Intriguing article with many juicy graphics from the Belgian economic think tank, WorkForAll. It shows quite clearly the economic nosedive into which we’d be thrown by the ignorant socialist economic policies the Dems want to enact. It demonstrates and explains the rapid growth of Ireland (from 22nd to 4th in the EU in a generation) and the needless stagnation and waste enjoyed by Belgium and the rest. The site’s library also has links to free downloads of several classic works to educate you on basic economic theory. Recommended for those who are strapped for time: Economics in One Lesson.
I say ban the spectre of prosperity, economic growth and full employment. If we all put our backs into voting Democratic this fall, we may yet be able to make the United States a third-world country in our lifetimes!
Updated: Now with 2.6% less unemployment!
In mixing it up with Monkyboy, it occurs to me that one of the single greatest factors contributing to his knee-jerk leftism is his absolute ignorance of basic economic principles. If one’s political philosophy is based in good measure on one’s economic philosophy, then an ignorance of the role of the Scottish Enlightenment in human progress is a recipe for disaster. Kids are daily dosed with anti-capitalism, which nurtures self-loathing and anti-Americanism. If you want your children to be able to maintain their intellectual independence, teach them how free market economies can elevate the condition of humankind before they get to high school. It may innoculate them from some of the more corrosive fallacies the Left is pumping into them. This is not to say that capitalism is perfect, but it plays an important role in human progress.
Vote Democrat–it beats working!
Swedish government public sector spending: 58.2% of GDP!!!!!
Holy Socialist state, Batman!!!
Yes, that’s called the ‘Myth of Swedish Economic Development’. It’s similar to Persephone being stuck in Hades, only without the yearly escape clause.
China’s economy has been growing at a rate of 10% a year for more than a decade.
Our economic “experts” say that it’s because they’re moving towards an American style economy.
But…if you look at America’s economic growth over the last century, our economy has never grown anywhere near 10% a year, except one decade…
When FDR and his “lefties” were running the show…
***sigh*** ahem, I’ve reached my economic idiocy limit for today.Would you please educate chimp-anus as to why his comment is just complete nonsense?
Thanks!
Well, lessee… FDR takes office at the tail end of what is commonly referred to as “the Great Depression.” Economy recovers due in large part due to a global war that breaks out on his shift.
Fast-forward to late 20th century – Mao basically ensures that China’s already-poor economy goes in the crapper with Sino-style Communism which is abandoned in the 1990s for Western-style capitalism. Economy grows in unprecedented fashion.
10% growth is easy if you’re starting with nothing. I mean, monkyboy could say exactly nothing and his perceived intelligence would go up 10% or more.
I’m assuming monkyboy isn’t serious, or hasn’t looked really hard at the growth literature.
Bad assumption, Dr Steve.
I don’t think that chimp-anus has the integrety to engage in anything resembling a logical discourse. I’ve come to the opinion that he’s the ultimate poo-slinger troll. He just throws stuff out there hoping that it will stick (monkey feces like) and then runs chattering at himself at how “well” he’s tweaked the ‘Thugs.
Actus is a snipe and move dissembler, which is 1 or 2 rungs up the evolutionary debate ladder. David is a partisan digital loop machine who will repeat the same contention over and over, astonished at your refusal to simply accept his superior expertise.
Which is why I wrote that I miss Anony-Mouse, even though I abused him a while back. At least he attempts to engage in an exchange of ideas even if we aren’t going to agree on much.
My advise, ignore chimp-anus, bait david and laugh at the the way the loop runs over and over. Leave actus to Karl who will remind us what a fierce dissembler he is. Embrace Anony-Mouse and Scott Eric (if he ever comes back as I…er…ah…kinda abused him as well.)
Monkyboy isn’t serious. By that I don’t mean that he is joking. I mean that he would actually have to get serious to be joking.
Or…..he’s just a joke, sort of a parody of himself.
And I suppose you believe it’s all those communist fat cats sitting around creating wealth out of thin air? How can they? Communist/socialist economies create nothing. They can only share what someone else has created. Usually they confiscate it. Sometimes at gunpoint.
I would venture to guess that China’s success has something to do with the fact that Nixon repaired our relationship with China, thus opening the way for China to gain access to the American market. It’s called ‘capitalism’. I realize they don’t teach you anything about it these days. You’d be surprised what you’ve missed.
See, the Chinese manufacture something Americans want/need and then we pay them a reasonable price when we buy it from them. If we didn’t want it, they wouldn’t make it. And vice versa. It’s a win-win.
In fact, it’s so win-win, it’s now win-lose because virtually all America’s manufacturing jobs have gone to China. They can produce goods cheaper because they have no unions artificially driving up their worker’s wages so they can’t make a viable profit. They pay workers whatever the market will bear. I’ll bet the underpants you’re wearing were made in China. Go on, look at the label. See? I’m right.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the Chinese opened their own markets to us so the commerce between our countries were relatively equal, like a fair
trade. But they don’t. It’s a one-way street. Thus, the trade deficit. All your dollars are belong to China.
Professional economists tend to recognize capitalism when they see it–it’s on the test–so they must be correct. You owe it to yourself to find out more about capitalism. It’s the reason we’re communicating via computer instead of smoke signals.
You’re just plain incorrect there. Refer to a history of the stock market. Apparently all that wealth is an illusion. You don’t know how money works.
And a reminder, war economies differ slightly from those of peace time. Also, economic policies take time to bear fruit, they don’t happen overnight. So, Hoover gets stuck with Coolidge’s bill and Clinton takes bows for Reagan’s policies. In other words, Dems tend to inherit great economies and Repubs tend to inherit crappy ones.
One economic legacy FDR can take credit for is the introduction of the now-discredited economics of John Maynard Keynes. Basically, Keynes shoehorns the government into the natural
relationship of producer/consumer, thereby creating artificial relationships that purport to represent economic vitality, but which actually don’t. The government produces nothing. All it can produce are make-work programs and handouts. Of course, they served a purpose at one time, during the Depression. Unfortunately, Dems still believe in them.
You’ve got a lot of reading to do, Monky.
It’s not like economics is a real science, ahem.
If it was, we could turn back the clock, try out different economic policies and then measure which one works best. There would be no need to even debate this matter.
Instead, what economics gives us is stories that attempt to “explain” what happened in the past.
There are often competing stories and which one people believe tends to be the ones that reinforce their perrsonal biases.
Here’s some reading for you:
Our current real growth rate (2.6%):
http://tinyurl.com/yg6ukn
Here’s China’s current growth rate (10.5%):
http://tinyurl.com/yzdsr9
China now exports more goods and services to the world than America does. They are also exporting automobiles, computers, medical devices, military hardware…just like us. Their economy is advanced as ours now.
We also depend on them for cash to keep our economy running.
Starting from “zero” may explain China’s growth rate 20 years ago, but it doesn’t explain their current high rate of growth.
Allow me to float my own story about why China’s economy is growing so fast and America’s is growing so slowly:
Government spending matters.
China’s government is currently investing in roads, ports, dams, airports, power grids, oil refineries, etc….the kinds of things America built during FDR’s time (and we still rely on today). The kinds of things that generate economic growth.
Not only that, they are investing that money efficiently (they execute corrupt officials, btw).
America’s government, otoh, is spending it’s money on consumption, mainly our wars, that generate little economic growth in the future.
THE END
good lord! i’m getting motion sick from shaking my head so much.
“THE END”? Why, he must have said all there is to say!
All right, everyone pack up and go home. Monky just told us the answer to life, the universe. and everything. Douglas Adams will be sad to know he was wrong and the answer is actually, “Don’t be America.”
One of the things I came away with from the “nation building we aren’t doing” post the other night, is a pattern I’m seeing from the Proggnuts.
They throw out a series of totally idiotic comments, turning truth on it’s head in such an obviously Marxist way, and then wait for the true facts to be posted, (they need this badly due to a toatlly lopsided propagandist source of their mis-education), and then they have more things they can apply reductionism too, and on and on and on.
– It’s all bullshit people. They’re simply power depraved. They’ve shown in two complete National elections, they can’t win anything, and the electorats hates their idea’s as well as their gaggle of misfit clowns. When you’re that deep in loss, you simply cannot afford even the tiniest setback. No matter how stupid you look, example the FDR absurdity above, you have to jut out your chin and fake it. I gotta think it must be “teh fuck” to be a moonbat right now.
– Make that deprived, although depraved probably fits in there somewhere too, between tin-hat BDS, and dissembling BS.
Monkyboy:
You’re so fucking ignorant, it breaks my heart. (Actually, it should break your father’s heart; he paid for your education.) I’d try to explain it to you, but it would be like trying to bathe a pig: it accomplishes nothing and irritates the pig.
The End
– Oh and monky, even as you sit here wasting bandwidth, and making yourself sound like a complete fool, WalMart put in it’s bid to buy China’s entire department store chain.
– You really should give them a call, and tell them all about your “Great theory of the Global economy”. I’m sure they’d love a good laugh.
As a footnote, I’ll just suggest that, in the 18th century, when Adam Smith was developing his principles of economics, he gathered his information from real-world examples of enlightened self-interest in action, life as it was, as it had naturally evolved up ‘til that point.
Marx, on the other hand, looked at the world and created a theory of economics based not on what existed, but on what he wished existed, a utopian world which bore no resemblance to reality or human nature.
Marx, incidentally, never made a dime in his life. He was quite contented to raise his family–including two strapping daughters–at the expense of Frederick Engels, who supported him practically all of his life. Marx’s economics is not science, it is pure fantasy–fantasy that has killed millions.
China has, at the most, 30 years to get itself well and truly into the first world otherwise they are in serious trouble due to an aging demographic profile. That means all of China, not just the megalopoleis. I’m no expert but I have had the opportunity to spend some time a few hours outside of both Beijing and Shanghai and the current growth pattern is economically as well as environmentally unsustainable. Hell much of it is still the remains of run down old collectives from the days of the cultural revolution. Think Bleak House with an ox in the hut and the occasional pagoda/ruin. Barring major improvements the only thing they will export in 20 years is people. At that point armed or not is really the only question.
Fairly typical responses from the “small government” Republicans who have actually increased the size of the federal government far more than any of their Democratic predecessors ever did.
Who have farmed out government work to “private” companies who actually charge more and do a worse job than the government employees they replaced.
Who needs facts when you’ve got a good story, eh?
But, the next time you’re sitting in a traffic jam for an hour or more on your way to work or the next time your power goes out for days because a little windstorm fried your area’s antique power grid…
Imagine how much better life would be if we had people in government who actually knew what they were doing…and were interested in doing something other than lining their own pockets.
You got a lobotomy. right? Fuck off, Monky. You’re a complete waste of time.
I don’t know why you think this should incline us vote for the Democrats.
Also, please don’t associate me (or most of the other people on this blog) with Republicans. They are the lesser of two evils. That may be a bit of an overstatement, but we definitely don’t like everything the Republicans do. Still, they at least have economics and foreign policy more or less right.
Imagine how much better life would be if we had people in government who actually knew what they were doing…and were interested in doing something other than lining their own pockets.
– Soooo, then monky, you want to lead the charge, and ask Ried to step down. I would back you.
– You know monkey. Ole Harry, he thinks he was sent to wash. to do surupticious real estate deals He had nothing to do with Ahbramoff, except then it turned out he did.
– So if you want to mount this “throw the rascals out” campaign I’m assuming you’d be even angrier with the crooks on your side that have lied to you. I know I would be.
My 13 yr old son asked me the other day “why is Walmart evil?”
I had to choke back the tears… [etc. yadda, yadda]
true story – his social studies teacher actually told him they were evil.
– Did he look at his father, and realize he’s got some mental issues and call 9/11, you know that number you tin-hats have blancked out of your minds.
– As a footnote, hearing a grown man telling a story like that, I have to wonder who’s raising whom in your family.
”….his social studies teacher actually told him they were evil.”
– Yes, Mainstream American’s all over the country are becoming more and more aware of the covert work of closet secular progressives within the public school system, and they’re being weededout.
LOL…”Fairly typical responses from the “small government†Republicans who have actually increased the size of the federal government far more than any of their Democratic predecessors ever did.” Did you peeps realize that you are the republican congress critters that have increased the size of the federal government? Bastards! Here I thought you people were just a bunch of guys and gals posting on an internet blog. Monkyboy is truly a genius for outing you all!
More LOL…”Who have farmed out government work to “private†companies who actually charge more and do a worse job than the government employees they replaced.” Any legitimate examples of this for the evil republican congress critters, who like to post at proteinwisdom.com to chew on, there monky? If you really believe that, on average, gubment employees do better work than private (read: ACCOUNTABLE) companies, than I am guessing you be a gubment worker.
Monky, maybe you should try to troll an easier blog. It just ain’t working for you here.
”…[the] “small government†Republicans who have actually increased the size of the federal government far more than any of their Democratic predecessors ever did.â€Â
– Yes, I and my fellow America’s, (Not National Socialists, but real American’s, including classic Liberals), have to take the blame for that, I have to aggree. I tried to advise Bush not to increase the total entitlements/welfare/health care package to a record setting 392 billion in his very first term, but he wouldn’t listen to me. Sorry. Wait. I thought thats what you progressives are always screaming for. comprehensive dissonance anyone?
I’m in Chicago, so I know whereof I speak.
The aldermen on the south and west sides practically sobbed with joy when Mayor Daley finally overturned the so-called ‘big box’ ordinance which prohibited large chains from setting up shop within city limits without offering more than a ‘living’ wage.
It meant that, after years of financial blight, hundreds of introductory-level jobs would be available to poor neighborhood residents. They could finally get off welfare and make some cash and get experience and learn skills they could take elsewhere to get more than minimum wage.
And they could finally–themselves–get a discount on products located in their own neighborhood instead of having to spend their limited time and money traveling out to the suburbs to obtain them.
The idiots fighting Wal-Mart are wealthy white people making 80 grand a year–stupid people who know nothing of the value of honest work.
– monky, aside from your obvious inability to seperate your emotional issues from your politic’s, which is more than enough of a problem for you to try to deal with right there, you come late to the party, armed with troupes that have been pounded into atom motes inumerable times on PW.
– That you 1) Don’t seem to realize that, and 2) don’t even recognize when you’re having your very small brain pan handed to you, says you should just go curl up with you favorite Noam Chomsky fiction novel, and try to relax. Leave the work to stable adults, and get yourself some much needed proffesional help. It would be time much better spent for your own sake.
– That may sound a bit condescending, but I really don’t mean it to. You, and people who think like you do, need straight talk badly.
That must be why the deficit is shrinking again. Just like it did right after the Republicans first took control of Congress.
– Theres just no two-ways about it McGehee….We need another war so we can live up to all the SP goofy revisionism’s…..
Monkyboy (How appropos…)
Are you really as mentally challenged as you appear to be, or are you some kind of cosmic joke?
Are you the best that the new millenium has to offer? If so we are absolutely fucked.
Stop thinking with your adolescent hormonal unit, and try your other brain – if it is still functional, that is. Your grasp of the facts of this world hovers at about the 8h grade level – and I am being charitable.
If you knew what the fuck you were talking about, I might be inclined to listen.
(Sorry, PWers. Sometimes I sound like a right wing KosKid. But you know – what better place to channel anger than into politics? Especially when people like Monkyboy are such sofy targets?)
Hehe BBh,
Are you saying a $290 billion deficit is something to cheer about if you’re a fiscal conservative?
And I can’t believe ahem whips out the Scottish Enlightenment gang…
The current crop of Republicans are exactly the kind of bureaucrats that Hume, Smith & Co. were fighting against…
A bunch of self-interested aristocrats using government to line their own pockets at the expense of the majority of people.
What do you suppose Hume would think of moronic slogans like, “Stay the Course!” and “Deficits don’t Matter!”
Be honest…
Time travel isn’t a real science either, monkyboy. And we compare economic policies everyday and measure which one works best. We measure it with this stuff called money, whoever winds up with the most wins.
Umm, that would be history, not economics.
In history, yes. In economics smart people know how the measurement works.
Like your % growth rate issues, let me give you a elementary lesson in percentages. Let’s say you have two trees, one is one foot tall, the other is fifty feet tall. In one year, the first one grows six inches, the second five feet. That would be a 50% growth rate for the first, and only 10% for the second. Does this clear anything up for you?
– “stay the course” – Oh you mean the opposite of “cut and run”
– “deficits don’t matter” – means “survival comes first” – Although in this case we’re handling record entitlements, a war we didn’t ask for, thrown at us by opportunistic terrorist thugs, simply because we’re the best target, and all the while enjoying a very healthy economic growth, at a time when rightly it could be tanking, with all those pressures, save for the indomnible spirit of America. So even here your arguments are fucked.
– I have a message for the SP’s. National Nocialism will never become the norm for America. Not in our lifetimes, nor your childrens, nor their childrens either. But knock yourself out monky. Socialism, by it’s very nature, is a bet we’ll lose in every regard, and sews the seeds of its own demise. Just like your gaggle is betting we’ll lose in the WOT.
– You’re welcome to your opinion, and have every right to it. But when you expect to have the rest of America follow you over the cliff of stupidity, you always have to expect to be told to go fuck yourself, because like all socialist movements, you fail because you think like defeatist Europeans. And because you won’t listen, you will fail once again, and we’ll just let you.
– I of course ment to say “National Socialism”, Adophs party, that one, you remember it I’m sure, although “National No-scialism” would work also…. apropos for the party of “No”….
When you find a group of politicians that don’t have a lot of that kind of weasel, let us know.
Of course, you’ll probably have to send us a message from beyond the grave, ‘cause you won’t find what you seem to be looking for in this life.
While you’re blasting Republicans, who will you be voting for, numbnuts?
What’s fun about monkyboy is untangling things.
For instance, he has a lot of compliments for FDR’s programs. No doubt he reads “…get the country moving again!” and has a moment of excitement. Then he rails against the deficit… the original of which came from that selfsame FDR and the programs he and his people paid for with borrowed money.
Here, by the way is a useful site. Hit the radio buttons and get the numbers.
Lessee. According to ellesieux (in my other post) WWII cost about $288 billion 1941 dollars. EH’s “GDP deflator” for 1941 is 10.46 percent relative to 2000, so in 2000 dollars that’s 2.75 trrrrrillion (roll those arrs!).
According to EH, the US GDP in 1941 was about 1.2 trillion year-2000 dollars. So WWII’s direct cost was more than two years of then GDP. If monky is correct, and the Iraq war has cost $1 trillion ($300 billion per year), that amounts to… tada! a little over one tenth of the GDP for 2000. I don’t have GDP figures later than 2000, but according to the CBO [warning! PDF!] that’s less than half (by a good bit) of government revenues for any year since 2002.
That same PDF has some interesting data. monky is shilling for Democrats, and shrilling that Republicans are spending us out of house and home. But look at page 3, last column, near the bottom, debt as a percentage of GDP. The only time during the Clinton years that it fell below 40% was 1999, in the middle of the bubble—and it has not risen to 40% yet under George Bush.
The other thing monky shrills about is infrastructure. Now, I’d have to say that’s an arguable point—we could use new roads and electric transmission lines; lots of the existing ones are in poor condition. So why is he shilling for the party whose exemplars are Helen Caldicott, the watermelon Greens, and the American Trial Lawyers’ Association? The first two are on record as flatly and implacably opposed to any improvement whatever, and in fact are arguing, vocally and publicly, that we already have too much infrastructure and use it to gobble too many resources and need to cut back, and the latter are clearly bound and determined to convert any funds intended for infrastructure improvement into Lexuses, McMansions, and Harry Reid’s slush fund.
No. He’s either serious (and therefore lying through his teeth) or too stupid to pound sand, and most of the latter category can’t spell that well, so I know where my bet’s going.
Regards,
Ric
okaaaay, Locke.
WWII cost $2.75 trrrrrilllion of today’s dollars.
Current defense spending is around $600 billion a year.
The “war” on terror has been going on over 5 years now.
5 times $600 billion is….$3 trrrrrilllllion dollars.
Same cost…Same result?
Hardly.
As far as I can tell, all we’ve managed to do with our $3 trillion this time around is kill a few thousand peasants and who knows how many civilians.
I work for the government. While I know many competent people employed by the government, I also know many incompetent people, or people who aren’t stupid, but have jobs that they don’t understand.
From what I’ve seen of contractors and privtate work forces, the only difference is that most government employees (less self-financed federal agencies, like the Bonneville Power Administration) don’t have to worry about making a profit.
Of course, since when have facts deterred monkyboy?
Same cost…Same result?
Hardly.
– Yes “hardly”. Again the whole point of Ric’s flies right through your skull, and out the other ear, meeting no obsticles.
– Spelling it out for you, and using a rough 10:1 ratio in terms of dollar value ratio and ratio to GNP: If we had spent the equivalent of 3 Trillion ‘40’s value in this war, the bill would now stand at 30 trillion.
– I honestly don’t think you’re up to this discussion monky.
Do the math again, BBh.
All of WWII, from Pearl harbor to VJ day cost America $288 billion….which translates to about $3 trillion in today’s dollars.
No star on your homework today.
– My math is fine monkey. you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. See if you can follow, and try to keep up:
cost of war to GDP ratio’s:
1940’s(WWII) – 288B to 300B – three year ratio average = 0.96 GDP
2000’s(WOT) – 600b to 9.6T – 1 year ratio average = 0.0625 (rinse and repeat for 4 years)
– I think you shouldn’t be considered for Star monitor. you really need to take your shit back over to the Kos sandbox, where the faithful accept things without thinking, even a modicum of knowledge.
…and yet most Iraqis are still glad we got rid of Saddam Hussein. Not that monky will ever ask himself how many peasants and civilians Saddam must have killed to be that unpopular.
And the US has done a bit more than just kill people in Iraq. Like building tons of infrastructure. And the Iraqi GDP is shooting up. You would think monky would be happy for some support for his theory. But I’m guessing not, since it also demonstrates that when you have build up from a low level, the growth rate will be larger when expressed as a percentage.
No, monky, what’s flying right by you is that
<font size=”+1″>NOT EVERYTHING WE ARE SPENDING FOR DEFENSE IS FOR IRAQ!</FONT>
We’re building another couple of aircraft carriers (one just got launched last week). We’re spending a grunch of cash on housing upgrades and amenities for the troops. There’s the F22 and other aircraft programs. My son is helping spend roughly a quarter billion a year on border security in Arizona. AND there’s Afghanistan, earthquake and hurricane relief (I seem to remember that the USS Nimitz costs over $100K an hour), and maintenance of all the bases, practice for pilots and troops, and and and. Treating the entire military budget as having gone to Iraq is either stupid shortsightedness or a deliberate falsehood.
And anyway you ought to check the PDF I posted, and stop ratcheting the numbers up. Military expenditures on GWB’s watch, in billions:
2000 295.0
2001 306.1
2002 348.9
2003 404.9
2004 454.1
2005 493.6</pre>
No $600 billion yet. As a percentage of GDP, which IMO is the only halfway reasonable way to compare:
2000 3.0%
2001 3.0%
2002 3.4%
2003 3.7%
2004 3.9%
2005 4.0%</pre>
What’s infuriating, and scary to those who have reason to be scared, is that we’re doing it all out of pocket change. Teddy spills that much, almost.
Regards,
Ric
Peasants aren’t civilians?
Theres one error in the 40’s numbers. should be
228B to 1.2T = 0.24GDP for each year.
Which squares with the 24-25% GDP rate of WWII cost compared to the actual costs of roughly 3-4% in the WOT.
– So what have you managed to show monky. As Ric said, probably we’re spending way to little, depending on how seriously you take the whole WOT.
Not everything we spent on defense during WWII went into combat either, locke. If we are indeed “at war” then all defense spending counts.
And your number for recent defense spending are way off.
Iraq and Afghanistan ($120 billion a year) are funded through “emergency” spending bills and don’t show up in the Dept. of Defense totals.
Throw in:
Veteran’s Administration spending
Military retirement pay
Homeland Security (most people would call this “defense”)
The part of the Dept. of Energy spending that goes to handle nuclear weapons
NASA military satellite spending
Foreign Affairs spending that pays for Marines to guard our emabassy’s
Dept. of Transportation spending on security
etc., etc., etc.
And you wind up with a number far greater than $600 billion.
Peasants with guns (or not) B Moe…what we call insurgents or…terrorists these days…
Oh, and BBH, it’s worse than that. Current-dollar GDP from the EH table, in billions:
1940 $101.4
1941 $126.7
1942 $161.9
1943 $198.6
1944 $219.8
1945 $223.1</pre>
Average = $171.9 billion.
So if the war cost $288 billion, that’s 1.675 years of GDP. Note that $288 billion is almost exactly the total for 1941 and 1942.
In comparison, total Defense spending for 2000-2005 comes to 21% of an average year’s GDP. As I said, monky is either stupid, oblivious, or a deliberate liar.
Regards,
Ric
Why am I not surprised that monky has a tough time calling anyone a terrorist?
That would explain it, though they aren’t mutually exclusive when considering his total output.
– BTW Ric….what about post-war reparations for Germany, Britain, France, and Japan, just to name a few, against GDP for the out years?
No. But that’s beside the point. Prior to WWII the U.S. was spending less than it is now, as a percentage of GDP, on the military. How much of what was spent for WWII would not have been spent at all in the absence of the war?—answer: all but about $15 billion of it.
Whereas now, we would be building aircraft carriers and F22s and missile defense systems, and upgrading barracks and housing, and and and even if no American had ever or would ever set foot in Iraq with a uniform on. Indeed, the wonderfully successful “containment” strategy of keeping troops in Saudi Arabia—the specific offense cited by bin Laden as motivation for the 9/11 attacks—was costing almost a third of what we’re actually spending now to support the Iraq adventure, above and beyond the expenditures that would be made anyway.
You’re adding apples and oranges, and only cherries pay off. Stop pulling the handle.
Regards,
Ric
It is a good thing monkeys can’t read.
Hehe, trying to hide our massive defense spending behind meaningless GDP percentages.
That’s like saying a murderer today should only serve 1/10th the sentence a murderer in 1945 would have gotten…because there’s more people today.
We’re spending the same amount on defense now as we did during WWII.
And we’re achieving far less with our spending now than we did during WWII.
Pretty simple.
BBH, I’m gonna have to go to bed. I’ll bet those numbers are on the Net somewhere, but I just don’t have the time tonight.
Your instincts are correct, I think, or at least I have the same feeling. If you added up the then-dollars cost of the Marshall Plan, plus all the money we “loaned” to the UK, France, etc. (little or none of which was ever repaid or ever will be—or should be, IMO), I’m guessing it’d come close to half a trillion. That would put the total cost of WWII, out of pocket to us, at somewhere around three-quarters of a trillion bucks in then-dollars—seven years of then-revenues and pushing ten trillion current bucks.
And a lot of what we’re spending now in Iraq more properly belongs in those columns than under “combat and support”. You might poke around and see if DOD has posted anything. It would be interesting to know just how much we’re actually spending, and even more to see how it breaks down—so much for shooters, so much for bridge repairs. I would be surprised but not astonished if our total expenditure for shooters and shooter support comes to $50 billion a year.
But for now I’m gonna wimp out on you. Sorry.
Regards,
Ric
Hehe indeed. Inflation of 10X, but hey, you’re better off—you’re making five times as much as you did!
Go back to Crete.
Regards,
Ric
From the same moron who brought you:
Later:
It always has to be about him.
“Hehe, trying to hide our massive defense spending behind meaningless GDP percentages….
We’re spending the same amount on defense now as we did during WWII.”
– And so as our leaky ship of outrage pulls away from the shores of reason, we simply can’t win this one, so we jump ship. Took you longer than most monky. you really are a left ideolog, in the finest tradition. Bzzzzzzzzzzzz . you’re done.
Just because I don’t believe in the fairy tales that allow you to look at Iraq as a “Great Victory!” and our debt-ridden economy as “Booming!” doesn’t mean I’m “unreasonable” BBh.
During WWII, the top tax rate was 90% and the government asked all Americans to sacrifice to help pay for the war. It was a struggle, but America managed to pay for it.
Today, Bush has slashed the tax rate and cheers every zero down, no payments until 2009! purchase of crap made by our consumer-warriors.
Just because our economy is bigger today than it was during WWII doesn’t mean we are better able to pay for war…we can’t.
We’re just hoping our kids can pay for it later…
”….Hi atop courtside, this is Johnny Most, and welcome back to the Celtic’s Lakers game….Sanders takes the ball out at the far end as the game resumes after the time out, with the Celtics up 103 to 97….The pass comes into Havlicek…..bringing it upcourt against Jerry west, yoyoing up and down now, the pass goes into Russel under the basket, and right back out to Havlicek, West covering, he drives left of the circle…HE STOPS…HE POPS….TO LATE!….Oh baby….he really put West in the popcorn machine that time…”.
– You’ve been put in the popcorn machine monkey…take your balls and go home….
Wow, displaying a immense ignorance of the financing of WWII.
Really, when you take a step back, the monky is managing to display an impressively wide-ranging ignorance. There are few people able to get things so fundamentally wrong on such a vast array of topics.
hint: The national debt peaked at 128 percent of GNP in 1946. Yes, one of those pesky percentages again.
No, it’s your redefining facts as fairy tales that shows you are unreasonable.
That, and not being embarrassed by by your ignorance, like a reasonable person would be
I always enjoy “facts” presented.
Go to link that show’s America’s GDP:
http://tinyurl.com/yg6ukn
search for “saving”
You’ll see that not only is our government borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars a year, but for the first time since 1933…Americans spent more than they took home over the past year…a phenomenon known as “negative savings” to economists and fortune tellers alike.
There were a lot fewer Americans around in 1945 than there are today, but they worked harder and saved far more than we do now (not that hard as we don’t save anything).
In other words, they were good for it.
We ain’t.
We may make more money than our WWII counterparts, but we’re spending our “war” in Vegas blowing our mortgage payment.
If you want to compare anything, compare our ability to pay back our debt now vs. post-WWII.
– Yes, because that changes the subject, the one you lost already….get off your knee’s… we know when we’ve been licked…night monkey…..
Aah yes, declare “Mission Accomplished.”
Do some people still fall for that?
Wouldn’t it be better to say my argument is “in its last throes?”
A touch more believable, not much, but some.
who’s a whatsit now? it’s about government spending… no wait, it’s about indivual borrowing…wait, wait, it’s really about dirty, dirty political money…. or um, percentage of growth, but really percentages are misleading….
i’m just working from memory here, have i missed anything?
er….”popcorn machine” ::snort::
oh, wait.
pretty simple
THE END
maggie – I think I’ve got it….
monky is an adult “emo”, after they don’t grow up…..
Yes. Teach them the full employment of the 1890’s vs. that of the 1940’s.
Monky: Your argument was in its last throes at the top of the thread…
Does it occur to you that they might have been wrong in 1940? Or do people only get RIGHTER automatically as time goes on?
Seriously.
Not even biological evolution is linear like that. Why would intellectual evolution be?
Wow. Thats a whole lot of nothing I walk on to get to work. A whole lot of nothing that airlifted people out of New Orleans. A whole lot of nothing that won WWII. And a whole lot of nothing that I’m thinking about driving on this weekend: Skyline Drive, built by the CCC.
And a whole lot of nothing to base an argument on. Where did the financing for these projects come from?
Produce:
–verb (used with object)
1. to bring into existence; give rise to; cause: to produce steam.
2. to bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability: to produce a great painting.
3. to make or manufacture: to produce automobiles for export.
4. to bring forth; give birth to; bear: to produce a litter of puppies.
5. to provide, furnish, or supply; yield: a mine producing silver.
6. Finance. to cause to accrue: stocks producing unexpected dividends.
7. to bring forward; present to view or notice; exhibit: to produce one’s credentials.
8. to bring (a play, movie, opera, etc.) before the public.
9. to extend or prolong, as a line.
–verb (used without object)
10. to create, bring forth, or yield offspring, products, etc.: Their mines are closed because they no longer produce.
11. Economics. to create economic value; bring crops, goods, etc., to a point at which they will command a price.
–noun
12. something that is produced; yield; product.
13. agricultural products collectively, esp. vegetables and fruits.
14. offspring, esp. of a female animal: the produce of a mare.
Normally, I hate responding to actus, but this was such a stupid comment by a college graduate (even if he is a lawyer) that I had to respond.
Equating taxation with production? Stupid beyond belief.
monky, actus, read a little Social Choice Theory before you lecture us all about whether government is better at creating wealth than the market.
As for the forced-savings economies of the U.S. in the ‘40s and China now, add to the reading list some Austrian business cycle theory.
What’s the likelihood that one central authority, spending all that forced savings with no market signals about the value of alternative uses, is spending it in a way that maximizes either short- or long-term wealth for the country? You’d have to make some pretty heroic assumptions about what that government knows, with some pretty stiff corollary assumptions about its incentives for getting it right.
actus might want to stick to Law. monky might want to stick to whatever the hell it is it knows something about. Right now you guys are trucking in a bunch of metaphysical horseshit.
Good grief.
Per-capita GDP:
US $41,399
PRC $7,198
They’re going to have to go through quite a few years at 10% growth to come even close. At this rate, they’ll catch up in another quarter-century or so. So, godspeed.
Of course they’re going to need a great deal of that growth just to take care of the large elderly/working age ratio that’s coming up on them. Think Baby Boom, only on a much larger scale.
Because Monky and actus have attempted to elevate the discussion so much, I figured I’d put it in terms even they’d understand:
“Mr. [monky, actus, take your pick], what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
What are you saying Dr. Steve?
That it doesn’t matter how the government decides to spend its nearly $3 trillion budget this year?
Spending the $100 billion we’re gonna blow in Iraq this year at home on more freeways to reduce commute times, a few new power plants and some new power lines to help keep electricity flowing to homes and businesses this winter even during storms, a few new airports to ease congestion, etc. instead wouldn’t have a positive effect on the American economy?
And what exactly are the “market signals” telling the Republicans to “Stay the COurse!” in Iraq?
Is it the 62% of Americans that view the war as a mistake that convinced them?
Or maybe it’s the “market signal” of 70% of Iraqis think its okay to blow up American troops?
And if you really believed in the “Austrian business cycle” and the writings of that sociopathic clown von Mises…you wouldn’t be posting on the government-invented, government-funded internet, would you?
Repeat after me: “One Day Maybe the Airforce Will Have to Hold a Bakesale”
Ah, the nostalgic 60’s and 70’s, when everything was so much clearer and idealogically purer and…and…and…groovier, man!!!
Don’t bogart that joint, chimp-anus…
For someone decrying all the military spending going on now, it seems a little odd to be pointing out how military spending has improved our lives.
What are you saying Dr. Steve? That it doesn’t matter how the government decides to spend its nearly $3 trillion budget this year?
Why am I not surprised you’re confused? That doesn’t follow from what I said at all. I thought the clear message of my post was directed at your point that it doesn’t matter who spends the money: Our allegedly enlightened social planners (or those of the Chinese), or a bunch of stupid, short-sighted consumers?
Spending the $100 billion we’re gonna blow in Iraq this year at home on more freeways to reduce commute times, a few new power plants and some new power lines to help keep electricity flowing to homes and businesses this winter even during storms, a few new airports to ease congestion, etc. instead wouldn’t have a positive effect on the American economy?
Positive compared to what? What I’m saying is, what you think is a yardstick isn’t the right yardstick. Try to keep up. Can you prove that the government’s expenditures result in greater wealth than alternative uses of the same funds by consumers?
And what exactly are the “market signals†telling the Republicans to “Stay the COurse!†in Iraq?
Again, that’s just stupid subject-changing to which I’m not even going to respond. You’re doing very poorly.
Is it the 62% of Americans that view the war as a mistake that convinced them?
Blah blah, more subject-changing.
Or maybe it’s the “market signal†of 70% of Iraqis think its okay to blow up American troops?
Don’t stop him now, he’s on a roll! … of Charmin.
And if you really believed in the “Austrian business cycle†and the writings of that sociopathic clown von Mises…you wouldn’t be posting on the government-invented, government-funded internet, would you?
First of all, I’m no Misesian but I’d be willing to bet your grasp at that name was the result of a Google search. But please, do continue to name-call people you don’t know the first thing about. And your point is completely incoherent in any event. Mises was an advisor to the Austrian government for 25 years via the Vienna Chamber, not some raving anarchist. If it’s your position that someone who recommends you read Prices and Production is a hypocrite if he’s not an anarchocapitalist, my position is you’re a bigger fool than it appears.
“Sociopathic clown?” Pathetic.
DrSteve:
I think that we have determined that chimp-anus is uneducatable, sort of like an squirrel monkey that spends too much time leaping from branch to branch slinging feces to actually see the foodstuffs his handlers have to assuage his hunger.
I haven’t been here long, but this is the longest run of ignorance, dissembling, subject changing and pooh-poohing of facts that I have ever experienced.
PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!
Another thing, BJ, monkeys in captivity tend to masturbate incessantly. Metaphorically speaking (which is your art), Monky is captive to a falsified ideology. We may simply be witnessing one very frustrated Monky.
Geezer: when did maturbation become a falsified ideology?………OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH.
Well, he has my permission!
Never mind. And thanks for that brain scenary to keep me distracted the rest of the day…
It’s fun to see the trolls abused. But come on guys/gals, this is akin to beating up a 6 year old handicapped kid, isn’t it?
Here is the one lesson Monkyboy has learned well:
If you can’t floor them with facts, Baffle them with bullshit. -Unknown
lee, I must respectfully disagree. The monky isn’t even good enough to be baffling.
I don’t know Karl…I’m baffled as to why it would think it had made a coherent argument of some sort.
I meant that no one was baffled by the actual “content” of what he wrote.
But maggie, if you were baffled as to why the monky thought it had a point, you clearly have not seen it in action at any other blog.
Taxes—past present and future. You think there’s a free lunch somewhere?
Equating? no. Besides taxation you also need policy work and direction. We get taxed. Out of that gets produced a lot of things. The victory in WWII. The war on terror. The regulatory environment in which the rest of us produce.
Better at creating wealth? I’m not so sure. Better at winning WWII? definately.
So. Taxation + policy work + direction = production. For a government, anywho, which produces things like regulation or national defense.
Hmmmmmmm……..
Production requires a fresh influx of resources (raw materials, cash, or information) to result in material products or intellectual property (tangible or not).
In other words, one expects a return for the cash inflow. If I invest capital in a widget factory, I expect the investment returned plus a profit, either in cash or increased value of stocks. Anything else is simply recycling money. This is basic capitalism.
The only problem with actus’ argument is that one has to assume that taxation is equal to an investment. Therefore, by his reasoning, we should be seeing a “profit” from our taxes, or at least a return of our original “investment”.
Since government is generally non-profit (there are exceptions in the Federal government, but very few of them), this line of reasoning is absurd. How do we get a “profit” from the operations of the Department of Defense? NASA? Department of the Interior?
On a different tact…..if government is a “business” (that’s where this line of reasoning goes), how can it run with a deficit? A corporation would go belly up. Instead, most governments raise taxes, re-value their currency, or nationalize assets, depending on their inclinations.
Now, one could argue that the “return” or “profit” consists of the services provided by the government. In fact, actus offers the victory of WWII and a regulatory environment as examples of this.
The victory in WWII was essential to the survival of Allied governments, and in fact many went into debt for that victory. Spending capital (in cash and blood) tends to do that. But we return to the cold, hard fact that businesses in debt tend to go under. Governments are less inclined to do so.
A “regulatory environment” is polite way of saying “regulatory enforcement”. Police forces is an example of regulatory enforcement. One does not “produce” enforcement, it’s pure overhead, an addition cost on the operating budget. In some ways a necessary one, it being useful that business be conducted in a peaceful environment. But it’s not a “product”.
Those are services provided by the government. Government is little more than a service industry, which means it uses the products of other industries.
Government collects the taxes, and in turns provides certain services to the public (law enforcement, national defense, environmental quality, etc). It produces very little; from my personal experience, this includes electrical power, some intellectual properties (original research), and so on.
So….I stand by my original statement, with a minor change:
==========================
Note: I do not expect actus to agree or understand with this. I wrote this post merely to raise the average IQ of this thread.
TW: progress39. Not from where I sit!
Equal? I wouldn’t say that.
I think you made a huge leap here. We do expect a return: we expect to get something out of our taxes. The return we get from, for example, defense spending is that we are safer. Thats a big return. And thats for everyone.
Yours. Not mine. But it can go negative a lot like businesses: because people are willing to lend it money for—a return.
Why is “overhead” not a “product”? Why is a service not produced?
“Overhead” is a business term (scroll down):
A “product” is related to “overhead” only in that “overhead” is needed for the organization to push the “product”. No “overhead”, no “product”. “Overhead” is part of the process that results in a “product”; it’s not a ”product” in an of itself.
The same holds for ”return”. “Return” is a payment to suppliers.
If I buy a hamburger (i.e., I give money to a fast food joint), the supplier gets a return (money) for services (putting together the various supplies necessary to create a hamburger) rendered.
If I give money to the government (i.e., I pay taxes), I get a service in return (e.g., national defense). Unless the government actually owns the production facilities (as the Soviet Union did, before it’s collapse), all that organization does is put together other products. The government assumes the role of the service provider.
actus, one of the reasons that I dislike debating with you is that (a) you use a different dictionary from the rest of the world, (b) you are not interested in a serious discussion, and (c) if you are interested in a serious discussion, your lack of life of experience shines through like a magnesium flare.
You consider “overhead” to be a “product”. You do this because you assign a definition to “product” and “overhead” that is at odds with the way the world actually works, either because you are naive or snarking. You do the same thing for “taxation”.
Saying “3 = 4” doesn’t make it true. It just demonstrates your ignorance of math. In this case, of finance and business.
Again, I offer this comment not as an attempt to enlighten you (I doubt that will ever happen), but as a means to raise the average IQ of this this thread.
Well, TRJS, you’ve established that actus is not versed in anything related to business. We have previously seen that he’s not very well versed in Socio-Political matters, including Civics, diplomacy and international relations. I guess that would just leave the law…
Oh, wait, he thinks that someone can be excused for heinious remarks because they might be mentally ill!
Well, there’s always feminism…
I don’t understand this overhead / product distinciton in terms of government. We obviuosly get plenty for our taxes. what wouldn’t exist otherwise. Government produces things because without government they wouldn’t exist. Yes it crowds out other things, but for at least some government activity i make the argument that the benefit we receive is greater than what gets crowded out.