all the talking points you recite, do not mean a damn thing. You can continue to recite your memorization, or you learn the truth. Consult a lawyer. Or just get an education.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Dear Host,

          Another post has been snagged by your moderation filters, probably for too many links. Please spring it. Phil needs the information.

          Thank you.

        • suyts says:

          Sorry Ed. Yes, there’s a two link limit. If I don’t put it in there I’ll get about 200 spam comments a day.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Are you using Akismet? I find it works great, and allows a lot more links, for better discussion. It’s free on WordPress.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Phil said:

          An act does not trump the Constitution. The act cannot indebt the government. They can choose not to fund it. Period. It is discretionary. Note Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.

          Under the Social Security Act, however, the government has agreed to put funds in trust — that is, these are not tax revenues in the general fund which can be appropriated or not. These funds carry an obligation to pay them out as agreed. They are not subject to annual appropriations.

          In practice, especially since the Reagan administration, Social Security trust funds are loaned to the government — but the fiduciary duty remains with the government to watch out for that money, and to pay it out in Social Security benefits. You raise an interesting question, about what would happen were the Congress to decide to default on that obligation; but that’s a hypothetical that most patriots understand even the Tea Party is probably not stupid enough to try to test. We hope.

          Above I offered to you a definition of mandatory spending, as opposed to discretionary spending. You have not recognized the difference anywhere in your response.

          Social Security funds fall into the mandatory spending category.

          That is why Congress has to pass budgets (or CRs) EVERY YEAR. No exception.

          Well I know, having been present at the creation of some of the earliest Continuing Resolutions and the debate to establish the budget process and budget committees.

          However, if you look at the continuing resolutions, they neither authorize nor appropriate spending for Social Security payouts. Not necessary, since that is mandatory, and not discretionary spending. (Same with paying the service on the debt.) CRs cover discretionary spending, and the financing for mandatory spending, if there is to be a change in that financing. The CRs do not include a provision that appropriates money to go to Social Security recipients — that is a permanent law, and mandatory spending. It’s already been done, and it will be paid unless Congress interferes.

          No pass, no pay. Period.

          Not with Social Security; if there is no CR, then there is no money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund; if that fund has zero reserves, there would be a problem because the IOUs are due — but the Social Security money could be stopped ONLY if the Congress fails to provide a way to repay the IOUs in the Treasury for the trust fund. The reason this would be a default is because it is NOT subject to the annual appropriations process, but is instead a permanent obligation.

          The only money DICTATED by the Constitution that has to be spent is servicing the debt (Amendment 14, section 3).

          For purposes of our discussion here, Social Security payments are made out of money that is servicing on the debt, repaying the IOUs in the Trust Fund (with interest). So, the Constitution dictates that the money must be paid into the Social Security trust fund, the money that was previously borrowed from it. Had that money not been borrowed, then the Social Security payments continue as always, regardless what Congress does on CRs. Some of us believe the U.S. should abandon the GOP-inspired deception, and just pay back the trust fund so there is no question about this shell game. To our host, that would be unnecessary Keynesian spending. In truth, it has much stabilizing effect — but technically, it’s not what Keynes had in mind. Social Security is a brilliant creation with regard to the way it stabilized the economy and prevents poverty, and it should be expanded.

          But the checks grandma gets every month are not dependent on the CR, unless the CR screws up the Constitutional obligation to pay back the trust fund.

          Social Security is not part of the annual appropriation. It’s part of the budget, because it’s mandatory spending. But it’s not an annual appropriation.

          Obama was thinking of using that to get around the debt ceiling but the truth is that would not work since the service on the debt is still less than the revenues. And that is why he did not try.

          Debt ceiling is entirely about service on the debt, required to be paid. Most commentators understand there is no Constitutional requirement for a debt ceiling at all. Obama’s right to call the GOP bluff, because it exposes their position as wrong — but it’s not required, still. Service on the debt is necessary for PAST spending, not future spending. Debt ceiling has nothing whatever to do with the size of the deficits, except to expand them with maneuvers required when the GOP gets stupid. (Or if anyone else gets stupid; but that’s not what we see historically.)

          Pay attention to what you’re saying next; you’re so close to understanding.

          The amount of money paid out in SS has been changed in the past. Part of the overhaul that Reagan signed changed the retirement age. By your reasoning that was impossible. No it is not. Shortly, you will have to be 67 to receive full benefits. The original law said 65. How did that change? Simple law, not a constitutional amendment.

          These laws cover only future obligations, and they become part of the mandatory spending. They require Congress to change the law — and as you have made yourself aware here, it is not done annually.

          Again, you need to learn the meaning of words instead of using talking points for the definitions. There is no trust fund. The money is spent every year, and IOUs are placed in the stupid lock box.

          There is a trust fund. The money in the fund has been lent out in the most secure debt possible, U.S. Treasury obligations. Yes, the lock box is full of IOUs. Social Security payments do not become part of the annual appropriation because of that, however. The funds become part of that debt the U.S. is required to pay by the Constitution. On two counts, then, is Social Security mandatory spending, not discretionary.

          many things are contrary to the spirit of the original SS Act. Politicians, mostly being lawyers, are famous for saying “did you get that in writing?”. If not, then all the promises you hear, all the talking points you recite, do not mean a damn thing. You can continue to recite your memorization, or you learn the truth. Consult a lawyer. Or just get an education.

          You just did consult a lawyer, one who has the education. You should take your own advice. Your non-talking points do not alter anyone’s talking points based on the law.

          The First Amendment gives you the right to foolishly reject the truth, to believe any fool thing you wish. But it does not require that, nor does it encourage it.

          You got to the point about “consulting a lawyer,” and by yourself you ran smash into the facts. Then you picked yourself up and ran off in the opposite direction as if nothing had happened. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker less profanely, you can lead a person to the facts, but you can’t make ‘em think.

        • philjourdan says:

          There is no trust fund – there is a ledger. And to demonstrate your complete ignorance on the subject, Reagan did nothing new to the accounting. He did change the requirements for attaining benefits. The money was lent out to the rest of the government from day 1 (FDR). And LBJ mixed it with the rest of the budget to hide the true size of the deficit. So your ignorant attempted slam is duly noted and debunked. Now for the rest of education:

          Above I offered to you a definition of mandatory spending, as opposed to discretionary spending. You have not recognized the difference anywhere in your response.

          No, you gave me dictionary definitions. I gave you chapter and verse of the constitution. The only mandatory spending is the debt, as defined in Amendment 14. ALL other is discretionary. Period. Some is mandated by law (laws are easily changed), but laws that do not get funding are not very effective are they? And there is nothing in the constitution requiring congress to fund any law.

          However, if you look at the continuing resolutions, they neither authorize nor appropriate spending for Social Security payouts. Not necessary,

          Both necessary and a part of the CRs passed. What does happen is they are passed on voice vote as they are not considered either controversial or open to debate (the 3rd rail), but the Congressional record shows they are voted on and funded every year.

          For purposes of our discussion here

          No, no discussion. Sorry, it is all an accounting gimmick. SS is part of the revenue that COULD fund the debt service, but is not necessary. In the end, SS is not a promissory note (which would be a mandate), but a gentleman’s agreement. Which any native American will tell you is not worth the paper it is printed on. The government has already lied and betrayed a number of people by promising them one thing, and then 20 years after working under that promise, changed it – unilaterally. It is not honorable, but it is legal.

          Most commentators understand there is no Constitutional requirement for a debt ceiling at all.

          Only democrat ones. The constitutional requirement comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. CONGRESS has the authority, not the president. Congress gets to make the rules. Those who claim “no constitutional requirement” are woefully ignorant of the separation of powers and of the constitution itself.

          You just did consult a lawyer, one who has the education. You should take your own advice. Your non-talking points do not alter anyone’s talking points based on the law.

          Sorry, I have consulted no lawyers. If you are insinuating you are a lawyer (I did not consult you), that merely demonstrates your ignorance. And probably a gross lie on your part since you have no clue what a consultation is. (Perhaps you are my Ex wife’s lawyer? Then I would believe it since she was an incompetent quota kid – not that I mind).

          Sadly, your long and wordy diatribe ends with another lie: “ran smash into the facts” – No, like Tony and the rest of the Parrots, you have presented no facts, merely opinions. And not even sourced opinions, merely foolish ones.

          While I freely admit I have presented some opinions, I have also presented many facts, sourced from the founding document of this country (I cannot speak for all countries).

          Yep! That was you on the radio yesterday: “No, I’m a Democrat, and I know exactly what the hell I’m talking about.”

          Sorry, but your party card carries no weight here, nor are we bound to believe in fairy tales.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Yep! That was you on the radio yesterday: “No, I’m a Democrat, and I know exactly what the hell I’m talking about.”

          Hearing voices is a sign you need to see your physician. (Not that you know what my voice sounds like, but whatever you thought you heard, was not mine.)

          Step away from the computer. Go take a walk. Get some coffee, or tea, or some other source of caffeine. Take a break. Things will look better in the morning, after a good night’s sleep.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, do you “see” voices on the radio? I only “hear” them. Sometimes in song, sometimes with a comment. But I guess everyone who “hears” voices on the radio according to you are looney tunes?

          And you know this how? From your Party registration card?

          I also noted you did not distance yourself from the comment.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          You “notice” a lot of stuff that is not real.

          Whatever you “heard” on the radio, wasn’t me, wasn’t my thoughts — and your hallucinations get farther from being responsive.

          Seriously. Take a break.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, if you are hallucinating, that does not mean we all are. Your denial of the commenter heard was all you needed to do. The similarity between your arguments and that of the quoted commentator was close enough to cause me to take note of it, nothing more.

          The rest of your ad hominems merely display your childish temperament. Try to just stick to the issue.

          I am glad to hear you do not think your card makes you intelligent. So what do you think does?

      • philjourdan says:

        ROFL!!!!! You cannot argue with an imbecile! Reich is a total incompetent that has no background in economics, only in political thought! I thought you would try to trot out Krugman, who at least has a degree in Economics, but is no more than the Architect of the Enron Collapse (and that is his vision for the US).

        • Ed Darrell says:

          You’re right. You can’t effectively argue with an imbecile.

          What you call someone who denies that a guy is competent to argue economics when the guy has advanced degree from Oxford in Economics (Rhodes Scholar), Federal Trade Commission policy experience, was Secretary of Labor (Time Magazine named him one of the ten best cabinet secretaries of the past 100 years), and has devoted 40 years to studying economics, has been a professor in economics at three of the nation’s best universities teaching a wildly popular and emulated course called “Wealth and Poverty,” and who wrote the follow-up to Adam Smith’s book, The Work of Nations.?

          One might be justified in getting the impression that someone who calls Reich unqualified to argue economics, an “imbecile.” Certainly that person is not demonstrating command of the evidence, nor even due regard.

          That’s your best argument?

        • philjourdan says:

          I know of plenty of people that have advanced degrees. And what they prove is that they refuse to learn once they get the sheepskin. Reich is just such a person. He passed the tests, and learned nothing. What has he ever pontificated on that has any bearing in economic reality.

          I guess you love argumentum ad verecundiam. You are probably a warmist as well.

          Reich knows less about economics than you do. What he has an advanced degree in is Political rhetoric.

          Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar as well – only because he was too chicken to join the military. If you want the initials, pass the tests. That does not mean you know or understand anything. Reich is just that person.

  25. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    Ed Darrell says:
    February 3, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Bogus economics. It’s like creationism, or flat-Eartherism. Entertaining, but bogus. Not for making policy.

    I thought you were serious about economics.
    <<

    We don’t know about climate, because we aren’t climate scientists. We don’t know about economics, because we aren’t economists. I see a pattern here.

    Jim 8-)

    • suyts says:

      Lol, but, even if we were, he’d reject our notions, just as he does Drs Mitchell and Sowell. Apparently I stumped him on the quote I provided here…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/keynesian-theory-destroyed-by-sandy-storm/#comment-50426

      We do have a frequent commenter who is an economist, but, I’m pretty sure Ed would reject his notions, as well.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      You don’t know because you don’t know. Ignorance is curable. I didn’t say you didn’t know because you weren’t an expert. I said that Laffer and “supply side” economics are bogus.

      Disagree? Let’s see your evidence.

    • philjourdan says:

      I may not know about climate, all I can do is view the data.

      But I am an economist.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Great! Explain it. “Supply side” economics is a political code word for “tax cuts,” and it doesn’t work. Supply becomes oversupply, or stupid buying decision, without demand. Period. Econ 100.

        • philjourdan says:

          I will not explain your strawmen. You have to do that. I stated:

          “Supply side” is a derogatory term for wealth creation. You need to learn to read.

          Wealth Creation has always worked. America was not created with a $16t GDP. Not even close.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Wealth creation works, yes. Laffer Curve, supply side, tax cuts, are not paths to wealth creation.

        • philjourdan says:

          What is the path to wealth creation?

          And at least you now addressed what I SAID. So perhaps you would like to refute it? merely denying the existence is not a refutation.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Phil, yesterday someone offered a blog post at Town Hall as economic analysis that supply side and spending cuts in recession work to expand an economy. Since, as you say, you’re an economist, surely you can provide citations to serious economic works that demonstrate the principles work in the real world, yes?

        • philjourdan says:

          What principles are those Ed? The principle of action and reaction?
          you either do not know what you are asking, or are trying to construct a strawman. I cannot answer the first, and I refuse to play your childish games in the second.

      • suyts says:

        Ed, I asked what you would accept as proof that the Laffer curve does work. Now you’re saying tax cuts don’t work. What is your definition of what works and what doesn’t?

        BTW, I’ve another post coming up in which this conversation may be more topical.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          How about a couple of studies that show that cutting taxes always produces better economics effects? Serious studies I’ve seen show that, with conditions just right, a cut in tax rates coincides with a rise in tax take for the government to the extent that causation cannot be ruled out (though it can’t be conclusively stated either). Kennedy’s tax cuts came in an expanding economy. Reagan’s tax cuts were offset by nearly a dozen other tax increases. Bush’s tax cuts led almost directly to disaster.

          Where is the economic theory, good enough at least for a college text, which suggests tax cuts and spending cuts work well in a recession like the one we’re in now, where unemployment and stagnant incomes have stifled demand in almost all areas?

        • philjourdan says:

          So let me get this straight. You need a study to read economic indicators?

          And what study would that be? English comprehension? Math 101?

        • kelly liddle says:

          “How about a couple of studies that show that cutting taxes always produces better economics effects?”

          But why nobody would be so stupid as to claim that. A 0% rate would mean no government or law and order so obviously it can’t always be good.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          So let me get this straight. You need a study to read economic indicators?

          And what study would that be? English comprehension? Math 101?

          Phil, the D-J Index just passed 14,000 on the way up. By that market indicator, Obama’s been spectacularly successful. Surely it indicates that the “stimulus” derided in this thread has been wildly successful for businesses.

          So, how to explain unemployment? How to explain declining wages?

          What I asked for was a study that shows Laffer has anything other than a hazy idea that sometimes, though he can’t tell when, cutting taxes is a way to increase tax revenues, and more deeply, that cutting taxes and reducing federal deficits is a road to prosperity.

          I’m sure you have exceptions, and lots of them from the nattering nabobs at Town Hall. Got serious economic studies? By whom, where?

        • suyts says:

          Ed, you’re more than welcome to remain on this thread and discuss things. But, you seem confused about the supposed utility of the Laffer curve. It simply rephrases concepts which have been well accepted prior to his articulation. You inspired me to write a post on it. Go here for a discussion on the Laffer curve.

          As to the stock market….. adjusted for inflation, that 14,000 doesn’t hold much water. Go here.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually Ed, the DJ just passed 14k on the way DOWN. Try to keep up with the news. And the DJ is not an accurate indicator of the economy when the Feds are pouring in $80b/month. Bernanke has been spectacularly successful. Just like GM when you pour $80b into a bankrupt company and let them keep $25-40b of it, of course they are going to survive! At least until they burn through it. That does not make the Volt a best selling car.

          And again, what studies do you need to read economic data? You do not have to go to Townhall to read the economic growth of the 80s or even the early 21st century. Both started with a recession (like Obama did) and both had growth way above anything Obama has had in his entire 4 years cumulative! So you want to study that 8% > 2%? Be my guest! I learned that is grade school math.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          And the DJ is not an accurate indicator of the economy when the Feds are pouring in $80b/month.

          So, let’s get this straight: You need a study to explain the economic indicators?

        • philjourdan says:

          I do not know Ed. You wanted the study to prove that 8% is greater than 2%. As for economic indicators, I would suggest you actually look them up. The DJ is not one of them, leading or lagging. Or do you need a study in how to read a government web site as well?

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar as well – only because he was too chicken to join the military

    Phil, do you really expect me to believe you’re that ill-informed about how the world works?

    Or, that you really can’t read a calendar?

    • philjourdan says:

      Ah Ed! Having lost the debate, you resort to senseless accusations, and veiled ad hominems. I heard you yesterday. Nice call-in. For those that missed it, I will quote one of Ed’s other persona’s:

      “No, I’m a Democrat, and I know exactly what the hell I’m talking about. ”

      Note the lack of any sourcing or facts. Just the declaration. Democrat = knowing what you are talking about. Must be nice living in that fantasy world. Where all one has to do to become omniscient is to join a party – and POOF! it is bestowed on them.

      For those who do not care to associate with said party, we always thought that knowledge was gained through learning. How silly. No wonder democrats think they are so smart. They were imbued with omniscient when they signed that club card!

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Phil, I can’t find where you posted the views of the economists who favor cutting spending in a recession, nor who defend anything else. I asked where you posted it, because I can’t find it.

        If you can’t find it either, then I guess the discussion is done.

        • philjourdan says:

          Still moving the goal posts I see. That was not your ORIGINAL request. I clearly stated, having fulfilled your initial request, that I would not link to the quotes until you satisfied 2 conditions. You have yet to satisfy either.

          I can find them easily. You just cannot communicate clearly or admit when you are wrong. Which is kind of surprising for someone who pretends they are a lawyer. Who apparently also does not know the law.

          Major fail on your part. I guess you were my ex-wife attorney. Did she ever sue you for malpractice as she promised?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Phil, if you can’t point the way to the posts you claim are there, who can?

          When you find your information, let me know. I’m not responsible for your homework. I don’t give credit for arguments claimed to be made that I didn’t see, and that your dog appears to have eaten.

          Good luck.

        • philjourdan says:

          Ed, I not only pointed to your post, I requoted it. If you cannot read or understand the written language (or your own writings), I would suggest an ESL course. As I said, I jumped through your first hoop, and will not jump through any more until you do 2 things. And if you have already forgotten them (understandable in light of your demonstrated gold fish memory), that is NMP.

          So once again, man up or shut up. I care not a wit which you do.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        So, Phil, do you really claim that the Rhodes Foundation picked Clinton to help him get out of the draft? How do you explain his having finished his studies at Oxford before the draft board called?

        • philjourdan says:

          Are you thread impaired ed? I attached no motives to the Rhodes committee. Perhaps English 101 is what you need.

          Perhaps you may want to join Dorothy on her way to Oz. She is in need of a new Scarecrow since the last one got a brain.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar as well – only because he was too chicken to join the military.

          Please explain: How does one get to be a Rhodes Scholar by avoiding military service?

        • philjourdan says:

          Mr. Scarecrow, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

          Sorry, I am not chasing your straw men down your rabbit hole. I never said that becoming a Rhodes Scholar is attained by avoiding the draft.

          Next scarecrow?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          I have an odd hearing loss and color blindness. I can’t hear the whine of an idiot, and I can’t see non-existent lettering in a white space. You shouldn’t mock your fellow handicappees.

        • philjourdan says:

          So you cannot hear yourself? That is indeed a handicap.

          And I guess you cannot distinguish white from black since that is the lettering on this page. A shame. And I thought you actually had a brain. My bad.

          But continue to insult your fellow handicapped people. And try to learn how to reply. Since you are posting, it is just a matter of learning how to reply. You can do that much can you not?

  27. LLAP says:

    Thomas Sowell on the future of social security:

  28. Ed Darrell says:

    Bill Clinton points out again that deficit problems can’t be solved with “austerity,” noting the damage it’s done to Europe: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/08/1564021/bill-clinton-austerity/

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    Phil, Suyts, I found the intellectual foundations of your economic ideas, Hearsay Economics: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/hearsay-economics/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20130212

    • PhilJourdan says:

      You quote a quack, on a blog, who is only using hearsay and you found what? Your opinion? Well that proves you have to be told what to think.

      Sorry if I do not bother to waste time reading Krugman. I have already debunked him. And apparently your specious claims of being a lawyer.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        I quote a Nobel Prize-winning economist, with a long history of being correct and incisive in economics and public policy matters, who cites the actual evidence.

        No surprise to anyone else, but when we look at the facts and history, and we do real math, the conclusions you drew don’t result.

        So, of course, you argue that the Nobel Prize winner is a quack, only writing on a blog.

        Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, right?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          You quote a nobel prize winning economist. There is no evidence of ANY history of him being correct. Obama is a nobel prize winning clown. As is Al Gore, Yassar Arafact, Jimmy Carter, and the IPCC – none of which have been correct YET. So if you include him in that group (easy to do since they share one common bond), then we can safely say he is a Prize Winning Nobel Economist that is never correct.

          On the other hand, Milton Friedman is a Nobel Prize Winning Economist that has yet to be proven wrong. And he shares nothing in common with Krugman except the prize, the former earned, the latter not.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Krugman won his prize in economics. Disappointed, but not surprised in the lease, that you don’t know the difference between economics and peace.

          No doubt you dismiss Big Bang because Wilson and Penzias won Nobel, and the photoelectric effect — after all, Einstein won his Nobel for it.

          No one more badly informed that the man who will not read, Twain said.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          RIF – If you had, you would know I said that he won his prize in economics. That however does not change the fact that they mean nothing these days as the list of winners I gave you demonstrate. Do you even know why he won it? Now I know you will run off and google it, but let me clue you in. It was not original work. It was massaging of other people’s work. In other words, he won for being a good apprentice.

          Now want to guess what Milton won his for? Run to google so you can know.

          And next time, try reading. And keep your stupid “creationist” theories to yourself.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Jealousy is ugly.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          correcting your ignorance is not jealousy. It is merely that of a teacher correcting a child. As I said, RIF. It is plain to see that you cannot.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Try reading what Friedman wrote. We’re all from Missouri on your ability to read the arguments. Show us.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          I just quoted him Ed. Can you read the quotes? Do I have to use a primer with you and get you to learn to read?

          Ed, the last thing YOU can do is teach me about Friedman. And since you have a handicap with English, I do not guess anyone can teach you about Friedman either.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          On the other hand, Milton Friedman is a Nobel Prize Winning Economist that has yet to be proven wrong. And he shares nothing in common with Krugman except the prize, the former earned, the latter not.

          Oh, Friedman shares Krugman’s view that cutting spending now is the wrong thing to do. I mentioned that earlier — Friedman’s complaint with Keynes ends in a recession, pretty much. Milton Friedman does NOT urge governments to sit back and do nothing while an economy tanks. Friedman urged radical free marketry to fight inflation, not depression.

          We do not live in an inflationary time. Friedman’s text agrees with Krugman, and completely disagrees with the Tea Party and the GOP, which is why they never quote Friedman defending their position. Friedman opposed their position.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Friedman does not advocate Government doing anything. He knows they can only make things worse. Nor is Krugman talking about Keynes theory as Keynes theory is not being used. Which shows you do not know what you are talking about.

          Friedman is a Monetarist (Austrian School). Which are opposed to Keynesians. But there no Keynesians around since they long ago destroyed what he was talking about. Indeed, I guess you can say that Obama is a Krugmanite – which does not exist, but then neither does any economic theory that can explain the stupidity of his regime.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          Ed Darrell says:
          February 12, 2013 at 3:28 pm

          No doubt you dismiss Big Bang because Wilson and Penzias won Nobel, and the photoelectric effect — after all, Einstein won his Nobel for it.
          <<

          Wilson and Penzias won their Nobel for discovering the CMB. The “Big Bang” phrase is attributed to Hoyle who was ridiculing the idea. The CMB dates to a time when the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow hydrogen to become transparent and free radiation. You don’t actually see the “Big Bang.”

          Einstein submitted three papers at the same time and won the Nobel for the photoelectric effect. He’s known for the other paper on Special Relativity. Einstein even helped Planck with his homework, but after he saw where QM was heading he disavowed it.

          Also, at the time, Einstein was working in the patent office and not as a physicist. According to warmists, that should invalidate his work.

          Jim 8-)

        • kelly liddle says:

          Has there been a Keynesian government policy in the US ever? “New Keynesian” maybe. Keynes believed in balanced budgets on average didn’t he?

          The government has continued to grow as a proportion of GDP and it is questionable that there has been any surplus in the US Federal Government over the last 60 years as debt has continued to increase year on year every year.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          FDR tried to use him as justification for his new deal. But as you see, that was not Keynes.

          And I object to the term “new Keynes”. Keynes is dead. What Obama is trying is Kruganomics. Not anything Keynes would want his name associated with.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Phil, it would do you well to read what Friedman actually said, and supported. Here he describes his split with Keynesianism — over stagflation — and his support for policies in a recession that you oppose.

        Even when you cite Friedman, you’re on the wrong side of the Nobel-winning economics.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Not too bright there are you Ed. You apparently think “Keynesian” and “John Maynard Keynes” are synonymous. That is mistake #1. I am not the one trashing Keynes. I have stated he was a great economist (nice of you to change from Krugman to Keynes – BTW). You seem to think that he only accomplished one thing in life. That is your problem.

          As I stated, Krugman is not talking about “Keynesian” economics because it has never been tried. What you apparently ignorantly THINK is Keynesian economics is merely liberal deficit spending (regardless of who does it). Keynes advocated a SHORT term, deficit spending to infuse money into the market in the event of a downturn. PERIOD. The deficit would be paid for by the increase in tax revenues AFTER the short term deficit spending.

          SO tell me when was the last time there was NOT Deficit spending? Needless to say, deficit spending has not been short term. Ergo, the economics you apparently SUPPORT is Krugman economics, not Keynesian economics.

          You should learn to read. It would help prevent you from constantly making a fool of yourself.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Not too bright there are you Ed.

          I don’t have to run faster than the bear, just faster than you. I can’t compete in the pure insult department, of course. But when it comes to reading what these guys actually wrote, we can all do that.

          You should try it sometime.

          Still waiting for you to offer evidence any economist agrees with you, but expecting you’ll never find what you thought you had once found and what you claimed to have cited.

          Make the case. Still waiting for that.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          So bears are chasing you now, eh Ed? Apparently you cannot run faster, or read better. Indeed, your comments have indicated you cannot read at all.

          There have been no insults. Merely observations based upon your rantings. If I call you stupid, that is an insult. If I call you ignorant, that is an observation.

          Still waiting for YOU to provide 2 things. I have proven every rebuttal to your opinions you have raised. If you do not know how to write or read, that would explain why you are still waiting for answers.

          Try an Adult Ed class Ed – for that English problem you apparently have.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Phil, do you have any defense for your claims?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Gee Ed, are you questioning the quotes? You supplied the link, but no one can make you read your own links.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Keynes advocated a SHORT term, deficit spending to infuse money into the market in the event of a downturn. PERIOD. The deficit would be paid for by the increase in tax revenues AFTER the short term deficit spending.

          So does Friedman. That’s the point.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          No, you are promoting Krugman, not Keynes. Sorry, you cannot move the goal posts.

          But I will guess you did not read your own link. Let me help you:

          “as I studied the facts, they seemed to me to contradict what Keynesian theory would call for. ”

          ” And Keynes’s theory, in my opinion, was one of those very productive hypotheses — a very ingenious one, a very intelligent one. It just turned out to be incompatible with the facts when it was put to the test.”

          ” But if you looked at those periods when fiscal policy went in one direction and monetary policy went in another direction, invariably it was what happened to monetary policy that determined matters.”

          “The public event that changed the opinion of the profession and of people at large was the stagflation of the 1970s, because under the Keynesian view, that was a period in which you had a very expansive fiscal policy, in which you should have had a great expansion in the economy. And instead you had two things at the same time, which under the Keynesian view would have been impossible:”

          Seems to me that you either did not read your link, or are simply a liar there Ed.

          Do you feel a bit shamed now Ed?

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Why would I be ashamed for your diddling the quotes, Phil? Perhaps a bit embarrassed that I overestimated your ethics, but not ashamed, no. I can’t feel shame for you.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Diddling the quotes? So you admit you did NOT read your link? I diddled nothing. I copied and pasted and put quote marks around them so you could read them easily.

          You are a shame, and an embarrassment. How much to yourself can only be measured by if you have any Ethics left.

          You are an idiot! (and yes, that is an ad hominem – but also an accurate description).

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Gee Ed, are you questioning the quotes? You supplied the link, but no one can make you read your own links.

          Without looking at your face and seeing other clues, I can’t tell whether you’re genuinely unable to tell that you have offered no quotes, or forgot that you have offered none, or whether you’re just prevaricating for the sheer sociopathic joy of it.

          Nor did you read what Friedman said. You mis-cite quotes from Friedman about other circumstances, other disagreements with Keynes, but you offer nothing, zero, zip of your own.

          So, I can’t learn from you when you only misquote what I have given you. Go try to offer your teaching services to someone else — and please pick a topic where you might actually offer good information.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          RIF Ed – Everyone but you can read them. You even responded to them, implying they were cooked. Try again:

          “as I studied the facts, they seemed to me to contradict what Keynesian theory would call for. ”

          ” And Keynes’s theory, in my opinion, was one of those very productive hypotheses — a very ingenious one, a very intelligent one. It just turned out to be incompatible with the facts when it was put to the test.”

          ” But if you looked at those periods when fiscal policy went in one direction and monetary policy went in another direction, invariably it was what happened to monetary policy that determined matters.”

          “The public event that changed the opinion of the profession and of people at large was the stagflation of the 1970s, because under the Keynesian view, that was a period in which you had a very expansive fiscal policy, in which you should have had a great expansion in the economy. And instead you had two things at the same time, which under the Keynesian view would have been impossible:”

          These are from YOUR link. Apparently you answered the Ethics question- you have none. You lie very badly.

    • suyts says:

      LOL, you want to try again, sparky? I source my graphs, I show the numbers, and I never, never, never, try to deceive people with graphing Log of anything without explicitly highlighting exactly what it is and explaining what it is.

      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_F0f

      Ed, we’ve had many, many economic posts since this one. Your views would be an interesting addition to the various conversations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s