Population, Natural Resources and TRUE Capital.
jim blair
Jim Blair: (on the wealth of nations)
….. consider just WHY it is that Americans have more apples
each than the Chinese do. Think those apples just fell out of the sky
over
the US? You don’t think the economic systems of countries play any
role
in the living standards?
Michael coburn:
>What total horseshit. Of course the economic systems play a very
>major role in "capital development" which will be a key to "quality
>of life".
Hi,
So we agree? Then why the "horseshit’?
>But no matter what economic system you use in China
>the Chinese will remain poor until they get their population
>problems under control.
There has been much discussion of the question of cause and effect in
the correlation between lower population growth and higher living
standards.
I initially claimed that while it is probable that higher living
standards are
the cause of lower population growth and not the result, this causality
could not be proven.
But several posted references in the thread convinced me otherwise.
The population growth will decline after living standards improve.
As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
> We are extremely fortunate to have the
>amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
created by human ingenuity . At one time rocks were natural resources
(during the stone age). Later copper and tin, and whale oil. The
uranium
in Africa was useless, then became a valuable natural resource when
nuclear looked like the power source of the future. That uranium was
returned to the status of nearly useless when nuclear power development
was put on hold. If the "Global Warming" threat revives nuclear power,
that uranium, will become a valuable natural resource again. Back and
forth between "valuable resources" and "useless rocks" all with no
change in them, but because of events in Europe and the USA.
Petroleum is a valuable natural resource today. It was useless just a
few
centuries ago, and would become a lot less valuable if hydrogen fusion
were
to become a practical energy source. Iron became less essential as a
resource
when the Hall process made the much more common metal aluminum
available.
We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
>….The slow down
>in capital development in the USA after the end of the 19th
>century is because our population was catching up to our resources.
Not clear to me what this means. You think the 20th century was one
of slower capital development than the 18th Or the 17th?
>Natural resource per capita is at least as important, if not more
>important than political economics
Again you have it backwards. Technology and political economics
create "natural resources" out of nature.
….
Surely you aren’t suggesting that the lower population density of the
US is the reason for the higher living standard? The correlation
between
living standards and population density is positive. But you must
know
that.
>No. I don't "know" anything of the sort.
Then do a search. That information has been presented many times
>But if you throw
>in The Arctic, Antarctica, the deserts, and mountains, and
>a bunch of other asinine stupidity I'm sure you will be
>able to find a set of numbers to support that claim.
Of course.
>…If we
>look at Africa, Asia, Europe, Russia, and the Americas I
>don't think the claim will hold up to scrutiny.
??? Africa has a lower population density than Europe. Holland and
Hong Kong are densely populated, etc.
The correlation between population density and living standards for
countries is just a fact. I don’t claim it implies causality, so I won’t
follow up on this.
>…And the
>Japanese citizen may own more TV sets than I, but I have
>no desire to trade places.
Me neither.
…
>The degree to which that may be achieved is measured by TRUE
>capital development. Starting in about 1980 the USA turned
>away from true capital and began to concentrate more and more
>on simple ownership claims and monopoly rights.
???? Assets, and capital have always depended on ownership rights,
that didn’t start in 1980. And "monopoly"?? Do you think there is
more
of that today than in say the 1950?s? (when the phone company was
one, and airlines and trucking and electric power etc. were all
regulated?)
And when much more of the population worked for a relatively fewer
number of very big corporations? When "what’s good for General Motors
is good for America"?
>I am not going to spend any more time arguing with a person who
>believes that Ronald Reagan is the Messiah.
??? I don’t see how the above relates to Reagan as the Messiah. But
the US economy has clearly done well in the 18 years since his tax
rate cuts. And his military buildup and Cold War strategy was a factor
in the collapse of the USSR and the Peace Dividend we now enjoy.
But "Messiah’??? His War on Drugs was clearly a failure that has done
great harm, and the S&L deregulation he signed was a botched effort.
I recognize both the good and the bad things he did. You seem to think
the good things were bad, and don’t even mention the things that really
were bad.
>….Any time you want
>to take off those rose colored glasses and look at who is gaining
>and who is losing I'll be ready.
People in the USA have clearly been gaining over the past 20 years.
Who has been losing? People in Russia and Yugoslavia. Who else?
>Hint: Tax assets instead of income and true capital will be developed.
Ah, yes. TRUE capital. Instead of the computer and robot controlled
factories and bio-engineered processes and information technology we
have been developing for the last 20 years.
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> Population, Natural Resources and TRUE Capital.
>
> Jim Blair: (on the wealth of nations)
>
> ….. consider just WHY it is that Americans have more apples
> each than the Chinese do. Think those apples just fell out of the sky
> over
> the US? You don’t think the economic systems of countries play any
> role
> in the living standards?
The one modifier to your assertion that our living standards are based
on starting with a whole new continent of unexploited resources is that
when Europeans settled here, we had some technology to benefit
from the resources, and new science and technology developed fast
as people progressed from midieval times to modern times, scientifically
speaking. If Europeans had come with no more technology than Native
Americans came with, we'd probably have made their level of progress
and like them, would have to wait for others to bring new technology.
> Michael coburn:
>
> >What total horseshit. Of course the economic systems play a very
> >major role in "capital development" which will be a key to "quality
> >of life".
>
> Hi,
>
> So we agree? Then why the "horseshit’?
>
> >But no matter what economic system you use in China
> >the Chinese will remain poor until they get their population
> >problems under control.
>
> There has been much discussion of the question of cause and effect in
> the correlation between lower population growth and higher living
> standards.
> I initially claimed that while it is probable that higher living
> standards are
> the cause of lower population growth and not the result, this causality
>
> could not be proven.
>
> But several posted references in the thread convinced me otherwise.
> The population growth will decline after living standards improve.
> As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
If this were true, then some societies are doomed. For their sake,
we should hope that it's possible to turn that around, or make the
changes simultaneously. One way to do this is to chip in to the
UN fund for dispensing birth control pills where needed, and ignore
the fanatics who'd rather see babies starve than give needed help.
> > We are extremely fortunate to have the
> >amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
>
> So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
Not the result. The resources are there, and our technology makes
use of them. Without the resources, our technology wouldn't make
us a nice living standard. Both are essential.
> created by human ingenuity . At one time rocks were natural resources
> (during the stone age). Later copper and tin, and whale oil. The
> uranium
> in Africa was useless, then became a valuable natural resource when
> nuclear looked like the power source of the future. That uranium was
> returned to the status of nearly useless when nuclear power development
> was put on hold. If the "Global Warming" threat revives nuclear power,
>
> that uranium, will become a valuable natural resource again. Back and
> forth between "valuable resources" and "useless rocks" all with no
> change in them, but because of events in Europe and the USA.
>
> Petroleum is a valuable natural resource today. It was useless just a
> few
> centuries ago, and would become a lot less valuable if hydrogen fusion
> were
> to become a practical energy source. Iron became less essential as a
> resource
> when the Hall process made the much more common metal aluminum
> available.
But it wouldn't hurt to reconcentrate rare minerals essential to some
of our technologies instead of dispersing them everywhere. Battery
materials perhaps, electronic components, metals that give steel
alloys their special properties, etc would all be good to recycle. Better
to do that than someday be cursed by our great-grandchildren for
being so short-sighted.
>
> We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
Again, "found and exploited", not "created".
> >….The slow down
> >in capital development in the USA after the end of the 19th
> >century is because our population was catching up to our resources.
>
> Not clear to me what this means. You think the 20th century was one
> of slower capital development than the 18th Or the 17th?
>
> >Natural resource per capita is at least as important, if not more
> >important than political economics
>
> Again you have it backwards. Technology and political economics
> create "natural resources" out of nature.
And again you miss the point that both must be present to make
good living standards. With only the technology (as in an engineering
or chemistry book or a rotisserie that only fits dodo birds), you lack
the resources to process into living standards.
> Surely you aren’t suggesting that the lower population density of the
> US is the reason for the higher living standard? The correlation
> between
> living standards and population density is positive. But you must
> know
> that.
It's the living standards that make the high density possible. One of
the necessities for high population density (large cities) is highly
productive farming and food distribution. Otherwise most people
would need to have their own little gardens, freezers and cellars
for produce production and storage. And they'd need their own
henhouses and a few livestock for private consumption. And they
would need a lot more space than a typical urban apartment that
achieves the high population density you refer to.
A highly dense population is not self-supporting. They have city jobs
that depend on farming for their very lives. City living is fairly
secure only because food production and distribution is reliable.
> >No. I don't "know" anything of the sort.
>
> Then do a search. That information has been presented many times
>
> >But if you throw
> >in The Arctic, Antarctica, the deserts, and mountains, and
> >a bunch of other asinine stupidity I'm sure you will be
> >able to find a set of numbers to support that claim.
>
> Of course.
Not every place is suitable for farming and allows a large urban
population to develop.
> >…If we
> >look at Africa, Asia, Europe, Russia, and the Americas I
> >don't think the claim will hold up to scrutiny.
I've read in Atlantic Monthly that many people in Moscow must
grow some of their own food. Some travel maybe 20 miles outside
the city limits to community garden areas where they can grow
their own. Gardening is cool, but if you're a professional of some
sort, your time on the job ought to earn you enough to buy groceries
if you want to.
> ??? Africa has a lower population density than Europe. Holland and
> Hong Kong are densely populated, etc.
>
> The correlation between population density and living standards for
> countries is just a fact. I don’t claim it implies causality, so I won’t
>
> follow up on this.
What you're saying about population density and living standards
isn't the whole story.
> >…And the
> >Japanese citizen may own more TV sets than I, but I have
> >no desire to trade places.
>
> Me neither.
>
> …
>
> >The degree to which that may be achieved is measured by TRUE
> >capital development. Starting in about 1980 the USA turned
> >away from true capital and began to concentrate more and more
> >on simple ownership claims and monopoly rights.
Do you mean, deal-making, mergers, stock trading, and not so much
building of new productive capacity?
> ???? Assets, and capital have always depended on ownership rights,
> that didn’t start in 1980. And "monopoly"?? Do you think there is
> more
> of that today than in say the 1950?s? (when the phone company was
> one, and airlines and trucking and electric power etc. were all
> regulated?)
> And when much more of the population worked for a relatively fewer
> number of very big corporations? When "what’s good for General Motors
> is good for America"?
The condition of workers also being consumers used to be true
nationally in the US. It still is globally, but many worry about the
problems that arise when companies expect Americans to be
consumers but want to ship the jobs and paychecks overseas
instead of keeping the money flowing in a tight loop in the US.
> >I am not going to spend any more time arguing with a person who
> >believes that Ronald Reagan is the Messiah.
>
> ??? I don’t see how the above relates to Reagan as the Messiah. But
> the US economy has clearly done well in the 18 years since his tax
> rate cuts. And his military buildup and Cold War strategy was a factor
> in the collapse of the USSR and the Peace Dividend we now enjoy.
Reagan's tax cut gave us monster deficits year after year, and that
condition didn't get turned around until Clinton's tax INCREASES.
Don't prate about revenue increases---it's obvious that the tax cuts
were a very bad idea. It was bad not only because of the burden of
the debt, but because the debt represents dollar for dollar the crowding
out of the private investment that could have taken place. That means
weaker, less productive and less competitive businesses, less profit,
smaller raises (except for the larcenous fatcats at the top!), lost jobs,
businesses going broke or getting bought out by foreign competition,
loss of profits and control of those businesses, loss of tax base to
communities that depended on broke or relocated businesses, a host
of problems arising from Reagan's irresponsible greedy tax policy.
Clinton turned it around. I hope to hell Bush doesn't get elected, as
he'd surely put America in decline again with his idiotic tax cuts for
the already rich. Bush is over a barrel if elected---either break his
biggest campaign promise or louse up the economic gains made
during the Clinton administration.
> But "Messiah’??? His War on Drugs was clearly a failure that has done
> great harm, and the S&L deregulation he signed was a botched effort.
>
> I recognize both the good and the bad things he did. You seem to think
> the good things were bad, and don’t even mention the things that really
> were bad.
>
> >….Any time you want
> >to take off those rose colored glasses and look at who is gaining
> >and who is losing I'll be ready.
>
> People in the USA have clearly been gaining over the past 20 years.
> Who has been losing? People in Russia and Yugoslavia. Who else?
Probably some African nations with rampant population growth and
tribal conflict. You might note that with very few exceptions, there
is noticeable correlation between fast population growth and trouble.
The only exception I can think of is the sparsely populated state of
Montana, which has had a few flare-ups by militia-type people.
> >Hint: Tax assets instead of income and true capital will be developed.
>
> Ah, yes. TRUE capital. Instead of the computer and robot controlled
> factories and bio-engineered processes and information technology we
> have been developing for the last 20 years.
I think the remark you replied to here referred to huge amounts of
money being poured into nonproductive castle-size homes and other
conspicuous consumption.
John
William F. Hummel
wrote:
<big snip>
>
>Reagan's tax cut gave us monster deficits year after year, and that
>condition didn't get turned around until Clinton's tax INCREASES.
>Don't prate about revenue increases---it's obvious that the tax cuts
>were a very bad idea. It was bad not only because of the burden of
>the debt, but because the debt represents dollar for dollar the crowding
>out of the private investment that could have taken place. That means
>weaker, less productive and less competitive businesses, less profit,
>smaller raises (except for the larcenous fatcats at the top!), lost jobs,
>businesses going broke or getting bought out by foreign competition,
>loss of profits and control of those businesses, loss of tax base to
>communities that depended on broke or relocated businesses, a host
>of problems arising from Reagan's irresponsible greedy tax policy.
The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it. In fact the
"burden of the debt" correlates positively with good economic
times.
As long as the yield on debt securities is unattractive relative
to the return on other investments, there will be no crowding out
of private investment. That is the condition that has existed
for most of the Clinton years, even though the debt has been and
still remains very high. Indeed the debt was still rising while
private investment was sparking the beginning of the best decade
ever in terms of economic growth.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Natural resource per capita is at least as important, if not more
>important than political economics
Try that theory on the Japanese some time. Or in Singapore, or Hong Kong.
I am always struck by the way the Scots took dominance in the world's
marmalade market. Obviously the oranges that nestled under the heather went
together complementarily with the glass jars that grew on the jartrees, and
the lids that were shed seasonally by the lidsheep.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
> The one modifier to your assertion that our living standards are based
> on starting with a whole new continent of unexploited resources is that
> when Europeans settled here, we had some technology to benefit
> from the resources, and new science and technology developed fast
> as people progressed from midieval times to modern times, scientifically
> speaking. If Europeans had come with no more technology than Native
> Americans came with, we'd probably have made their level of progress
> and like them, would have to wait for others to bring new technology.
John,
This is nonsense. The early settlers were parsons, clerks, and
schoolteachers, as technologically naive as your front doorknob.
Few of them made it through the first winter, such was their command of
technology. The only reason white people were able to hang on on this
continent was that the technologically superior natives showed us how to use
the local resources.
That's why we eat turkey at Thanksgiving.
-dlj.
jim blair
> >If Europeans had come with no more technology than Native
> > Americans came with, we'd probably have made their level of progress
> > and like them, would have to wait for others to bring new technology.
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> John,
>
> This is nonsense. The early settlers were parsons, clerks, and
> schoolteachers, as technologically naive as your front doorknob.
>
> Few of them made it through the first winter, such was their command of
> technology. The only reason white people were able to hang on on this
> continent was that the technologically superior natives showed us how to use
> the local resources.
>
> That's why we eat turkey at Thanksgiving.
>
> -dlj.
Hi,
Good point, and one that I completely missed in my reply to him. But I do
plan to include it in the edition of this thread that I will add to my web page.
jim blair
>The one modifier to your assertion that our living standards are based
>on starting with a whole new continent of unexploited resources is that
>when Europeans settled here, ….
Hi,
Possible for the US and Canada. But living standards are comparable in
England and most of Europe. And in Japan. So the explanation of starting
fresh in a new continent is not the reason for wealth.
>….we had some technology to benefit
>from the resources, and new science and technology developed fast
>as people progressed from medieval times to modern times, scientifically
>speaking. If Europeans had come with no more technology than Native
>Americans came with, we'd probably have made their level of progress
>and like them, would have to wait for others to bring new technology.
But that is my point. It is "technology", meaning ideas and the way people
think and act (political/economics), more than the available resources, that
determine living standards.
….
Jeb:
But several posted references in the thread convinced me otherwise.
The population growth will decline after living standards improve.
As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
>If this were true, then some societies are doomed. For their sake,
>we should hope that it's possible to turn that around, or make the
>changes simultaneously. One way to do this is to chip in to the
>UN fund for dispensing birth control pills where needed, and ignore
>the fanatics who'd rather see babies starve than give needed help.
Don’t misunderstand. I am all for providing birth control to 3rd world
countries. I favor condoms, the pill, even abortions. What ever they
want. But unless they WANT fewer kids, contraception alone is
not effective at reducing population growth.
Mike Coburn:
> > We are extremely fortunate to have the
> >amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
Jeb:
So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, ….
>Not the result. The resources are there, and our technology makes
>use of them. Without the resources, our technology wouldn't make
>us a nice living standard. Both are essential.
Matter is "there". Technology makes matter into "resources". Sand is
in the desert. Technology makes sand into microchips.
……
>But it wouldn't hurt to reconcentrate rare minerals essential to some
>of our technologies instead of dispersing them everywhere. Battery
>materials perhaps, electronic components, metals that give steel
>alloys their special properties, etc would all be good to recycle. Better
>to do that than someday be cursed by our great-grandchildren for
>being so short-sighted.
I am all for recycling. In some sense there is no other choice. The number
of iron or copper atoms on earth are finite (except for an occasional
meteor, and we hope those are small ;-) We must reuse the atoms we have,
if not today, then in the future.
We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
>Again, "found and exploited", not "created".
We FOUND matter and created "resources" from it.
…..
Again you have it backwards. Technology and political economics
create "natural resources" out of nature.
>And again you miss the point that both must be present to make
>good living standards.
"Both" here meaning matter and human ingenuity? Plus a supportive
political system? If so, I agree.
>With only the technology (as in an engineering
>or chemistry book or a rotisserie that only fits dodo birds), you lack
>the resources to process into living standards.
Technology is more than a chemistry book. It is the tools and knowledge
to shape matter into the desired form. And yes it also requires matter.
While having some natural starting materials makes things easier, in a
pinch, other materials can substitute.
EXAMPLE. During WW I Germany was cut off from its source of guano
in South America, the essential nitrate "natural resource" to make high
explosives. So they developed the Haber process to make nitrate explosives
from the nitrogen in the air. Air became the essential "natural resource".
I could cite many more examples, but you get the idea?
…..
Surely you aren’t suggesting that the lower population density of the
US is the reason for the higher living standard? The correlation
between living standards and population density is positive. But you
must know that.
>It's the living standards that make the high density possible. One of
>the necessities for high population density (large cities) is highly
>productive farming and food distribution. Otherwise most people
>would need to have their own little gardens, freezers and cellars
>for produce production and storage. And they'd need their own
>henhouses and a few livestock for private consumption. And they
>would need a lot more space than a typical urban apartment that
>achieves the high population density you refer to.
Yes. Note that I did not claim a cause and effect connection, just a
correlation. Coburn expressed doubt about the positive correlation.
As in:
"No. I don't "know" anything of the sort"
and even suggested that lower population density is the cause
of higher living standard.
>A highly dense population is not self-supporting. They have city jobs
>that depend on farming for their very lives. City living is fairly
>secure only because food production and distribution is reliable.
I agree. It is the increased productivity in agriculture that permit the
shift in population to cities. But that is not the issue. The question
was (as I recall): is a lower population density the cause of the
higher living standards in the US, Japan and Europe relative to China
or Africa?
>Not every place is suitable for farming and allows a large urban
>population to develop.
???? not clear what this means. The desert of southern Nevada is not
suitable for farming, so Las Vegas is there. And the "Vegas Strip" is
lined with casinos that feature all you can eat buffets.
>I've read in Atlantic Monthly that many people in Moscow must
>grow some of their own food. Some travel maybe 20 miles outside
>the city limits to community garden areas where they can grow
>their own. Gardening is cool, but if you're a professional of some
>sort, your time on the job ought to earn you enough to buy groceries
>if you want to.
An example of the importance of the political/economic system to
living standards. Living standards have fallen but not because "resources"
have been "used up". Or not because the population has increased.
But because of the political/economic system (or a lack of).
…..
??? Africa has a lower population density than Europe. Holland and
Hong Kong are densely populated, etc.
The correlation between population density and living standards for
countries is just a fact. I don’t claim it implies causality, so I won’t
make an issue of this.
>What you're saying about population density and living standards
>isn't the whole story.
Yes.
Michael Coburn:
> >The degree to which that may be achieved is measured by TRUE
> >capital development. Starting in about 1980 the USA turned
> >away from true capital and began to concentrate more and more
> >on simple ownership claims and monopoly rights.
>Do you mean, deal-making, mergers, stock trading, and not so much
>building of new productive capacity?
That may be what he means. But I say US is more competitive today
than ever, and that productivity is higher than ever. This did not
happen without building new productive capacity.
> The condition of workers also being consumers used to be true
>nationally in the US. It still is globally, but many worry about the
>problems that arise when companies expect Americans to be
>consumers but want to ship the jobs and paychecks overseas
>instead of keeping the money flowing in a tight loop in the US.
???? Surely you are not claiming that people in the US are consuming
too little? Or that it is bad for foreigners to have productive jobs?
Or that dollars that flow abroad don’t eventually return? There IS
a "loop", but it is bigger than your thinking.
Michael Coburn:
> >I am not going to spend any more time arguing with a person who
> >believes that Ronald Reagan is the Messiah.
??? I don’t see how the above relates to Reagan as the Messiah. But
the US economy has clearly done well in the 18 years since his tax
rate cuts. And his military buildup and Cold War strategy was a factor
in the collapse of the USSR and the Peace Dividend we now enjoy.
>Reagan's tax cut gave us monster deficits year after year,
Yes. Was that BAD? How so? Recall the steep recession. Should
the government balance the budget during a recession? Or during
a military buildup?
Recall that both Hoover and FDR increased taxes in an effort to balance
the budget during the 1930’s. Was that a good idea?
>and that
>condition didn't get turned around until Clinton's tax INCREASES.
Actually the deficits continued during the Bush and Clinton tax increases.
It switched to a surplus (much to the surprise of the "experts") after the
Clinton tax cuts and especially the reduction of the capital gains rate
from 28% to 20%.
The Clinton tax reductions of 1996 (or was that 98?) were less cuts than
complications in the tax code. But the capital gains reduction was real.
>…Don't prate about revenue increases---it's obvious that the tax cuts
>were a very bad idea.
??? Which tax cuts? Reagan? Clinton?
>….. That means
>weaker, less productive and less competitive businesses, less profit,
>smaller raises (except for the larcenous fatcats at the top!), lost jobs,
>businesses going broke or getting bought out by foreign competition,
>loss of profits and control of those businesses, loss of tax base to
>communities that depended on broke or relocated businesses, a host
>of problems arising from Reagan's irresponsible greedy tax policy.
This is the US during the Reagan years? You simply live in a different
world that I do. To see what that time was like in my world, see:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261es.html
>Clinton turned it around.
Actually it was Reagan who "turned it around". The US economy has
been on an incredible boom ever since the Reagan tax cuts. Only
9 months of recession in 18 years, or expansion over 95% of the time.
This is unprecedented in US history. Note that even some leftists
"accuse" Clinton of "completing the Reagan Revolution". See for
example:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/reagan.txt
Before Reagan the top income tax rate in the US was 70%. (lowered by JFK
from over 90%). Reagan reduced it to 28% for both income and capital
gains, and made the tax code much simpler by eliminating many loopholes.
Bush and Clinton have raised the top rate to 39%, cut the capital gains to
20% and brought back many loopholes and deductions (the office in the
home is my favorite, recently revived from the 1970’s after being in a coma
for decades).
>….I hope to hell Bush doesn't get elected, as
>he'd surely put America in decline again with his idiotic tax cuts for
>the already rich.
Actually he has proposed "across the boards" tax cuts. That is, for all
taxpayers. As JFK did. And Reagan. But I suppose to you anyone
who pays any income tax is "already rich"?
Al Gore also want tax cuts, but only for "targeted" people. Since he
opposes eliminating the marriage penalty and wants to increase the child
deduction, it looks like that means those who remain single and have
more kids.
But I doubt that Bush has a chance to win. On Friday AM I though
he was in and that the overseas Florida vote was going to be decisive.
But by Friday PM it seems likely to me that Gore is in, and the overseas
vote won’ t matter.
How things can change 10 days after the election.
>Bush is over a barrel if elected---either break his
>biggest campaign promise or louse up the economic gains made
>during the Clinton administration.
Hey, his dad broke up his biggest promise (Read my lips NO NEW
TAXES!!!!) with a tax hike that triggered a recession.
…..
People in the USA have clearly been gaining over the past 20 years.
Who has been losing? People in Russia and Yugoslavia. Who else?
>Probably some African nations with rampant population growth and
>tribal conflict.
Is the population in Africa growing rapidly in spite of AIDS and war?
But yes, they are also probably worse off as well. Mostly because
of the ethnic conflict and lack of political stability. Who could claim
that it is because of lack of natural resources? Or overpopulation?
>You might note that with very few exceptions, there
>is noticeable correlation between fast population growth and trouble.
Is there? You mean Las Vegas or Florida or Texas? California?
Maybe Israel?
>The only exception I can think of is the sparsely populated state of
>Montana, which has had a few flare-ups by militia-type people.
Michael Coburn:
> >Hint: Tax assets instead of income and true capital will be developed.
Ah, yes. TRUE capital. Instead of the computer and robot controlled
factories and bio-engineered processes and information technology we
have been developing for the last 20 years.
>I think the remark you replied to here referred to huge amounts of
>money being poured into nonproductive castle-size homes and other
>conspicuous consumption.
>John
People in the US do have more living space per person than ever. And
yes conspicuous consumption. (But I thought you earlier complained
about not enough consumption in the US?)
But is this not a consequence of the greater productivity and higher
incomes that they now have.
jim blair
> >condition didn't get turned around until Clinton's tax INCREASES.
> >Don't prate about revenue increases---it's obvious that the tax cuts
> >were a very bad idea. It was bad not only because of the burden of
> >the debt, but because the debt represents dollar for dollar the crowding
> >out of the private investment that could have taken place. That means
> >weaker, less productive and less competitive businesses, less profit,
> >smaller raises (except for the larcenous fatcats at the top!), lost jobs,
> >businesses going broke or getting bought out by foreign competition,
> >loss of profits and control of those businesses, loss of tax base to
> >communities that depended on broke or relocated businesses, a host
> >of problems arising from Reagan's irresponsible greedy tax policy.
Willliam F. Hummel wrote:
> The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
> dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
> of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
> it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it. In fact the
> "burden of the debt" correlates positively with good economic
> times.
>
> As long as the yield on debt securities is unattractive relative
> to the return on other investments, there will be no crowding out
> of private investment. That is the condition that has existed
> for most of the Clinton years, even though the debt has been and
> still remains very high. Indeed the debt was still rising while
> private investment was sparking the beginning of the best decade
> ever in terms of economic growth.
Hi,
Note that I didn't bother to reply to his "crowding out" comments in my reply.
I was assuming that someone with some degree of economic literacy would
set him straight.
Thanks.
JohnT
William F. Hummel wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:23:46 -0800, JohnT <j...@informatics.net>
> wrote:
>
> <big snip>
> >
> >Reagan's tax cut gave us monster deficits year after year, and that
> >condition didn't get turned around until Clinton's tax INCREASES.
> >Don't prate about revenue increases---it's obvious that the tax cuts
> >were a very bad idea. It was bad not only because of the burden of
> >the debt, but because the debt represents dollar for dollar the crowding
> >out of the private investment that could have taken place. That means
> >weaker, less productive and less competitive businesses, less profit,
> >smaller raises (except for the larcenous fatcats at the top!), lost jobs,
> >businesses going broke or getting bought out by foreign competition,
> >loss of profits and control of those businesses, loss of tax base to
> >communities that depended on broke or relocated businesses, a host
> >of problems arising from Reagan's irresponsible greedy tax policy.
>
> The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
> dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
> of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
> it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it. In fact the
> "burden of the debt" correlates positively with good economic
> times.
Wrong. It's a valid implication of theory and was shown to occur
in a 1982 paper by Keith Carlson, at the time Vice President for
Research at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
> As long as the yield on debt securities is unattractive relative
> to the return on other investments, there will be no crowding out
> of private investment. That is the condition that has existed
> for most of the Clinton years, even though the debt has been and
> still remains very high. Indeed the debt was still rising while
> private investment was sparking the beginning of the best decade
> ever in terms of economic growth.
The deficits must be financed. Govt checks are not allowed to
bounce. The govt will borrow at whatever rate is necessary to
maintain its solvency and good credit rating. When the govt
borrows, it sucks money out of the credit market, out of the
stock market and investment in brick and mortar.
Growth and inflation are both strongly influenced by the rate of
money supply growth. After the Reagan Recession, the Fed goosed
the economy with very high money growth rates via low interest
rates. There was not a goddamned bit of "fiscal policy" influence
in the changes in nominal GDP. In the Fed-induced recovery, of
course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush
years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs. Our businesses
were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt. In fact,
about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
that we owe it to ourselves.
JohnT
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> "JohnT" <j...@informatics.net> wrote >
> > The one modifier to your assertion that our living standards are based
> > on starting with a whole new continent of unexploited resources is that
> > when Europeans settled here, we had some technology to benefit
> > from the resources, and new science and technology developed fast
> > as people progressed from midieval times to modern times, scientifically
> > speaking. If Europeans had come with no more technology than Native
> > Americans came with, we'd probably have made their level of progress
> > and like them, would have to wait for others to bring new technology.
>
> John,
>
> This is nonsense. The early settlers were parsons, clerks, and
> schoolteachers, as technologically naive as your front doorknob.
>
> Few of them made it through the first winter, such was their command of
> technology. The only reason white people were able to hang on on this
> continent was that the technologically superior natives showed us how to use
> the local resources.
>
> That's why we eat turkey at Thanksgiving.
>
> -dlj.
They had muskets, steel knives, ships to travel on the high seas,
books, paper, pens, carpentry and construction know-how, cloth-making
and sewing, and a host of other relatively modern technologies that
Native Americans didn't have. East Coast Native Americans that
the early settlers interacted with knew a few tricks of farming that
were new to the settlers, but I'll bet the idea of fertilizer was not
unknown to settlers. You say I said nonsense, I say you're a moron.
jim blair
> >.... In the Fed-induced recovery, of
> course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
> the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
> debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush.....
Hi,
Why "Reagan/Bush"? Divide that increase into "Reagan" (8 years) and Bush (4
years). In terms of policy, the more logical division is Reagan vs
Bush/Clinton.
But even that gets fuzzy when the Bush "Read My Lips Taxes" and the early
Clinton
tax increases are later followed with the Clinton tax cuts, especially capital
gains.
> years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
Making that sucking sound that Ross warned about? You would rather the
foreigners came here for the jobs?
> and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs.
Back to the fall in US living standards since 1982?
> Our businesses
> were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
> were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt.
Global economy?
> In fact,
> about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
> investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
> that we owe it to ourselves.
Expand you thinking beyond narrow economic chauvanism. It's one world.
William F. Hummel
wrote:
>William F. Hummel wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:23:46 -0800, JohnT <j...@informatics.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <big snip>
>> >
>> >Reagan's tax cut gave us monster deficits year after year, and that
>> >condition didn't get turned around until Clinton's tax INCREASES.
>> >Don't prate about revenue increases---it's obvious that the tax cuts
>> >were a very bad idea. It was bad not only because of the burden of
>> >the debt, but because the debt represents dollar for dollar the crowding
>> >out of the private investment that could have taken place. That means
>> >weaker, less productive and less competitive businesses, less profit,
>> >smaller raises (except for the larcenous fatcats at the top!), lost jobs,
>> >businesses going broke or getting bought out by foreign competition,
>> >loss of profits and control of those businesses, loss of tax base to
>> >communities that depended on broke or relocated businesses, a host
>> >of problems arising from Reagan's irresponsible greedy tax policy.
>>
>> The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
>> dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
>> of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
>> it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it. In fact the
>> "burden of the debt" correlates positively with good economic
>> times.
>
>Wrong. It's a valid implication of theory and was shown to occur
>in a 1982 paper by Keith Carlson, at the time Vice President for
>Research at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
>
Testimonials are not evidence. Without presenting any data or
rationale, we can safely ignore this.
>
>> As long as the yield on debt securities is unattractive relative
>> to the return on other investments, there will be no crowding out
>> of private investment. That is the condition that has existed
>> for most of the Clinton years, even though the debt has been and
>> still remains very high. Indeed the debt was still rising while
>> private investment was sparking the beginning of the best decade
>> ever in terms of economic growth.
>
>The deficits must be financed. Govt checks are not allowed to
>bounce.
True.
>The govt will borrow at whatever rate is necessary to
>maintain its solvency and good credit rating.
Yes, the government will borrow at whatever rate the market
demands, but certainly not because it has any problem with
solvency or credit rating.
>When the govt
>borrows, it sucks money out of the credit market, out of the
>stock market and investment in brick and mortar.
False. The government only sells its debt to finance its deficit
spending. Money is not "sucked" out of the private sector
because those funds are spent back as fast as they are acquired.
>
>Growth and inflation are both strongly influenced by the rate of
>money supply growth. After the Reagan Recession, the Fed goosed
>the economy with very high money growth rates via low interest
>rates. There was not a goddamned bit of "fiscal policy" influence
>in the changes in nominal GDP. In the Fed-induced recovery, of
>course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
>the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
>debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush
>years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
>and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs. Our businesses
>were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
>were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt. In fact,
>about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
>investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
>that we owe it to ourselves.
>
Relevance?
>
jim blair
> > The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
> > dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
> > of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
> > it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it.
JohnT wrote:
> Wrong. It's a valid implication of theory and was shown to occur
> in a 1982 paper by Keith Carlson, at the time Vice President for
> Research at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
Hi,
How can a paper written in 1982 evaluate the effect of a series of tax cuts
that were not phased in until 1983 and were not really completed until 1986?
And especially when the impact was projected to be a long range change in the
incentives to earn and to invest. I mean even the supporters of "supply side"
tax
rate cuts predict that the effects will take some time to "trickle down".
The changes in US tax laws made in the early 1980's have shaped the US economy
of the past decade up to today.
Mike Coburn
>
> Population, Natural Resources and TRUE Capital.
>
> Jim Blair: (on the wealth of nations)
>
> each than the Chinese do. Think those apples just fell out of the sky
> over
> role
> in the living standards?
>
> Michael coburn:
>
> >What total horseshit. Of course the economic systems play a very
> >major role in "capital development" which will be a key to "quality
> >of life".
>
> Hi,
>
You put far too much faith in the money (the numbers).
> >But no matter what economic system you use in China
> >the Chinese will remain poor until they get their population
> >problems under control.
>
> There has been much discussion of the question of cause and effect in
> the correlation between lower population growth and higher living
> standards.
> I initially claimed that while it is probable that higher living
> standards are
> the cause of lower population growth and not the result, this causality
>
> could not be proven.
>
> But several posted references in the thread convinced me otherwise.
> The population growth will decline after living standards improve.
> As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
Perhaps it is simply easy to convince you of that which you
want to be true. Population growth declines as education
improves AND as the living standards improve. But if there
is cause and effect it relates to education and information
as opposed to anything else. Those who claim to be rulers
can extort only so long as the work force is kept stupid and
encouraged to "go forth and multiply".
> > We are extremely fortunate to have the
> >amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
>
> So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
>
> created by human ingenuity . At one time rocks were natural resources
> (during the stone age). Later copper and tin, and whale oil. The
> uranium
> in Africa was useless, then became a valuable natural resource when
> nuclear looked like the power source of the future. That uranium was
> returned to the status of nearly useless when nuclear power development
> was put on hold. If the "Global Warming" threat revives nuclear power,
>
> that uranium, will become a valuable natural resource again. Back and
> forth between "valuable resources" and "useless rocks" all with no
> change in them, but because of events in Europe and the USA.
>
> Petroleum is a valuable natural resource today. It was useless just a
> few
> centuries ago, and would become a lot less valuable if hydrogen fusion
> were
> to become a practical energy source. Iron became less essential as a
> resource
> when the Hall process made the much more common metal aluminum
> available.
>
> We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
Duh.... They call em "natural resources" because they are "naturally
occurring", Jim. They were not created by any economic system, and, in
the case of non renewable, or very slowly renewable resources there
will obviously be less as we harvest, or over harvest same. It may be
that
we can find ways to use the resources more efficiently and we may find
ways to convert some resources to use in different ways so as to make
up for the dwindling supply of others. But the fact remains that
natural
rescues are "natural" by definition. Not even Republitarian statistical
fantasy can change that.
> >?.The slow down
> >in capital development in the USA after the end of the 19th
> >century is because our population was catching up to our resources.
>
> Not clear to me what this means. You think the 20th century was one
> of slower capital development than the 18th Or the 17th?
The last 8th of the 19th century and the early part of the
20th century saw a slow down in development as wealth
(the result of labor and land) became glumped up into fewer hands.
The available natural resources no longer free, but owned. The
actual resource of land, in the form of dry dirt under the feet
was, essentially, no longer available to the "new" people as
it had been before. Many are the cries of Libertarians about how
government prevented the blossoming development that had attended
the nation prior to the last decades of the 19th century. But the
rise in government was caused by the desire of some individuals to
control the lives of all other individuals through claims of
ownership to natural resources. As soon as the resources were all
owned the development began to slow. Freedom to use the
resources declined much as though the resources themselves had
become less. The "owners" simply collected rent from the "new"
people. Such extortion cannot exist but for the growth of
population and it results in less capital development than would
otherwise occur, and the cry from the current owners for more
"renters".
> >Natural resource per capita is at least as important, if not more
> >important than political economics
>
> Again you have it backwards. Technology and political economics
> create "natural resources" out of nature.
Please consult a good dictionary.
> ?.
>
> Surely you aren?t suggesting that the lower population density of the
> US is the reason for the higher living standard? The correlation
> between
> living standards and population density is positive. But you must
> know
> that.
>
> >No. I don't "know" anything of the sort.
>
> Then do a search. That information has been presented many times
Bogus numbers do not a proof portend.
> >But if you throw
> >in The Arctic, Antarctica, the deserts, and mountains, and
> >a bunch of other asinine stupidity I'm sure you will be
> >able to find a set of numbers to support that claim.
>
> Of course.
Thank you.
> >?If we
> >look at Africa, Asia, Europe, Russia, and the Americas I
> >don't think the claim will hold up to scrutiny.
>
> ??? Africa has a lower population density than Europe. Holland and
> Hong Kong are densely populated, etc.
Europe, has no deserts, an abundance of naturally occurring useful
land, rainfall, and climate suitable to crops and human habitation.
Therefore the number of people which will subsist on the land
is increased. In the case of Holland this is also true: The
people LIKE it there because of the tulips. Not because their
central bank is run by Santa Claus. In the case of Hong Kong, and
Japan, the "living standards" as measured by Republitarian
economists may be quite high. But the "quality of life" and the
"life style" is not all that great in the eye and mind of most
Americans. There is a limit to the utility of TV sets and "gadgets".
These areas subsist on the exploitation of the natural resources of
other nations. This _is_ accomplished via the manipulation of
governments and the threat of force. i.e. through the use
of political economics. It is the appropriation of wealth without
any attendant costs of enforcement which makes these areas habitable.
Japan and Hong Kong have managed to secure the threat of force
they need form the United States, while having that force totally
financed by the labor and resources of the United States. Now
to that extent the "political economy does matter".
> The correlation between population density and living standards for
> countries is just a fact. I don?t claim it implies causality, so I won?t
>
> follow up on this.
It is a fact that humans will migrate to those places where there
is ample fresh water, usable land, and suitable climate. The equator
is too hot for most of us. Japan is a really beautiful place. If
there were less people there, then the Japanese would not need to
work so hard and be the "manufacturing facility" for the world.
> >?And the
> >Japanese citizen may own more TV sets than I, but I have
> >no desire to trade places.
>
> Me neither.
>
> ?
>
> >The degree to which that may be achieved is measured by TRUE
> >capital development. Starting in about 1980 the USA turned
> >away from true capital and began to concentrate more and more
> >on simple ownership claims and monopoly rights.
>
> ???? Assets, and capital have always depended on ownership rights,
> that didn?t start in 1980. And "monopoly"?? Do you think there is
> more
> of that today than in say the 1950?s? (when the phone company was
> one, and airlines and trucking and electric power etc. were all
> regulated?)
> And when much more of the population worked for a relatively fewer
> number of very big corporations? When "what?s good for General Motors
> is good for America"?
>
> >I am not going to spend any more time arguing with a person who
> >believes that Ronald Reagan is the Messiah.
>
> ??? I don?t see how the above relates to Reagan as the Messiah. But
> the US economy has clearly done well in the 18 years since his tax
> rate cuts. And his military buildup and Cold War strategy was a factor
> in the collapse of the USSR and the Peace Dividend we now enjoy.
>
> But "Messiah???? His War on Drugs was clearly a failure that has done
> great harm, and the S&L deregulation he signed was a botched effort.
>
> I recognize both the good and the bad things he did. You seem to think
> the good things were bad, and don?t even mention the things that really
> were bad.
>
> >?.Any time you want
> >to take off those rose colored glasses and look at who is gaining
> >and who is losing I'll be ready.
>
> People in the USA have clearly been gaining over the past 20 years.
> Who has been losing? People in Russia and Yugoslavia. Who else?
We have lost much that we should have retained. We have much less
land per person than we did before all the immigration. The fixed
assets are more and more owned by non Americans and the American
ownership of the resources (and the fixed capital for that matter)
has been more concentrated into the hands of a few. Although shares
ownership is more widely based, the top few percent have dramatically
increased their actual percentage of ownership and control. The
people who have really lost are the young who had nothing to do with
any of it. The move to simple financial claims and ownership of
existing land and capital is the result of investments in government
power as the tool to extract the labor of those who must rent the owned
resources.
> >Hint: Tax assets instead of income and true capital will be developed.
>
> Ah, yes. TRUE capital. Instead of the computer and robot controlled
> factories and bio-engineered processes and information technology we
> have been developing for the last 20 years.
> --
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
We will have developed more of that TRUE capital if we reward
such development instead of rewarding simple claims of ownership.
If, instead of rewarding the hoarders of money and land titles,
we reward those who actually invest (i.e. risk their wealth in
new and better technologies, or in the construction of more
efficient plant and machinery).
--
Coburn ---
The opinions expressed herein above are mine. They are my property
so you can't have them. But use them. No rent or interest due.
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> >Natural resource per capita is at least as important, if not more
> >important than political economics
>
>
> I am always struck by the way the Scots took dominance in the world's
> marmalade market. Obviously the oranges that nestled under the heather went
> together complementarily with the glass jars that grew on the jartrees, and
> the lids that were shed seasonally by the lidsheep.
>
> -dlj.
It is quite obvious that government force can be employed to
extract labor and natural resource from where it lies and
deliver it to where it is consumed. Most certainly to that
extent can "political economy" (emphasis on the political)
result in an increase in living standards for some, at the
expense of others. Within that framework the development
of true capital can decrease the burden of appropriation or
enrich those who would appropriate or both. Nonetheless we
have still the four factors at work: The available natural
resources, the number of claimants (people), the enforcement
of ownership privilege, and capital development. All else
being held constant, the less people there are, then the
more goods there will be available to each individual.
Technology will be used to increase the productivity of the
individual and to extract more from nature with less labor
(this is called capital development). But there are limits
imposed by the available natural resources per capita, and
there will be more goods AVAILABLE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON
THE PLANET if there are fewer people on the planet.
jim blair
"JohnT" <j...@informatics.net> wrote >
> >>...If Europeans had come with no more technology than Native
> > > Americans came with, we'd probably have made their level of progress
> > > and like them, would have to wait for others to bring new technology.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > This is nonsense. The early settlers were parsons, clerks, and
> > schoolteachers, as technologically naive as your front doorknob.
> >
> > Few of them made it through the first winter, such was their command of
> > technology. The only reason white people were able to hang on on this
> > continent was that the technologically superior natives showed us how to use
> > the local resources.
> >
> > That's why we eat turkey at Thanksgiving.
> >
> > -dlj.
JohnT <j...@informatics.net>
> They had muskets, steel knives, ships to travel on the high seas,
> books, paper, pens, carpentry and construction know-how, cloth-making
> and sewing, and a host of other relatively modern technologies that
> Native Americans didn't have. East Coast Native Americans that
> the early settlers interacted with knew a few tricks of farming that
> were new to the settlers, but I'll bet the idea of fertilizer was not
> unknown to settlers. You say I said nonsense, I say you're a moron.
Hi,
On reflection, I will back off from my first reply, at least a little.
The metal tools of the first Europeans in North America, and certainly
the ships, were superior to what the natives had. I doubt the guns
(blunderbuss) had much of an edge over the native weapons because of
the slow rate of fire compared to arrows and the problems keeping
black powder dry. This probably didn't change until the flintlock
long rifle, when the range and accuracy more than offset the slow rate
of fire.
The natives had the edge in "agricultural biotechnology", because of
maize and squash, but overall the Europeans probably did have the
technological advantage (Jamestown anyone?). The biggest difference was
that the Europeans were keen to advance in science and technology while
the native tribes were in that "steady state" that the anti-technology
crowd extoles.
jim blair
Mike Coburn wrote:
>.... But there are limits
> imposed by the available natural resources per capita, and
> there will be more goods AVAILABLE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON
> THE PLANET if there are fewer people on the planet.
Hi,
But wealth is not just goods, but goods and services. If I were the only person
left alive in earth after some major disaster that left the capital and resources
unharmed, would I then be "richer"? I might have more goods, but fewer
services.
And eventually, ever fewer goods. Other people provide those goods and services.
Dick H. Fredericksen
--
Dick H. Fredericksen
Mike Coburn wrote in message <3A17D85E...@gte.net>...
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>>
>> Mike Coburn wrote:
>>
[snip]
>All else
>being held constant, the less people there are, then the
>more goods there will be available to each individual.
It is interesting in this regard to read the 19th-century work of Henry
George -- not for his "single tax" proposal, but for the evident way in
which time and place shape our perceptions of capital and land. George,
living in a land where railroad companies as well as religious sects vied to
subsidize immigration, assumed increasing returns to population as it filled
up the land. He probably imbibed that as the conventional wisdom of business
people (if not economists) with whom he came in contact.
A century later, Malthusianism was more understandable -- though, as pointed
out repeatedly in this thread, it takes too dim a view of the possibilities
for productive innovation.
Dick H. Fredericksen
pet...@netlink.com.au
"Dick H. Fredericksen" <dhf...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
.
.
.
> A century later, Malthusianism was more understandable -- though, as
pointed
> out repeatedly in this thread, it takes too dim a view of the
possibilities
> for productive innovation.
I suggest you consult the original. MALTHUS took a dim view
of them himself personally, but he was too intellectually
honest and rigorous not to deal with them properly. So the
body of analysis called "Malthusianism" does indeed cover
the possibilities. It actually predicts what will happen
if we don't get the Micawber solution, "something will
turn up" - but it does not omit or deny the possibility;
it's not an unqualified prediction.
And, in the same spirit of rigour, that charges us to consider
what we ourselves face. It is just as sloppy to assume that
something WILL turn up as that it won't. Who is to say that
Malthus' reservations had enough contrary evidence against
them that he should have dropped them, provisional and
tentative as they were, in favour of what we only know with
hindsight? PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based
production tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the
other items on that page for some reasons why.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jim blair
>You put far too much faith in the money (the numbers).
Hi,
I am basing my claims less on money numbers than on facts like longer lifes,
larger houses, more travel, more eduction, etc. People in the US are better
off overall
today than in the past. And than people in the 3rd world.
> > >But no matter what economic system you use in China
> > >the Chinese will remain poor until they get their population
> > >problems under control.
> > The population growth will decline after living standards improve.
> > As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
>
> Perhaps it is simply easy to convince you of that which you
> want to be true. Population growth declines as education
> improves AND as the living standards improve. But if there
> is cause and effect it relates to education and information
> as opposed to anything else.
Hi,
???? I think this mean you agree with me. Population declines are the result
of higher
living standards and not the cause of them.
> > We are extremely fortunate to have the
> > >amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
jeb:
> > So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
> >
> > created by human ingenuity .
>
> > We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
MC:
> Duh.... They call em "natural resources" because they are "naturally
> occurring", Jim. They were not created by any economic system, and, in
> the case of non renewable, or very slowly renewable resources there
> will obviously be less as we harvest, or over harvest same. It may be
> that
> we can find ways to use the resources more efficiently and we may find
> ways to convert some resources to use in different ways so as to make
> up for the dwindling supply of others. But the fact remains that
> natural
> rescues are "natural" by definition. Not even Republitarian statistical
> fantasy can change that.
New resources can be created out of matter not previously considered to be
a natural resourse. Happens all the time.
> > Surely you aren?t suggesting that the lower population density of the
> > US is the reason for the higher living standard? The correlation
> > between
> > living standards and population density is positive. But you must
> > know
> > that.
MC;
> > >No. I don't "know" anything of the sort.
JEB
> > Then do a search. That information has been presented many times
MC:
> Bogus numbers do not a proof portend.
Again, the correlation is clear. Higher population density correlates with
higher living standards. The cause and effect is not clear.
MC:
>The degree to which that may be achieved is measured by TRUE
>capital development. Starting in about 1980 the USA turned
>away from true capital and began to concentrate more and more
>on simple ownership claims and monopoly rights.
jeb:
???? Assets, and capital have always depended on ownership rights,
that didn’t start in 1980. And "monopoly"?? Do you think there is more
of that today than in say, the 1950?s? (when the phone company was
one, and airlines and trucking and electric power etc. were all regulated?)
And when much more of the population worked for a relatively fewer
number of very big corporations? When "what’s good for General Motors
is good for America"?
I was recently reading Ralph Nader’s 1972 revision of "Unsafe at Any Speed".
He opens with the claim that when Ford made safety a priority in their 1956
models, General Motors exerted pressure on Ford and stop with the safety
features. And was even able to pressure Ford management to force
Ford director Robert McNamara to let up on safety as a feature. GM
wanted the industry to stress styling and sex appeal, and not safety, and
did not want drivers to think about car accidents.
(I still remember the seat belts and padded absorbent dashboard on
the family’s green 1956 Ford)
Can you imagine that today any one car company could dictate to the
rest of the industry what features are off limits for them to promote?
> > People in the USA have clearly been gaining over the past 20 years.
> > Who has been losing? People in Russia and Yugoslavia. Who else?
>
> We have lost much that we should have retained. We have much less
> land per person than we did before all the immigration.
???? The first settlers in North America were better off than people today
because
the had "more land per person" than people today?? Like those in Jamestown
or Roanoak NC? You gotta be kidding.
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> JohnT wrote:
>
> > >.... In the Fed-induced recovery, of
> > course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
> > the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
> > debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush.....
>
> Hi,
>
> Why "Reagan/Bush"? Divide that increase into "Reagan" (8 years) and Bush (4
> years). In terms of policy, the more logical division is Reagan vs
> Bush/Clinton.
> But even that gets fuzzy when the Bush "Read My Lips Taxes" and the early
> Clinton
> tax increases are later followed with the Clinton tax cuts, especially capital
> gains.
The deficits didn't start on a consistent downward trend until 1992, as
short-term interest rates declined to about 3% around the middle of 1992
and remained there until the first of 1994. This would be due to Federal
Reserve policy and perhaps the greater availability of credit following the
tax increases in the Bush and early Clinton years. When did Bush's tax
increase go into effect?
Because the downward trend in deficits didn't start until 1992, I
think it's fair to refer to the rise in federal debt as being due to
policies of Reagan and Bush.
>
> > years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
>
> Making that sucking sound that Ross warned about? You would rather the
> foreigners came here for the jobs?
What's the point of practicing reproductive restraint if others don't. What's
the point of getting a college degree just to be a store clerk? Why should
citizens be passed by for jobs and economic development in their local
communities? The rationale for being dumped on hasn't been adequately
presented by the political leadership, and the dumping hasn't been applied
equally to the poor and the rich.
> > and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs.
>
> Back to the fall in US living standards since 1982?
It would seem.
>
>
> > Our businesses
> > were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
> > were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt.
>
> Global economy?
No, not global economy, stupid domestic fiscal policy (deficits).
>
>
> > In fact,
> > about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
> > investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
> > that we owe it to ourselves.
>
> Expand you thinking beyond narrow economic chauvanism. It's one world.
No doubt. But we Americans consume, and instead of our goods
being equally bought, the money comes back to buy our country
out from under us. This is very uncool. I want to see people buying
US grain, flour, lumber and so forth for their own consumption, not
just to add value and sell it back to us. There are plenty of Americans
who would like those jobs which are more profitable than
burger-flipping.
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> > William F. Hummel wrote:
>
> > > The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
> > > dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
> > > of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
> > > it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it.
>
> JohnT wrote:
>
> > Wrong. It's a valid implication of theory and was shown to occur
> > in a 1982 paper by Keith Carlson, at the time Vice President for
> > Research at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
>
> Hi,
>
> How can a paper written in 1982 evaluate the effect of a series of tax cuts
> that were not phased in until 1983 and were not really completed until 1986?
> And especially when the impact was projected to be a long range change in the
> incentives to earn and to invest. I mean even the supporters of "supply side"
> tax
> rate cuts predict that the effects will take some time to "trickle down".
>
> The changes in US tax laws made in the early 1980's have shaped the US economy
> of the past decade up to today.
uhhhh, let me see.....if you found in 1957 that putting money into your
bank account makes it bigger and taking money out makes it smaller,
would you say that such findings are irrelevant in the year 2000, because
money or accounting or arithmetic no longer works the same way?
Basic properties of monetary and fiscal policy should not be expected
to change between the time at which that paper's research data base
was taken and the present time. The article was not about any particular
tax change, it was about the finding that crowding out occurs, based on
a statistical study using appropriate data.
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> >You put far too much faith in the money (the numbers).
>
> Hi,
> I am basing my claims less on money numbers than on facts like longer lifes,
> larger houses, more travel, more eduction, etc. People in the US are better
> off overall
> today than in the past. And than people in the 3rd world.
The US is no longer Number One in health and longevity. A number of
European countries beat us in this category, and maybe Japan too. Health
is largely a function of income. If you have a good job most of your life,
you get regular medical care, eat healthier, and maybe get more of the
right kind of exercise. Maldistribution of income and healthcare benefits
really hurts the US in health stats compared to progressive countries.
Regarding the debate about population and living standards, anyone
who thinks that more is always merrier must be someone who is able
to feed 5000 people with a few fish and loaves of bread. Or someone
who believes it's possible...
Mark Twain noted something really interesting about statistics. On
average during a certain period, changes in the path of the Mississippi
river resulted in some shortening. If continued for a couple thousand
years, the Mississippi would therefore become only two miles long!
Isn't that amazing! How can statistics lie?
<snip>
John
JohnT
William F. Hummel wrote:
That's the sort of thing believers in the phlogiston theory of fire said.
It's also the kind of thinking that allows people to have long rich careers
in economics without knowing what they are talking about. The paper
I'm referring to was published in the Review of the ST. Louis Fed, and
presented the rationale, data and econometric analysis. You cannot
safely ignore the finding.
>
> >
> >> As long as the yield on debt securities is unattractive relative
> >> to the return on other investments, there will be no crowding out
> >> of private investment. That is the condition that has existed
> >> for most of the Clinton years, even though the debt has been and
> >> still remains very high. Indeed the debt was still rising while
> >> private investment was sparking the beginning of the best decade
> >> ever in terms of economic growth.
> >
> >The deficits must be financed. Govt checks are not allowed to
> >bounce.
>
> True.
>
> >The govt will borrow at whatever rate is necessary to
> >maintain its solvency and good credit rating.
>
> Yes, the government will borrow at whatever rate the market
> demands, but certainly not because it has any problem with
> solvency or credit rating.
>
> >When the govt
> >borrows, it sucks money out of the credit market, out of the
> >stock market and investment in brick and mortar.
>
> False. The government only sells its debt to finance its deficit
> spending. Money is not "sucked" out of the private sector
> because those funds are spent back as fast as they are acquired.
So you say that
"taxes + private savings = govt spending + private investment"
does not represent a trade-off between deficits and capital investment?
That's one of the most basic relations in national accounting, is it not?
If you are a professor, do you just tell your students that though it's
in the book and is a very basic and established economic relationship,
it's not so and should be ignored?
> >
> >Growth and inflation are both strongly influenced by the rate of
> >money supply growth. After the Reagan Recession, the Fed goosed
> >the economy with very high money growth rates via low interest
> >rates. There was not a goddamned bit of "fiscal policy" influence
> >in the changes in nominal GDP. In the Fed-induced recovery, of
> >course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
> >the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
> >debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush
> >years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
> >and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs. Our businesses
> >were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
> >were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt. In fact,
> >about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
> >investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
> >that we owe it to ourselves.
> >
> Relevance?
To whom does the profit of a capital or financial investment accrue?
To whom does the US govt forever pay interest to for its one-time
borrowing binge? Who pays the interest on that debt year after year?
What economists do we have to thank for getting stuck with that
senseless burden?
William F. Hummel
wrote:
>
>William F. Hummel wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:52:10 -0800, JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >William F. Hummel wrote:
>> >
>> >> The notion that the national debt crowds out private investment,
>> >> dollar for dollar, is a fiction that has apparently become a part
>> >> of conventional wisdom. The historical record does not support
>> >> it, and there is no sound theoretical basis for it. In fact the
>> >> "burden of the debt" correlates positively with good economic
>> >> times.
>> >
>> >Wrong. It's a valid implication of theory and was shown to occur
>> >in a 1982 paper by Keith Carlson, at the time Vice President for
>> >Research at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
>> >
>> Testimonials are not evidence. Without presenting any data or
>> rationale, we can safely ignore this.
>
>That's the sort of thing believers in the phlogiston theory of fire said.
>It's also the kind of thinking that allows people to have long rich careers
>in economics without knowing what they are talking about. The paper
>I'm referring to was published in the Review of the ST. Louis Fed, and
>presented the rationale, data and econometric analysis. You cannot
>safely ignore the finding.
In other words, you have embraced the opinion expressed in the
paper, but can't explain the rationale or why we should believe
it in the face of contrary evidence. It just appears to be from
an authoritative source. If that is the basis, economics debate
boils down to a mere pissing contest.
This is what's so disconcerting about much of undergraduate
economics. The mainstream econ textbooks are full of
oversimplifications and a fair share of disproven concepts. The
sad fact is that most graduate instructors know it, but they have
to earn a living. Marking oneself as a heterodox economist is
risky business, particularly if untenured.
Then there are many who are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they
don't even see the problem. These famous words apply to us all:
"The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from
the old ones which ramify . . . into every corner of our minds."
>> >Growth and inflation are both strongly influenced by the rate of
>> >money supply growth. After the Reagan Recession, the Fed goosed
>> >the economy with very high money growth rates via low interest
>> >rates. There was not a goddamned bit of "fiscal policy" influence
>> >in the changes in nominal GDP. In the Fed-induced recovery, of
>> >course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
>> >the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
>> >debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush
>> >years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
>> >and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs. Our businesses
>> >were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
>> >were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt. In fact,
>> >about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
>> >investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
>> >that we owe it to ourselves.
>> >
>> Relevance?
>
>To whom does the profit of a capital or financial investment accrue?
>To whom does the US govt forever pay interest to for its one-time
>borrowing binge? Who pays the interest on that debt year after year?
>What economists do we have to thank for getting stuck with that
>senseless burden?
>
Still waiting for a meaningful answer.
JohnT
William F. Hummel wrote:
I've explained the rationale and so forth repeatedly in previous posts.
And the evidence isn't contrary.
One of my college buddies earned straight A's in a major in math
and physics---except for a B in economics. The subject disgusted
him because it was so full of unwarranted assumptions and illogic.
He went on to the graduate physics program at Stanford U. I also
found the standard econ texts up to money and banking to have a
few accurate logical thoughts mushed in with a huge amount of
irrational speculation. What I found to be true is the monetarist
perspective. It adds up, it's justifiable theoretically and empirically,
and it includes the theoretical basis for concluding that crowding
out is a valid idea, and also econometrically demonstrated in the
paper I referred to. Maybe you could find it on the Fed's website.
I have a hardcopy of it someplace, not readily accessible, but can
tell you it's by Carlson and published in 1982.
> Then there are many who are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they
> don't even see the problem. These famous words apply to us all:
> "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from
> the old ones which ramify . . . into every corner of our minds."
Not all of the old ideas are wrong. It took Milton Friedman's efforts
to bring monetary theory back to respectability. Others have worked
in this area fruitfully too.
Keynes himself was a monetarist. He did not dispute the monetarist
approach to economic analysis and referred to it extensively in his
book General Theory of Money, Interest Rates and Employment (I
think that's the full title). The exception he stated to previous theory
is that labor markets don't necessarily clear, and dealt with what can
be done to alleviate unemployment.
However, the followers of Keynes, Keynesians, neoKeynesians or
whatever, didn't know what they were talking about, and many
economists still don't. I don't think you do. Otherwise you would not
be so averse to recognizing that though crowding out is hidden in the
random transactions of the real economy, it is statistically discernible
and there is a sound theoretical basis to suspect it happens.
One currently visible effect of this is that for the past 8 years deficits
have been falling until we now have had 3 years of federal budget
surpluses, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office. The
crowding-out idea says that if we reduce deficits and stop crowding
out, more money will flow into private investment. One manifestation
of that, I think, is soaring stock prices that probably exceed what one
might expect from price/earnings ratios.
I am somewhat disappointed in recent articles from the St. Louis Fed
as there seems not to be any recent work on the St. Louis model.
> >> >Growth and inflation are both strongly influenced by the rate of
> >> >money supply growth. After the Reagan Recession, the Fed goosed
> >> >the economy with very high money growth rates via low interest
> >> >rates. There was not a goddamned bit of "fiscal policy" influence
> >> >in the changes in nominal GDP. In the Fed-induced recovery, of
> >> >course tax receipts would go up and outlays would go down, but
> >> >the outlays were still so far ahead of receipts that the national
> >> >debt jumped from about 1 trillion to 4 trillion during the Reagan/Bush
> >> >years. During this time, many good US jobs were shipped overseas
> >> >and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs. Our businesses
> >> >were bought into by foreign investors as evidently our own investors
> >> >were too busy buying T-bills to finance the federal debt. In fact,
> >> >about 25% of that debt several years ago was owed to foreign
> >> >investors, so that we can't even make the vaguely true statement
> >> >that we owe it to ourselves.
> >> >
> >> Relevance?
> >
> >To whom does the profit of a capital or financial investment accrue?
> >To whom does the US govt forever pay interest to for its one-time
> >borrowing binge? Who pays the interest on that debt year after year?
> >What economists do we have to thank for getting stuck with that
> >senseless burden?
> >
> Still waiting for a meaningful answer.
You are a butt-head economist who doesn't have anything against fiscal
policy that causes significant deficits, crowds out private investment, hurts
productivity growth, the competitiveness of American businesses, the
American job market, the American tax base, and the economic future
of our children, grandchildren and future generations. Your economic
recommendations are rotten. That's the relevance.
William F. Hummel
wrote:
>
>William F. Hummel wrote:
>> This is what's so disconcerting about much of undergraduate
>> economics. The mainstream econ textbooks are full of
>> oversimplifications and a fair share of disproven concepts. The
>> sad fact is that most graduate instructors know it, but they have
>> to earn a living. Marking oneself as a heterodox economist is
>> risky business, particularly if untenured.
>
>One of my college buddies earned straight A's in a major in math
>and physics---except for a B in economics. The subject disgusted
>him because it was so full of unwarranted assumptions and illogic.
>He went on to the graduate physics program at Stanford U. I also
>found the standard econ texts up to money and banking to have a
>few accurate logical thoughts mushed in with a huge amount of
>irrational speculation. What I found to be true is the monetarist
>perspective. It adds up, it's justifiable theoretically and empirically,
>and it includes the theoretical basis for concluding that crowding
>out is a valid idea, and also econometrically demonstrated in the
>paper I referred to. Maybe you could find it on the Fed's website.
>I have a hardcopy of it someplace, not readily accessible, but can
>tell you it's by Carlson and published in 1982.
As a true believer in the monetarist doctrine that you claim is
justifiable empirically, you must have a precise definition of
"money". I would like to know what it is, how you measure it,
and how you control its quantity. Surely you would agree that
one must be able to measure it in order to control its quantity.
If you can't control its quantity, then the monetarist
prescription is purely academic.
>
>> Then there are many who are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they
>> don't even see the problem. These famous words apply to us all:
>> "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from
>> the old ones which ramify . . . into every corner of our minds."
>
>Not all of the old ideas are wrong. It took Milton Friedman's efforts
>to bring monetary theory back to respectability. Others have worked
>in this area fruitfully too.
That's interesting. Most observers say that monetarism reached
its peak around 1980 and since then has lost its luster.
>
>Keynes himself was a monetarist. He did not dispute the monetarist
>approach to economic analysis and referred to it extensively in his
>book General Theory of Money, Interest Rates and Employment (I
>think that's the full title). The exception he stated to previous theory
>is that labor markets don't necessarily clear, and dealt with what can
>be done to alleviate unemployment.
Whether Keynes was a monetarist or not depends on what you mean
by the term.
>
>However, the followers of Keynes, Keynesians, neoKeynesians or
>whatever, didn't know what they were talking about, and many
>economists still don't. I don't think you do. Otherwise you would not
>be so averse to recognizing that though crowding out is hidden in the
>random transactions of the real economy, it is statistically discernible
>and there is a sound theoretical basis to suspect it happens.
I agree that most of those who call themselves Keynesians ended
up distorting much of what he said. But certainly I don't know
what I am talking about. Otherwise I would be a devout
monetarist. Right?
>
>One currently visible effect of this is that for the past 8 years deficits
>have been falling until we now have had 3 years of federal budget
>surpluses, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office. The
>crowding-out idea says that if we reduce deficits and stop crowding
>out, more money will flow into private investment. One manifestation
>of that, I think, is soaring stock prices that probably exceed what one
>might expect from price/earnings ratios.
Of course private investment has not been crowded out since the
early 1980s when interest rates were in double digits. Yet the
debt was increasing during most of that period. It's customary
to look at all the data, not just a selected series.
>
>I am somewhat disappointed in recent articles from the St. Louis Fed
>as there seems not to be any recent work on the St. Louis model.
>
>> Still waiting for a meaningful answer.
>
>You are a butt-head economist who doesn't have anything against fiscal
>policy that causes significant deficits, crowds out private investment, hurts
>productivity growth, the competitiveness of American businesses, the
>American job market, the American tax base, and the economic future
>of our children, grandchildren and future generations. Your economic
>recommendations are rotten. That's the relevance.
I don't mind being labeled a butt-head by an economist, but
calling _me_ an economist is more than I can bear. I read
economics purely out of an intellectual interest, and try to sift
the wheat from the chaff of which there is plenty. But I was a
professional engineer, who designed flight control systems for
missiles and spacecraft. I never had a chance to get fully
indoctrinated in the conventional wisdom.
JohnT
JohnT wrote:
Keynes speculated in General Theory that crowding out would occur
if government deficits were financed on the open market instead of
being "monetized", financed by creation of new money.
> However, the followers of Keynes, Keynesians, neoKeynesians or
> whatever, didn't know what they were talking about, and many
> economists still don't. I don't think you do. Otherwise you would not
> be so averse to recognizing that though crowding out is hidden in the
> random transactions of the real economy, it is statistically discernible
> and there is a sound theoretical basis to suspect it happens.
>
> One currently visible effect of this is that for the past 8 years deficits
> have been falling until we now have had 3 years of federal budget
> surpluses, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office. The
> crowding-out idea says that if we reduce deficits and stop crowding
> out, more money will flow into private investment. One manifestation
> of that, I think, is soaring stock prices that probably exceed what one
> might expect from price/earnings ratios.
I should have cited the graphic data from National Economic Trends,
Oct. 2000, a publication of the St. Louis Fed. It shows that real private
and total investment as a percent of GDP began increasing early in 1991
and have continued upward ever since. Private investment during the
Reagan/Bush years peaked at 16% of GDP in 1984 and then gradually
declined to 12% in 1991 before turning upward. It's now at 20%, higher
than at any time during the Republican big-deficit years, higher than at
any time showing on the graph which goes back to 1975.
Business investment has increased at a fairly steady rate of about 10%,
in contrast to the wild fluctuations of the 1970s and 1980s. The same
fluctuations are seen in private residential investment in those years,
but residential investment growth appears to be less than 10% since
1992 and to be more variable.
Short-term interest rates were at about 6% at the start of 1991, and fell
steadily to 3% in the middle of 1992, held steady until 1994 and then
rose to nearly 6% by the start of 1995. Since then, short-term rates
have hovered around 5% until rising in 1999 and 2000 to about 6%.
I submit that the increases in private investment since 1991 are the
result of tax *increases*, the reversing of "crowding out", and are
empirical support of the freshman equation:
taxes + private savings = govt spending + private investment
John
Chas
JohnT wrote:
>
>
> Keynes speculated in General Theory that crowding out would occur
> if government deficits were financed on the open market instead of
> being "monetized", financed by creation of new money.
>
Keynes was not able to handled the notion of forced saving and therefore could not
account for what is known today as indirect crowding out. That is, a rise in the
price level causing an increase in interest rates and therefore a reduction in
private consumption and investment. Modern Keynesians do recognize indirect crowding
out, however.
mason clark
>wrote:
>
>> ....fiscal policy that causes significant deficits, crowds out private investment,
>>hurts productivity growth, the competitiveness of American businesses, the
>>American job market, the American tax base, and the economic future
>>of our children, grandchildren and future generations.
And that takes care of Reagan's fiscal policy once and for all, Jim Blair.
Mason what's it do for motherhood and apply pie?
William F. Hummel
wrote:
>I should have cited the graphic data from National Economic Trends,
>Oct. 2000, a publication of the St. Louis Fed. It shows that real private
>and total investment as a percent of GDP began increasing early in 1991
>and have continued upward ever since. Private investment during the
>Reagan/Bush years peaked at 16% of GDP in 1984 and then gradually
>declined to 12% in 1991 before turning upward. It's now at 20%, higher
>than at any time during the Republican big-deficit years, higher than at
>any time showing on the graph which goes back to 1975.
>
>Business investment has increased at a fairly steady rate of about 10%,
>in contrast to the wild fluctuations of the 1970s and 1980s. The same
>fluctuations are seen in private residential investment in those years,
>but residential investment growth appears to be less than 10% since
>1992 and to be more variable.
>
>Short-term interest rates were at about 6% at the start of 1991, and fell
>steadily to 3% in the middle of 1992, held steady until 1994 and then
>rose to nearly 6% by the start of 1995. Since then, short-term rates
>have hovered around 5% until rising in 1999 and 2000 to about 6%.
>
>I submit that the increases in private investment since 1991 are the
>result of tax *increases*, the reversing of "crowding out", and are
>empirical support of the freshman equation:
>
>taxes + private savings = govt spending + private investment
>
>John
On another forum today, an Australian economist wrote the
following:
>Some years ago a study of Australian public expenditure
>
>Otto, Glenn & Voss, Graham (1994), "Long and Short Run Interactions of
>Public Capital, Private Output, Capital and Hours", Conference Paper,
>Sydney: School of Economics, University of New South Wales.
>
>produced strong statistical evidence of "crowding in"; public investment was
>positively correlated with private investment,
I have not seen the paper, so cannot comment on it except to note
that the "crowding out" hypothesis deserves a healthy skepticism.
It certainly shouldn't be based on some "freshman equation" or
selected data in support.
Mike Coburn
>
> JohnT wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Keynes speculated in General Theory that crowding out would occur
> > if government deficits were financed on the open market instead of
> > being "monetized", financed by creation of new money.
> >
>
> account for what is known today as indirect crowding out. That is, a rise in the
> price level causing an increase in interest rates and therefore a reduction in
> private consumption and investment. Modern Keynesians do recognize indirect crowding
> out, however.
There is a small question to be asked here: Is there some physical
law of the universe that I am missing here that says that an increase
in prices will result in an increase in the interest rate?
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> >.... But there are limits
>
> > imposed by the available natural resources per capita, and
> > there will be more goods AVAILABLE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON
> > THE PLANET if there are fewer people on the planet.
>
> Hi,
>
> But wealth is not just goods, but goods and services. If I were the only person
> left alive in earth after some major disaster that left the capital and resources
>
> unharmed, would I then be "richer"? I might have more goods, but fewer
> services.
> And eventually, ever fewer goods. Other people provide those goods and services.
>
>
So let us consider the other extreme, Jim. Let's suppose that
we are all eating Soilent Green and stepping on each other
while getting off the crapper. Now all the "owners" will, of
course, be well "serviced", but the bulk of humanity will live
a pretty miserable existence.
JHogan2359
>Date: 11/22/00 4:18 PM Eastern
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:39:55 -0800, JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net>
>wrote:
>As a true believer in the monetarist doctrine that you claim is
>justifiable empirically, you must have a precise definition of
>"money". I would like to know what it is, how you measure it,
>and how you control its quantity. Surely you would agree that
>one must be able to measure it in order to control its quantity.
Jumping in here with a couple of random thoughts...
First, John, do you have an answer to Mr. Hummel's question above? If you do,
then many people would like to hear it, not least of all Alan Greenspan, who
claims that he doesn't have the answer either.
If "monetarism" really works, and new money reflects the real worth of new
goods and services, then what are we to make of the loss in value of the stock
markets, most notably the NASDAQ? All that "money" is still floating around
somewhere, but now it doesn't have anything to back it up.
About natural resources...
Last night it was 25 degrees F here in Atlanta. This is *unusually* cold for
this time of the year. Meteorologists say that it could be much colder than
normal for the entire winter (which hasn't officially begun yet!)
In Buffalo, NY over 2 feet of snow fell--in a single day. I realize that
Buffalo is prone to heavy snowfall, but this is very unusual.
This cold weather will put an increased demand on fuels used for heating,
natural gas and fuel oil.
The point, and its relevence to this thread, is that external shocks, such as
sharp rises in key commodities like crude oil can have a disastrous effect on
the US economy. There's nothing that the FED can do about the weather, or the
price of oil.
Compounding this problem is the situation in the Middle East, between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. It is rapidly spinning out of control, and it
*will* spread to other countries. What would happen if, say, the House of Saud
were overthrown, and the Saudi government fell into the hands of Islamic
fundamentalists, such as happened with the fall of the Shah of Iran?
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> >You put far too much faith in the money (the numbers).
>
> Hi,
> I am basing my claims less on money numbers than on facts like longer lifes,
> larger houses, more travel, more eduction, etc. People in the US are better
> off overall
> today than in the past. And than people in the 3rd world.
Even your own numbers should tell you that the gains are not
as egalitarian as they should be. You seem to delight in
all kinds of numbers that illustrate a "growing" economy and
yet you can only manage a minuscule .5% decrease in the
amount of requisite labor since the beginning of the 70's.
> > > >But no matter what economic system you use in China
> > > >the Chinese will remain poor until they get their population
> > > >problems under control.
>
> > > The population growth will decline after living standards improve.
> > > As usual, you have things exactly backwards.
> >
> > Perhaps it is simply easy to convince you of that which you
> > want to be true. Population growth declines as education
> > improves AND as the living standards improve. But if there
> > is cause and effect it relates to education and information
> > as opposed to anything else.
>
> Hi,
>
> ???? I think this mean you agree with me. Population declines are the result
> of higher
> living standards and not the cause of them.
Declines in population growth are largely due to increases in
available information and education. The ranting of tribes seems
to ebb as awareness of the real universe increases.
> > > We are extremely fortunate to have the
>
> > > >amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
>
> jeb:
>
> > > So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
> > >
> > > created by human ingenuity .
>
> >
> > > We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
>
> MC:
>
> > Duh.... They call em "natural resources" because they are "naturally
> > occurring", Jim. They were not created by any economic system, and, in
> > the case of non renewable, or very slowly renewable resources there
> > will obviously be less as we harvest, or over harvest same. It may be
> > that
> > we can find ways to use the resources more efficiently and we may find
> > ways to convert some resources to use in different ways so as to make
> > up for the dwindling supply of others. But the fact remains that
> > natural
> > rescues are "natural" by definition. Not even Republitarian statistical
> > fantasy can change that.
>
> New resources can be created out of matter not previously considered to be
> a natural resourse. Happens all the time.
Yeah. Right. Go create us some more oil, Jim. I don't want done
of that imported stuff either. I want that kind that you create
right here. And while you're at it I want you to create some
more good land, and maybe some really good naturally clean water.
You know.... The kind you just drink without it being processed
and bottled by all those people providing "service".
> > > Surely you aren?t suggesting that the lower population density of the
> > > US is the reason for the higher living standard? The correlation
> > > between
> > > living standards and population density is positive. But you must
> > > know
> > > that.
>
> MC;
>
> > > >No. I don't "know" anything of the sort.
>
> JEB
>
> > > Then do a search. That information has been presented many times
>
> MC:
>
> > Bogus numbers do not a proof portend.
>
> Again, the correlation is clear. Higher population density correlates with
> higher living standards. The cause and effect is not clear.
Thank you....
> MC:
> >The degree to which that may be achieved is measured by TRUE
> >capital development. Starting in about 1980 the USA turned
> >away from true capital and began to concentrate more and more
> >on simple ownership claims and monopoly rights.
>
> jeb:
>
> ???? Assets, and capital have always depended on ownership rights,
> that didn?t start in 1980. And "monopoly"?? Do you think there is more
> of that today than in say, the 1950?s? (when the phone company was
> one, and airlines and trucking and electric power etc. were all regulated?)
> And when much more of the population worked for a relatively fewer
> number of very big corporations? When "what?s good for General Motors
> is good for America"?
Our government presently exists to protect copyrights, patents, trade
name restrictions, and all other corporate monopolies. To an extent the
kinds of monopoly rights of which I speak may be beneficial to the
society. But the rights should be paid from the profits of those who
benefit from these rights. That would be Microsoft, General Motors,
and, yes, Mitsubishi, and Volkswagen. Tax assets and land value, not
income.
> I was recently reading Ralph Nader?s 1972 revision of "Unsafe at Any Speed".
> He opens with the claim that when Ford made safety a priority in their 1956
> models, General Motors exerted pressure on Ford and stop with the safety
> features. And was even able to pressure Ford management to force
> Ford director Robert McNamara to let up on safety as a feature. GM
> wanted the industry to stress styling and sex appeal, and not safety, and
> did not want drivers to think about car accidents.
>
> (I still remember the seat belts and padded absorbent dashboard on
> the family?s green 1956 Ford)
>
> Can you imagine that today any one car company could dictate to the
> rest of the industry what features are off limits for them to promote?
I can't imagine how you get off on these toots of yours. I am
not terribly supportive of government regulation of anything other
than taxing BADS like pollution.
> > > People in the USA have clearly been gaining over the past 20 years.
> > > Who has been losing? People in Russia and Yugoslavia. Who else?
> >
> > We have lost much that we should have retained. We have much less
> > land per person than we did before all the immigration.
>
> ???? The first settlers in North America were better off than people today
> because
> the had "more land per person" than people today?? Like those in Jamestown
> or Roanoak NC? You gotta be kidding.
> --
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Nope. I'm not "kidding" at all. The people today would be much
better off if there were less people today. You seem to think
that the capital development would stop if the population did
not increase. I see no rationale for that at all.
JohnT
Mike Coburn wrote:
> Chas wrote:
> >
> > JohnT wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Keynes speculated in General Theory that crowding out would occur
> > > if government deficits were financed on the open market instead of
> > > being "monetized", financed by creation of new money.
> > >
> >
> > Keynes was not able to handled the notion of forced saving and therefore could not
> > account for what is known today as indirect crowding out. That is, a rise in the
> > price level causing an increase in interest rates and therefore a reduction in
> > private consumption and investment. Modern Keynesians do recognize indirect crowding
> > out, however.
Isn't the spread between the interest rate and the inflation rate what
really causes the expense of a loan to a borrower? As noted below,
higher inflation often comes with increased risk as to what the central
bank may do about it, and perhaps other risks too. I've heard that
uncertainty is a big reason why people hesitate to borrow and invest.
> There is a small question to be asked here: Is there some physical
> law of the universe that I am missing here that says that an increase
> in prices will result in an increase in the interest rate?
Kinda. If inflation were 3% and I were a banker, I would want to
loan you some money at a rate that would be profitable for me. It's
part of my livelihood. That means interest rates high enough to stay
ahead of inflation, pay for the risk of the loan (maybe 3.4% of loan
customers have defaulted in the past several years), pay for the
office, the secretary, etc. I've heard that the prime rate (what the
best customers get) is typically 2% higher than inflation---so the
prime rate with the above conditions would be 5%. Risky loans,
like $10 to the town drunk to buy a bottle of Thunderbird Wine,
would as a bank loan have an interest rate high enough to cover
the extra risk ("Pay $15 on Tuesday & leave your pickup keys.").
If the rate of interest should rise to 5%, those 5% loans would be
paying zero rates of real inflation-adjusted return. If inflation went
to 6%, I'd be losing money on them. If I were your relative, I might
make the loan anyway, even for 0% interest, but if I'm a banker I
want to make a living so at 6% inflation I'd charge maybe 9%,
2% above inflation plus another point to cover the additional risk
of uncertain economic conditions (will the Fed raise rates and
cause a recession? Will you still have a job? Will I get paid?).
In DEFLATION (depression conditions), something different
happens. Inflation slows to 0% so I charge 2% for loans. Then
inflation maybe falls to -2% and I can afford to loan for 0%. But
why should I? Why not just hang onto my money in bad business
conditions instead of putting it at risk? If inflation falls to -3%, I
could loan at 0% and get a real rate of return of 3% because of
negative inflation---but at increased risk. So why not hold my
money and get the 3% real rate of return with NO risk? This is
the liquidity trap condition in which private borrowing doesn't work
as a mechanism for putting new money into the economy and lead
to economic growth. It is in ONLY THIS condition that Keynes
proposed goosing the economy with public deficit spending
financed by the central bank to create new money. Note that as
an economy falls deeper into negative inflation rates, the real rate
of interest increases accordingly and makes the economy even
worse. Paying off existing loans becomes increasingly hard.
As long as inflation is a few percent above zero, there's room for
interest rates on private loans to decline and thereby stimulate the
economy. A zero-inflation economy would have to run very close
to liquidity trap conditions and any little blow might push it into the
valley of depression. There is presently no mechanism to enable
negative interest rates on loans that would nullify the risk of the
liquidity trap and make a zero-inflation economy feasible.
John
Mike Coburn
I do understand all of that but I also appreciate the fact that
some do not. And that it is always good to present it in the
very clear terms you have used. But I was asking in search of
something new that might actually have a basis other than the,
now erroneous, assumptions which form the basis of what you
have presented. One such assumption which has existed so long
that nobody ever questions it is the idea that an individual
or group should be rewarded with interest simply because that
individual or group has managed to hoard a large sum of money.
This is, of course, ridiculous when you look at money as what
it is instead of what it was in the 1800's and before. Prior
to the early 1900's money was absolutely based on a commodity.
And it was, in fact, possible (but not moral), to gain control
of some portion of the liquidity in the system and hold the
system hostage by virtue of such control. i.e. If I took lots
of gold out of the system by being a miser or whatever and
I stuffed it in my mattress, then I would have reduced the
amount of legal tender and threatened a recession and the
government or the farmers or whoever would have to come to me
for the liquidity (the gold). That scenario made little, if
any sense at the time, and it certainly makes absolutely no
sense now. Money is currently created by government in the
form of a loan that does not bear interest. Some of this money
finds its way into savings for a time before being reclaimed
by the tax man. But in the long run ALL of the money that is
not absolutely necessary to increasing economic activity must
eventually find its way to the tax man and thus into the
incinerator or inflation WILL result. None of this has
anything to do with interest rates. It has to do with the
tax system and with government creation of money through
government spending. The private banking system is currently
an unnecessary pain in the ass, and there is no reason why
government and the money savers themselves cannot directly
service the types of loans for which the banks currently
create money. Like it isn't a fixed commodity any longer.
No reason for any kind of "reserve" or "multiple". No reason
why people can't place their earnings into the bank and expect
to have them kept safe. And no reason why any interest that
would have inured to the banker should not now inure to government
to be used as a means to reduce other forms of taxes.
T_H_E_N, B_Y G_O_D, A_N I_N_T_E_R_E_S_T R_A_T_E
H_I_K_E T_O C_U_R_E I_N_F_L_A_T_I_O_N
M_I_G_H_T M_A_K_E S_O_M_E S_E_N_S_E
So there is no physical law. But the bankers seem to say
"make me rich or you will have inflation". And every time
you make them rich you get another round of inflation.
Mom, they never learn.
al_j...@usa.net
jim blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> There has been much discussion of the question of cause and effect in
> the correlation between lower population growth and higher living
> standards. I initially claimed that while it is probable that higher
> living standards are the cause of lower population growth and not
> the result, this causality could not be proven.
Either way, higher standards of living usually create greater per
capita consumption, which cancels many of the benefits of lower
birthrates. Increased use of contraception must come before anything
else. Earth's ecosystems can't support an industrial standard of
living for everyone on the planet. We will create a tragedy if we even
try.
> So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they
> are created by human ingenuity. At one time rocks were natural
> resources (during the stone age). Later copper and tin, and whale
> oil. The uranium in Africa was useless, then became a valuable
> natural resource when nuclear looked like the power source of the
> future...
Humans don't "create" natural resources. We just put price tags on
(modified) raw materials that we had no part in the origins of.
Assigning a subjective money value to a resource does not increase its
plentitude. It usually just encourages people to deplete it. See the
example of oil below.
> Petroleum is a valuable natural resource today. It was useless just a
> few centuries ago...
It's dangerous to dwell on money and subjective definitions of
resources instead of the resources *themselves*. A money-based view of
the world puts the cart before the horse and discourages conservation
if the people setting prices are growth-addicts. The growing
popularity of gas-guzzlers (while oil gets scarcer 24/7) is evidence of
that. It's all made possible by subjectively low oil prices, i.e.
growth-onomics.
> We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
We only slap a dollar value on things when we discover human uses for
them. We have "created" nothing that wasn't there before, except for
some modification of crops, etc.. For example, other plants like
prairie grasses would be growing where we now grow wheat and corn, but
we deem them more valuable because humans have a use for them (other
species be damned).
No matter how many economic arguments are made, the net pool of natural
resources is shrinking as the human population grows. Money fools some
of us into thinking it's a sustainable process.
A.J.
http://www.jps.net/zpg/money.htm
JohnT
Mike Coburn wrote:
I've never questioned the idea of interest on loans as it seems
identical to the practice of paying rent for tangible property like
an office or tux or scaffolding to paint a building.
>
> This is, of course, ridiculous when you look at money as what
> it is instead of what it was in the 1800's and before. Prior
> to the early 1900's money was absolutely based on a commodity.
> And it was, in fact, possible (but not moral), to gain control
> of some portion of the liquidity in the system and hold the
> system hostage by virtue of such control. i.e. If I took lots
> of gold out of the system by being a miser or whatever and
> I stuffed it in my mattress, then I would have reduced the
> amount of legal tender and threatened a recession and the
> government or the farmers or whoever would have to come to me
> for the liquidity (the gold). That scenario made little, if
> any sense at the time, and it certainly makes absolutely no
> sense now. Money is currently created by government in the
> form of a loan that does not bear interest. Some of this money
> finds its way into savings for a time before being reclaimed
> by the tax man. But in the long run ALL of the money that is
> not absolutely necessary to increasing economic activity must
> eventually find its way to the tax man and thus into the
I'm not sure about this statement you are making. I have the
impression that money once created tends to continue circulating
and does not eventually go to the taxman and disappears. It also
seems to me that money is created via the Fed/commercial bank
interaction without any requirement for the govt to incur debt.
Also, the govt can incur debt without creating money.
> incinerator or inflation WILL result. None of this has
> anything to do with interest rates. It has to do with the
> tax system and with government creation of money through
> government spending. The private banking system is currently
> an unnecessary pain in the ass, and there is no reason why
> government and the money savers themselves cannot directly
> service the types of loans for which the banks currently
> create money. Like it isn't a fixed commodity any longer.
> No reason for any kind of "reserve" or "multiple". No reason
> why people can't place their earnings into the bank and expect
> to have them kept safe. And no reason why any interest that
> would have inured to the banker should not now inure to government
> to be used as a means to reduce other forms of taxes.
>
> T_H_E_N, B_Y G_O_D, A_N I_N_T_E_R_E_S_T R_A_T_E
> H_I_K_E T_O C_U_R_E I_N_F_L_A_T_I_O_N
> M_I_G_H_T M_A_K_E S_O_M_E S_E_N_S_E
>
> So there is no physical law. But the bankers seem to say
> "make me rich or you will have inflation". And every time
> you make them rich you get another round of inflation.
> Mom, they never learn.
Interesting thought. This sounds like you are proposing that the
entire banking and finance industry be nationalized, so the govt
itself would hold all our accounts (no more toasters for new
accounts!), make all the loans and collect all the interest. Being
the nation's creditor instead of just one of the debtors would put
the federal govt in a much better position during a recession, and
I would trust the govt to handle home and car loans OK. But it
seems doubtful that a govt agency could replace the work of
investment bankers. The govt also isn't especially noted for
innovation, while at least some banks have innovative techie people.
How do you think the govt would do with a banking monopoly? Are
there countries with positive experiences trying this?
A govt monopoly on banking could be susceptible to abuses just
as the current system is---redlining and loans made because of
cronyism or politics, for example. It would need careful oversight.
One positive aspect of govt monopoly banking is that a govt bank
COULD make loans or pay interest at rates that could dip into
negative numbers and nullify the liquidity trap as I discussed above.
For example, with 5% deflation, the govt could loan at -2% so that
the amount to pay back would be less than the principle, but still a
fair amount in inflation-adjusted terms. The govt could do this tho
I'm sure no private bankers would. The flip side is that at negative
inflation, savings accounts would still have to pay 0% or better,
else depositors would close out accounts for cash---unless they
have provisions like rates stated in real terms and penalties for
early withdrawal. Ideas on safely having an economy averaging
0% inflation?
John
William F. Hummel
wrote:
>
>I have the
>impression that money once created tends to continue circulating
>and does not eventually go to the taxman and disappears. It also
>seems to me that money is created via the Fed/commercial bank
>interaction without any requirement for the govt to incur debt.
>Also, the govt can incur debt without creating money.
>
spending is recaptured (on average) via taxes and the sale of
debt securities. Thus the monetary base is not directly affected
by government deficit spending.
It is the Fed that increases the monetary base. It does so by
monetizing the debt, i.e. purchasing Treasury securities from a
selected group of security dealers, including commercial banks.
The Fed targets the interbank lending rate (Fed funds rate),
using short term repurchase agreements (repos) to balance supply
and demand of banking system reserves at its target rate.
As the economy grows, there is a net demand for additional
currency and banking system reserves. The demand for currency is
far larger because so much migrates overseas. That forces the
Fed to add to the monetary base in order to defend its selected
target for the Fed funds rate. Occasionally the Fed does a clean
up of the outstanding repos by buying Treasury securities
outright. Those securities become a part of the Fed's own
portfolio.
Some economists view flows from the government as creating base
money, and flows to the government as destroying base money. It
is just as valid to view it as a circular flow of existing base
money, augmented by the Fed.
Mike Coburn
The problem is, of course, that the tangible stuff you are
talking about is, well, tangible. Money, OTOH, is simply
an accounting mechanism. It is not a "tangible", and it
can be created at will.
> >
> > This is, of course, ridiculous when you look at money as what
> > it is instead of what it was in the 1800's and before. Prior
> > to the early 1900's money was absolutely based on a commodity.
> > And it was, in fact, possible (but not moral), to gain control
> > of some portion of the liquidity in the system and hold the
> > system hostage by virtue of such control. i.e. If I took lots
> > of gold out of the system by being a miser or whatever and
> > I stuffed it in my mattress, then I would have reduced the
> > amount of legal tender and threatened a recession and the
> > government or the farmers or whoever would have to come to me
> > for the liquidity (the gold). That scenario made little, if
> > any sense at the time, and it certainly makes absolutely no
> > sense now. Money is currently created by government in the
> > form of a loan that does not bear interest. Some of this money
> > finds its way into savings for a time before being reclaimed
> > by the tax man. But in the long run ALL of the money that is
> > not absolutely necessary to increasing economic activity must
> > eventually find its way to the tax man and thus into the
>
> I'm not sure about this statement you are making. I have the
> impression that money once created tends to continue circulating
> and does not eventually go to the taxman and disappears. It also
> seems to me that money is created via the Fed/commercial bank
> interaction without any requirement for the govt to incur debt.
> Also, the govt can incur debt without creating money.
Those scenarios all exist, but but to little purpose. The
government never really incurs any debt as you would think about
it just as the government can never actually save. All
government obligations should be exercised in the here and now
and the effects on the government's fiat currency should be in
the here and now.
I believe that it is exceedingly important to understand that
WE are the government. And if WE aren't the government then
WE need to get it fixed. There is nothing wrong with that
notion of "interest" that is tied to the need for insurance
and the assessment of credit worthiness, and all the other
standard costs associated with credit. And if excess interest
inures to the benefit of the society as a whole then there is
no duplicity in the use of interest rates to control the
value of the currency.
It is VERY important to differentiate speculative technological
investment and risk taking from pedestrian banking, and you do
well to grab on to that just as you have done. I am of the opinion
that risk taking IS best managed by private investment firms. I
just don't see why they would have to be called banks and I
certainly see no reason for these speculators to be creating
money for the purpose of speculating. The removal of the nice
safe fixed return on saved up money will insist that those
who wish to earn from their store of wealth will need to actually
"invest" it. The amount of reward is proportional to the
amount of risk an individual is willing to take in that investment.
The word "bank" is defined in my book as a financial
institution that can lend in excess of what it has
i.e. can "create" money/credit. I see nothing wrong
in this credit process when there is irrefutable
underlying collateral. Speculation, OTOH, is another
matter.
> A govt monopoly on banking could be susceptible to abuses just
> as the current system is---redlining and loans made because of
> cronyism or politics, for example. It would need careful oversight.
The Federal Reserve should be a sub department of the Treasury
and the Executive branch held accountable for the banking laws
as created by the congress. Such exposure is exactly what is
needed. Voting booths are designed to handle this problem.
It always amazes me how people think that hiding the Federal
Reserve under a rock improves the security of the banking
system. If you don't trust your government then why the hell
did you put them in office?
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate
powers of society but the people themselves;
and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it
from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
> One positive aspect of govt monopoly banking is that a govt bank
> COULD make loans or pay interest at rates that could dip into
> negative numbers and nullify the liquidity trap as I discussed above.
> For example, with 5% deflation, the govt could loan at -2% so that
> the amount to pay back would be less than the principle, but still a
> fair amount in inflation-adjusted terms. The govt could do this tho
> I'm sure no private bankers would. The flip side is that at negative
> inflation, savings accounts would still have to pay 0% or better,
> else depositors would close out accounts for cash---unless they
> have provisions like rates stated in real terms and penalties for
> early withdrawal. Ideas on safely having an economy averaging
> 0% inflation?
>
> John
There should be no such thing as 0% inflation unless you wish
to tax assets directly (not a bad idea). Inflation, in limited
amounts, is used to apply a tax to money itself. There is
absolutely nothing wrong in such a tax when you actually think
about what government does. Your saved up dollars, or peaches,
or corn or whatever are only _yours_ so long as there are
laws and a legal system that allows for individual ownership
of property. Such a system should be financed by those who
benefit from it. That would be all of us, but the benefit so
received is very much proportional to the amount of personal
wealth we "own". I am of the opinion that much, if not all,
of the boom and bust cycle is caused by the creation of money
by banks in serving those who are in pursuit of speculative
gains. Government overspending is very quickly manifested
in a devaluation of the currency if the Federal Reserve stays
out of the way. Depending upon the severity of the devaluation
the elected governors might be voted out of office, or impeached,
or shot. But somebody is gonna pay. With the Fed in the loop
the inflation does not happen until the moron that caused it
is in a rest home.
jim blair
jim blair wrote
> > I am basing my claims less on money numbers than on facts like longer
lifes,
> > larger houses, more travel, more eduction, etc. People in the US are
better
> > off overall
> > today than in the past. And than people in the 3rd world.
John T
> The US is no longer Number One in health and longevity. A number of
> European countries beat us in this category, and maybe Japan too. Health
> is largely a function of income.
Hi,
Read what I said. Read what you said. Both are true, but we are talking
about different things.
jim blair
JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net>
>
> >> ....fiscal policy that causes significant deficits, crowds out private
investment,
> >>hurts productivity growth, the competitiveness of American businesses,
the
> >>American job market, the American tax base, and the economic future
> >>of our children, grandchildren and future generations.
Mason Clark:
>
> And that takes care of Reagan's fiscal policy once and for all, Jim
Blair.
Hi,
So that explains why the Reagan policies resulted in the Great Depression
of the decade of the 1980's, while the tax hikes of Hoover and FDR resulted
in the "roaring 30's", that decade of happy prosperity, now described as the
Great Mana by someone on this newsgroup.
Note I don't claim that deficits are ALWAYS good, just as a counter to a
recession.
jim blair
JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net>
> The deficits didn't start on a consistent downward trend until 1992,
Hi,
Recall the predictions of just a few years ago of deficits until at least
2002?
It was after the cut in the capital gains rate (28% to 20%) that the bugdet
deficit
mysteriously vanished
>.... When did Bush's tax
> increase go into effect?
Just before the recession of 1990-1
> Because the downward trend in deficits didn't start until 1992, I
> think it's fair to refer to the rise in federal debt as being due to
> policies of Reagan and Bush.
??? Of course both Reagan and Bush ran deficits. Reagan for a reason: end
the recession and win the Cold War. Bush's deficits served no good purpose
that I can see.
>.... What's
> the point of getting a college degree just to be a store clerk?
Think recent college grads are working as store clerks?? Not the
UW engineering grads.
> > > and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs.
Back to the fall in US living standards since 1982?
> It would seem.
Explain that fall in living standards since the measures of living standards
are up.
Life time, travel, home ownership, home size, incomes, education, etc.
Maybe the 1970's 8-tracks were so much better that the current CD's??
jim blair
Mike Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote in message
> Even your own numbers should tell you that the gains are not
> as egalitarian as they should be.
Hi,
I say there have been gains. I don't know how egalitarian they "should be".
That sounds very subjective to me.
>.. You seem to delight in.
> all kinds of numbers that illustrate a "growing" economy and
> yet you can only manage a minuscule .5% decrease in the
> amount of requisite labor since the beginning of the 70's.
???? So how much should the labor reduction be? All I say is that
overall, people in the US have more, live better, and work less, as to
compared to in the past.
But I don't know how much more they "should have" or how much less
they "should" work.
We are extremely fortunate to have the
amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
created by human ingenuity .
We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
MC:
>. But the fact remains that
> > > natural
> rescues are "natural" by definition. Not even Republitarian statistical
> fantasy can change that.
New resources can be created out of matter not previously considered to be
a natural resourse. Happens all the time.
> Yeah. Right. Go create us some more oil, Jim
I think you missed the point of the guano, nitrate, Haber process example.
While oil can be made from plants (and rapeseed oil was used as a commercial
substitute for petroleum before they decided to create Canola oil), it is
not "oil"
that is important: it is ENERGY. When hydrogen fusion becomes practical,
oil
may again become just a nusance or waste. As it once was.
David Lloyd-Jones
"JohnT" <j...@inXSformatics.net> wrote
<snipped: a lot of stuff, some of which actually made sense.>
John,
In your last note to me you called me a moron. This may very well be
correct.
The only claim I would make is that I'm a little bit smarter than you.
-dlj.
Dan Parker
And humanity loses.
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote in message
>
> > Even your own numbers should tell you that the gains are not
> > as egalitarian as they should be.
>
>
> I say there have been gains. I don't know how egalitarian they "should be".
> That sounds very subjective to me.
Yes, it means that the gains should be shared between all
of the productive people. That is terribly subjective. Of
course, your position that most gains should inure to those
who own (i.e. the current situation), is not at all subjective,
is it?
> >.. You seem to delight in.
> > all kinds of numbers that illustrate a "growing" economy and
> > yet you can only manage a minuscule .5% decrease in the
> > amount of requisite labor since the beginning of the 70's.
>
> ???? So how much should the labor reduction be? All I say is that
> overall, people in the US have more, live better, and work less, as to
> compared to in the past.
".5%" is less than the statistical error in the numbers
you are using. We (that is a whole bunch of us) don't really
want more gadgets and games and other crap. And "live better"
is about as subjective as you can get. Many of us would
much rather work less and spend less, thank you. That would
be a REAL increase in living standards, but the GDP would
not look all that great, would it? You measure the "living
standards" based on the number of SUV's and cell phones.
What total crap. The SUV driving idiots spend more on a pair
of shoes than others do an a month's worth of groceries. You
see that as real progress.
> But I don't know how much more they "should have" or how much less
> they "should" work.
>
> We are extremely fortunate to have the
> amount of natural resource per capita that we do.
>
> So called "natural resources" are the result of technology, and they are
> created by human ingenuity .
>
> We are fortunate to have created so many natural resources.
>
> MC:
>
> >. But the fact remains that
> > > > natural
> > rescues are "natural" by definition. Not even Republitarian statistical
> > fantasy can change that.
>
> New resources can be created out of matter not previously considered to be
> a natural resourse. Happens all the time.
>
> > Yeah. Right. Go create us some more oil, Jim
>
> I think you missed the point of the guano, nitrate, Haber process example.
> While oil can be made from plants (and rapeseed oil was used as a commercial
> substitute for petroleum before they decided to create Canola oil), it is
> not "oil"
> that is important: it is ENERGY. When hydrogen fusion becomes practical,
> oil
> may again become just a nusance or waste. As it once was.
>
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Only a Republicon can redefine the word "natural" to suit him.
The "quano, nitrate, Haber process" (whatever it is) would
seem to require the participation of men actually "doing"
something. That would mean that the result is not "naturally
occurring". The same can be said of hydrogen fusion. It ain't
"natural" and if it was we'd all be toast.
jim blair
> jim blair wrote:
> >
> > How can a paper written in 1982 evaluate the effect of a series of tax cuts
> > that were not phased in until 1983 and were not really completed until 1986?
> > And especially when the impact was projected to be a long range change in the
> > incentives to earn and to invest. I mean even the supporters of "supply side"
> > tax
> > rate cuts predict that the effects will take some time to "trickle down".
> >
> > The changes in US tax laws made in the early 1980's have shaped the US economy
> > of the past decade up to today.
JohnT wrote:
> Basic properties of monetary and fiscal policy should not be expected
> to change between the time at which that paper's research data base
> was taken and the present time. The article was not about any particular
> tax change, it was about the finding that crowding out occurs, based on
> a statistical study using appropriate data.
Hi,
Don't you think that a national economy is a complex enough system that the
same imput (or policy) can have different consequences if done at different
times, or when the state of the economy is different?
As for example, a federal deficit can have a different impact during a recession
or a depression than the same size deficit would have during a period of full
employment and economic expansion?
I am not claiming that deficits are GOOD as a general principle. Only that they
can be good in some circumstances. And specifically that the Reagan deficits
did not harm the US economy but rather changed a recession into an
extended expansion that is still going on.
You also seem to assume that lower tax RATES always result in reduced
government REVENUE, higher rates in increased revenue. I recall reading
a claim by some congressman back in the early 1990's (when the deficit was a
big problem) that if the US just had maintained that 92% tax bracket on all
incomes over $50,000 per year that we had during WW II, then we would now
have no deficit but rather a big surplus to pay off the national debt.
You agree?
--
jim blair
> > > Even your own numbers should tell you that the gains are not
> > > as egalitarian as they should be.
>
jeb:
> I say there have been gains. I don't know how egalitarian they "should be".
> > That sounds very subjective to me.
MC:
> Yes, it means that the gains should be shared between all
> of the productive people. That is terribly subjective.
Hi,
It is, when you are the one who decides who the "productive" people are,
and what their gains "should be".
> Of
> course, your position that most gains should inure to those
> who own (i.e. the current situation), is not at all subjective,
> is it?
???? You introduced the term "should". I claimed that overall, most people
in the US HAVE gained in living standards for the past 20 years. I offered no
opinion as to how much anyone SHOULD have gained.
But I do agree that those who HAVE gained the most, are now more likely
to own more. That is what people DO with money: they use it to buy things.
Duh.
I am saying that IF you make more money, you are likely to become richer.
Are you claiming that you must ALREADY be rich before you can make
more money?
(if so, explain that to Andy Groves ;-)
>... We (that is a whole bunch of us) don't really
> want more gadgets and games and other crap.
Is anyone forcing them onto you?
> And "live better"
> is about as subjective as you can get.
Is lifespan "subjective"? Or the miles you travel? Or the information that you
can access? The living space in your home? Calories you eat? Is access to
running water "subjective"?
> Many of us would
> much rather work less and spend less, thank you.
Hey, me too. That is why I quit a high paid job with a big company to teach
at a small college for about 2/3 the pay.
> That would
> be a REAL increase in living standards,
Yes. It was.
> but the GDP would
> not look all that great, would it?
I had about as much impact on the GDP as my garden has on the Global Economy.
> You measure the "living
> standards" based on the number of SUV's and cell phones.
No. See above.
....
>
> Only a Republicon can redefine the word "natural" to suit him.
You seem to have a real problems with Republicans. Don't worry, I am not
one of them.
--
jim blair
Mike Coburn wrote:
> So let us consider the other extreme, Jim. Let's suppose that
> we are all eating Soilent Green and stepping on each other
> while getting off the crapper. Now all the "owners" will, of
> course, be well "serviced", but the bulk of humanity will live
> a pretty miserable existence.
Hi,
Really Michael. You live in the science fiction world created by Harry
Harrison in his 1966 novel MAKE ROOM! MAKE ROOM! That was the
basis for the 1973 film Soylent Green. But it was rather off the mark in its
predictions about the world of August 1999.
Harrison predicted a world population of 7 billion for 1999, not that far
off the reality. But he also predicted a New York city of 35 million people,
each rationed to one quart of water per day. A city of starving people
living on seaweed and crackers and finally eating each other.
By coincidence, I just finished reading MY NEW YORK by former
Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz. He describes the NYC of
today as being a better place to live that it was several decades ago.
He claims that the city went downhill starting in the 1960’s with the
rise in crime and general loss of civility. But that Mayor Rudolph
Guilaini turned the decline completely around and has made the
Big Apple a livable place again.
I know, you think he CAN’T have done anything good like that since
he is a Republican, but I am just reporting what people who actually
live in NYC say. And I have heard the same from other New Yorkers.
Even people who begin with "I would never ever vote for a Republican,
but I must admit that the current mayor had really improved life in this
city." And "it is so great to be able to walk in the city at night and
feel safe again".
But my point in this is that you are completely detached from reality.
You live in the fantasy world predicted by a science fiction writer over
30 years ago and ignore the real world of 2000. Have you actually ever
gone to NYC and eaten the food? Is it seaweed and Soylent Green?
And one quart of water a day? Or can you find just about any kind
of food there that exists anywhere in the world?
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net>
> > The deficits didn't start on a consistent downward trend until 1992,
>
> Hi,
>
> Recall the predictions of just a few years ago of deficits until at least
> 2002?
Actually, I don't.
> It was after the cut in the capital gains rate (28% to 20%) that the bugdet
> deficit
> mysteriously vanished
The upward trend in investment and the downward trend in deficits
show no significant jumps---they are much closer to linear than the
changes that occurred in the 1980s. There's no reason to think that
the change in capital gains did anything significant from a macro-
economic standpoint.
>
> >.... When did Bush's tax
> > increase go into effect?
>
> Just before the recession of 1990-1
That recession was due to the Gulf War crisis and a spike in
inflation at that time.
money growth + velocity increase = inflation + real growth
You get this by partial differentiation of MV=PQ with respect
to time and applying algebra. Each term in the expression can
be measured independently. A jump in inflation due to energy
would cause a drop in growth, impacting the job market. Short-
term interest rates were falling during the period in question from
8% to 6%, though longterm rates of 8% to 9% showed that people
were afraid of inflation. The NIPA chain price indexes (whatever
they are), the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index
all show spikes during that time. In a normal recession induced by
higher interest rates, the inflation measures can be expected to fall.
The 1990-91 recession was not normal---it was induced by oil
price hikes and maybe fear of war.
> > Because the downward trend in deficits didn't start until 1992, I
> > think it's fair to refer to the rise in federal debt as being due to
> > policies of Reagan and Bush.
>
> ??? Of course both Reagan and Bush ran deficits. Reagan for a reason: end
> the recession and win the Cold War. Bush's deficits served no good purpose
> that I can see.
Actually, Reagan's deficits didn't serve any purpose either. The same
goal, outspending the Soviet Bloc, could have been accomplished on
a pay-as-you-go basis, or at least without the tax cuts during Reagan's
terms.
> >.... What's
> > the point of getting a college degree just to be a store clerk?
>
> Think recent college grads are working as store clerks?? Not the
> UW engineering grads.
Swell. I have a physics BA. One of my co-workers has an MS in
analytic chem.
> > > > and replaced by lousy-paying service and retail jobs.
>
> Back to the fall in US living standards since 1982?
>
> > It would seem.
>
> Explain that fall in living standards since the measures of living standards
> are up.
> Life time, travel, home ownership, home size, incomes, education, etc.
Things are no doubt looking up during the Clinton administration,
but since the 1970s there were negative changes in the less affluent
quintiles though the top quintile made gains, notably the percent of
citizens living in official poverty.
> Maybe the 1970's 8-tracks were so much better that the current CD's??
Louder, anyway. I kinda prefer tape (not 8-track)---no obnoxious
breaks while the CD player switches tracks. It may be that music
firms hope that CDs will reduce people's recording and duplicating
pieces of music.
John
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> > jim blair wrote:
> > >
> > > How can a paper written in 1982 evaluate the effect of a series of tax cuts
> > > that were not phased in until 1983 and were not really completed until 1986?
> > > And especially when the impact was projected to be a long range change in the
> > > incentives to earn and to invest. I mean even the supporters of "supply side"
> > > tax
> > > rate cuts predict that the effects will take some time to "trickle down".
> > >
> > > The changes in US tax laws made in the early 1980's have shaped the US economy
> > > of the past decade up to today.
>
> JohnT wrote:
>
> > Basic properties of monetary and fiscal policy should not be expected
> > to change between the time at which that paper's research data base
> > was taken and the present time. The article was not about any particular
> > tax change, it was about the finding that crowding out occurs, based on
> > a statistical study using appropriate data.
>
> Hi,
>
> Don't you think that a national economy is a complex enough system that the
> same imput (or policy) can have different consequences if done at different
> times, or when the state of the economy is different?
Yes. Monetized deficit spending during deflationary depression
conditions would help to stabilize an economy and get it back to
conditions in which normal business growth can take place. But
if conditions are already normal, monetized deficit spending that
results in excessive money growth would result in inflation.
> As for example, a federal deficit can have a different impact during a recession
> or a depression than the same size deficit would have during a period of full
> employment and economic expansion?
A recession is not necessarily deflationary conditions that results in
an economy being caught in the liquidity trap, which is what makes
a depression such a severe condition.
You fail to distinguish between the two methods of financing a deficit.
One is that the deficit is "monetized", financed by the Fed to create
new money. This stimulates. About 15 years ago when monetarist
papers on this were often published by the St. Louis Fed, monetary
actions had a peak impact on growth in about 6 months, and on inflation
in about 2 years. I have no idea if the US economy's "reflexes" are the
same speed now, but it's probably still nearly the same.
A deficit financed on the open market without any new money being
pumped into the economy does nothing for gross economic activity.
Govt spending is irrelevant to the basic monetary equation. Econometric
studies using lag equations have found that a fiscal "stimulus" causes a
small initial stimulus followed by a drag, for a net effect of zero over 5
quarters. A tax cut or spending increase therefore does NOT stimulate
an economy if financed on the open market. Logically, a dollar of
deficit requires an investor to spend a dollar on the bond market, so
there's *no* additional money to circulate or be loaned. Keynes was
aware of this fact, but his followers seem to have ignored it.
> I am not claiming that deficits are GOOD as a general principle. Only that they
> can be good in some circumstances. And specifically that the Reagan deficits
> did not harm the US economy but rather changed a recession into an
> extended expansion that is still going on.
Not so. The only good economic thing that occurred during the Reagan
administration was that the Fed got tough enough on inflation to mostly
stop it. And that was monetary policy, not any part of fiscal policy.
> You also seem to assume that lower tax RATES always result in reduced
> government REVENUE, higher rates in increased revenue. I recall reading
> a claim by some congressman back in the early 1990's (when the deficit was a
> big problem) that if the US just had maintained that 92% tax bracket on all
> incomes over $50,000 per year that we had during WW II, then we would now
> have no deficit but rather a big surplus to pay off the national debt.
>
> You agree?
There's been a lot of inflation under the bridge since WW2, a lot of
bracket creep. I don't like the idea of inflating people into higher tax
brackets and would say that tax brackets should be indexed to inflation
just like various benefits are. $50,000/yr back then was like $500,000/yr
or more today. A 92% marginal rate is high enough that there would
be little additional reward for pursuing higher income---a person's income
beyond that point would be motivated by building an industry, presumably,
rather than by sheer greed. You also need to keep in mind that people
were evidently more aware back then of the problems of letting rich
people soar like vultures---the robber barons of the 1880s in railroading
and coal mining, for example. People very clearly saw that tycoons
would rob citizens blind to enrich themselves, at the cost of the existence
of communities or individual lives imperiled by unsafe working conditions.
One of the ways to trim the wings of the vultures was by imposing very
high tax rates at the top. We still have this problem of very rich special
interests buying politicians, though there seems to be less awareness
of the role taxation can have in keeping America democratic (that's
with a small d). People argue that Reagan's huge deficits were needed
to fight Soviet communism---it is not unheard of to have economic
policy that doesn't appear optimal, for the purpose of preserving the
democratic republic of the USA. I would also say that perhaps we
should worry about declaring intemperate greed to be a virtue instead
of one of the seven deadly sins. How is a CEO different from a Mafia
don, if greed is the highest virtue? Before you say CEO's obey the
law, think about tobacco executives, questionable practices among
the software merchants and other business scandals. Remember
Karen Silkwood!
If very high tax rates applied to very high incomes, the most inflationary
part of the job market might be discouraged from being so inflationary.
Minimum wage workers in the bottom quintile get only 4% of the
US income, while the top quintile gets about 43%. Raises in the top
quintile are therefore about 10 times as inflationary as raises in the
bottom quintile, and more than 10 times as inflationary as a minimum
wage increase. My source for this is an old World Almanac---the
Y2K issue doesn't seem to have income distribution by quintile.
Industrial strength tax rates might also help to pay down the federal
debt quickly.
The rate of 92% does seem very steep---but a top rate of 50% would
not send any high-income people to the proverbial poorhouse.
John
jim blair
>....There's no reason to think that
> the change in capital gains did anything significant from a macro-
> economic standpoint.
Hi,
No effect? Then why did the revenue collected by the capital gains tax increase
so much evey years since the cut?
> > >.... When did Bush's tax
> > > increase go into effect?
> >
> > Just before the recession of 1990-1
>
> That recession was due to the Gulf War crisis and a spike in
> inflation at that time.
Some people think inflation and recession tend to be opposites. Except when they
happened together during the "stagflation" 1970's.
But the tax increase just before the recession was just a coincidence? How can
you be so certain?
> The 1990-91 recession was not normal---it was induced by oil
> price hikes and maybe fear of war.
The 1990 oil price increase didn't last very long.
Oil prices have been up for several years now, but so far no recession. Why?
> > ??? Of course both Reagan and Bush ran deficits. Reagan for a reason: end
> > the recession and win the Cold War. Bush's deficits served no good purpose
> > that I can see.
>
> Actually, Reagan's deficits didn't serve any purpose either. The same
> goal, outspending the Soviet Bloc, could have been accomplished on
> a pay-as-you-go basis, ....
> And maybe WW II could have been financed that way too?
> or at least without the tax cuts during Reagan's
> terms.
It probably COULD have, but the would that have been "better"?
> > >.... What's
> > > the point of getting a college degree just to be a store clerk?
> >
> > Think recent college grads are working as store clerks?? Not the
> > UW engineering grads.
>
> Swell. I have a physics BA. One of my co-workers has an MS in
> analytic chem.
And are you and your friends working as store clerks because none of you
can find a better job?
> > Back to the fall in US living standards since 1982?
> >
> > > It would seem.
> >
> > Explain that fall in living standards since the measures of living standards
> > are up.
> > Life time, travel, home ownership, home size, incomes, education, etc.
>
> Things are no doubt looking up during the Clinton administration,
Actually they have been loking better since about 1982. There was a slight drop
after the Bush "read my lips--new taxes" but it has been up since then.
> but since the 1970s there were negative changes in the less affluent
> quintiles though the top quintile made gains, notably the percent of
> citizens living in official poverty.
The 1970's were bad. But Reagan changed that. And look at people rather than
quintiles. EVERYONE can have their income increase every year, while every
"quintile" remans static (or even falls!). Isn't that obvious?
And no use debating musical taste.
William F. Hummel
wrote:
Donald Lacombe
"David Lloyd-Jones" <ico...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:SnoV5.3066$tj4....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> The only claim I would make is that I'm a little bit smarter than you.
>
> -dlj.
An excellent example of marginal thinking.....no pun intended.
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> > So let us consider the other extreme, Jim. Let's suppose that
> > we are all eating Soilent Green and stepping on each other
> > while getting off the crapper. Now all the "owners" will, of
> > course, be well "serviced", but the bulk of humanity will live
> > a pretty miserable existence.
>
> Hi,
>
> Really Michael. You live in the science fiction world created by Harry
> Harrison in his 1966 novel MAKE ROOM! MAKE ROOM! That was the
> basis for the 1973 film Soylent Green. But it was rather off the mark in its
> predictions about the world of August 1999.
>
> Harrison predicted a world population of 7 billion for 1999, not that far
> off the reality. But he also predicted a New York city of 35 million people,
> each rationed to one quart of water per day. A city of starving people
> living on seaweed and crackers and finally eating each other.
>
> By coincidence, I just finished reading MY NEW YORK by former
> Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz. He describes the NYC of
> today as being a better place to live that it was several decades ago.
> rise in crime and general loss of civility. But that Mayor Rudolph
> Guilaini turned the decline completely around and has made the
> Big Apple a livable place again.
>
> he is a Republican, but I am just reporting what people who actually
> live in NYC say. And I have heard the same from other New Yorkers.
> Even people who begin with "I would never ever vote for a Republican,
> but I must admit that the current mayor had really improved life in this
> city." And "it is so great to be able to walk in the city at night and
> feel safe again".
>
> But my point in this is that you are completely detached from reality.
> You live in the fantasy world predicted by a science fiction writer over
> 30 years ago and ignore the real world of 2000. Have you actually ever
> gone to NYC and eaten the food? Is it seaweed and Soylent Green?
> And one quart of water a day? Or can you find just about any kind
> of food there that exists anywhere in the world?
>
Well. Ya gots me. I've never been to New York and don't
intend to go. If that is "detached from reality" then
so be it.
My point (which is the one that matters) was that all else
held constant, we are (the vast majority that is) individually
better off the less of us there are. You picked the extreme in
which there were not enough people to allow the division and
specialization of labor so as to disprove my thesis and in that
condition you are correct and I am in error. I was asking you
to take a gander at the other outlandish, and ridiculous extreme.
Neither extreme would tell us much about reality. So I must
amend my position and say that within realistic limits the vast
majority will be better off individually the less of us there
are. That is a logical imperative that no amount of Republican
tap dancing is going to defy.
---
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> > > > Even your own numbers should tell you that the gains are not
> > > > as egalitarian as they should be.
> >
>
> > I say there have been gains. I don't know how egalitarian they "should be".
>
> > > That sounds very subjective to me.
>
>
> > Yes, it means that the gains should be shared between all
> > of the productive people. That is terribly subjective.
>
>
> It is, when you are the one who decides who the "productive" people are,
> and what their gains "should be".
Well, let's see what we can do to make this a little more clear
for you: People who derive income from rent and interest (not
profit) and from capital gains are not productive. The wealth
created by their ownership is zero and any underlying capital
will still produce whether they are dead or alive. There is an
exception to real capital because the owner can only "profit"
if the capital itself is "productive". That should help clarify
exactly what I mean by "productive people". And the term is not
subjective. You may look it up in any dictionary you'd like.
And what their gains should be is whatever the gains will have
been to maximize general utility. We aren't anywhere close.
> > Of
> > course, your position that most gains should inure to those
> > who own (i.e. the current situation), is not at all subjective,
> > is it?
>
> ???? You introduced the term "should". I claimed that overall, most people
> in the US HAVE gained in living standards for the past 20 years. I offered no
> opinion as to how much anyone SHOULD have gained.
I have said the general utility should have faired better.
> But I do agree that those who HAVE gained the most, are now more likely
> to own more. That is what people DO with money: they use it to buy things.
>
> Duh.
>
> I am saying that IF you make more money, you are likely to become richer.
>
> Are you claiming that you must ALREADY be rich before you can make
> more money?
I have made no such claim. I have claimed that established
wealth gives too much advantage in the current system.
> (if so, explain that to Andy Groves ;-)
>
> >... We (that is a whole bunch of us) don't really
>
> > want more gadgets and games and other crap.
>
> Is anyone forcing them onto you?
Nope. But you are using this trash to pump up your
numbers.
> > And "live better"
> > is about as subjective as you can get.
>
> Is lifespan "subjective"? Or the miles you travel? Or the information that you
> can access? The living space in your home? Calories you eat? Is access to
> running water "subjective"?
In order of occurrence: no, no, no, no, no. Well, looks like
none of those terms are subjective. But:
If I live a miserable life the span of it may be a punishment.
I travel more than I used to in earning my living.
***The information I can access has grown.
I consume less calories by choice.
***I live in a bigger house and it costs a ton (the wife
seems to have Republicon values)
I've had access to running water all my life, and it does
not run any better now than it did 20 years ago.
Well. Two out of six is about right.
The number of hours worked to pay for this wonderful "life style"
is not subjective either. In spite of your trumped up numbers
most people are working more than ever. Your numbers do not
reflect the miserable work involved in job seeking, retraining,
preparation, and time invested in continually looking for
work. Those hours have increased markedly over the period
in which you make your claims.
> > Many of us would
> > much rather work less and spend less, thank you.
>
> Hey, me too. That is why I quit a high paid job with a big company to teach
> at a small college for about 2/3 the pay.
>
> > That would
> > be a REAL increase in living standards,
>
> Yes. It was.
>
> > but the GDP would
> > not look all that great, would it?
>
> I had about as much impact on the GDP as my garden has on the Global Economy.
>
> > You measure the "living
> > standards" based on the number of SUV's and cell phones.
>
> No. See above.
> ....
>
> >
> > Only a Republicon can redefine the word "natural" to suit him.
>
> You seem to have a real problems with Republicans. Don't worry, I am not
> one of them.
>
> --
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
jim blair
> Well. Ya gots me. I've never been to New York and don't
> intend to go. If that is "detached from reality" then
> so be it.
Hi,
It is when you try to describe the terrible living conditions there based on the
prediction made in a 1966 science fiction novel. Harrison may have sounded
realistic to many people when he wrote the novel (maybe even to me at that
time). The fact is that he was way off--execpt for the world population of
1999, where he was maybe 10% high.
> My point (which is the one that matters) was that all else
> held constant, we are (the vast majority that is) individually
> better off the less of us there are.
Not al all obvious.
>You picked the extreme in
> which there were not enough people to allow the division and
> specialization of labor so as to disprove my thesis and in that
> condition you are correct and I am in error. I was asking you
> to take a gander at the other outlandish, and ridiculous extreme.
> Neither extreme would tell us much about reality. So I must
> amend my position and say that within realistic limits the vast
> majority will be better off individually the less of us there
> are.
I aagree that for any given level of technology there is some optimum population
that can be supported. Above that population, living standards will be reduced.
Just as they will be reduced if the population is lower. (Hey, that is why I
called
it the "optimum population" ;-)
But that number changes (increases) with better technology. And no one can
say for sure what the number is. Today the world is likely below it--but we
could pass it, and not know until after that happened.
> That is a logical imperative that no amount of Republican
> tap dancing is going to defy.
What's with the "Republican" hang up?? I am not one, and may find time to explain
why in a post.
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> JohnT wrote:
>
> >....There's no reason to think that
>
> > the change in capital gains did anything significant from a macro-
> > economic standpoint.
>
> Hi,
>
> No effect? Then why did the revenue collected by the capital gains tax increase
> so much evey years since the cut?
We were talking macroeconomics. A rise in capital gains revenue very
well may have been offset by drop in other revenue streams. Taxes
are interactive, you know. If property tax goes up, people may shop less
so sales taxes decline. The macroeconomic data on my desk shows no
visible change in slope or direction that a CGT cut would explain.
> > > >.... When did Bush's tax
> > > > increase go into effect?
> > >
> > > Just before the recession of 1990-1
> >
> > That recession was due to the Gulf War crisis and a spike in
> > inflation at that time.
>
> Some people think inflation and recession tend to be opposites. Except when they
> happened together during the "stagflation" 1970's.
>
> But the tax increase just before the recession was just a coincidence? How can
> you be so certain?
Because I'm a mathematician of sorts, with confidence that the
research pointing to a zero effect of fiscal actions on nominal GDP
is correct. You start with a model, then analyze the data statistically
to determine whether the data fits the model. The St. Louis model
included both monetary and fiscal terms analyzed with time-series
regression, a topic I know little about, and the result was that
monetary policy does it all, and fiscal policy does nothing for GDP.
It may be that money is harder to get a handle on now that so many
checking accounts will pay interest, and since there may be more
nearly liquid securities since that research was done. But I haven't
seen any reason to scrap the conclusion that fiscal does nothing.
> > The 1990-91 recession was not normal---it was induced by oil
> > price hikes and maybe fear of war.
>
> The 1990 oil price increase didn't last very long.
> Oil prices have been up for several years now, but so far no recession. Why?
Overall inflation is low. There is nothing producing a spike in inflation.
But it appears that pay raises rose in 1999 from about 3% to 4%, which
is no doubt a concern to the Fed and a big reason why they feel the
economy has become too hot.
> > > ??? Of course both Reagan and Bush ran deficits. Reagan for a reason: end
> > > the recession and win the Cold War. Bush's deficits served no good purpose
> > > that I can see.
> >
> > Actually, Reagan's deficits didn't serve any purpose either. The same
> > goal, outspending the Soviet Bloc, could have been accomplished on
> > a pay-as-you-go basis, ....
>
> > And maybe WW II could have been financed that way too?
>
> > or at least without the tax cuts during Reagan's
> > terms.
>
> It probably COULD have, but the would that have been "better"?
If financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, consumption would have been
less and investment would have been higher. During WW2,
consumption was suppressed by rationing and a sense of sacrifice
to the war effort. During Reagan's terms, nobody on the high side
of the median income was encouraged to have any sense of
sacrifice to defeat the Evil Empire. It appears instead that they
were given free reign to practice conspicuous consumption while
kids and poor folks did without, while the poverty rate rose and
the lower quintile got a lower share of the national income.
> > > >.... What's
> > > > the point of getting a college degree just to be a store clerk?
> > >
> > > Think recent college grads are working as store clerks?? Not the
> > > UW engineering grads.
> >
> > Swell. I have a physics BA. One of my co-workers has an MS in
> > analytic chem.
>
> And are you and your friends working as store clerks because none of you
> can find a better job?
Not around here. And for family reasons, neither of us is free to move.
Besides, my degree is 25 years stale. I wouldn't even hire myself for
a position requiring my sort of degree.
> > > Back to the fall in US living standards since 1982?
> > >
> > > > It would seem.
> > >
> > > Explain that fall in living standards since the measures of living standards
> > > are up.
> > > Life time, travel, home ownership, home size, incomes, education, etc.
> >
> > Things are no doubt looking up during the Clinton administration,
>
> Actually they have been loking better since about 1982. There was a slight drop
> after the Bush "read my lips--new taxes" but it has been up since then.
>
> > but since the 1970s there were negative changes in the less affluent
> > quintiles though the top quintile made gains, notably the percent of
> > citizens living in official poverty.
>
> The 1970's were bad. But Reagan changed that. And look at people rather than
> quintiles. EVERYONE can have their income increase every year, while every
> "quintile" remans static (or even falls!). Isn't that obvious?
>
> And no use debating musical taste.
I'll be Bach with Stravinsky, Copeland and Brian Eno.
John
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> > Well. Ya gots me. I've never been to New York and don't
> > intend to go. If that is "detached from reality" then
> > so be it.
>
> Hi,
>
> It is when you try to describe the terrible living conditions there based on the
> prediction made in a 1966 science fiction novel. Harrison may have sounded
> realistic to many people when he wrote the novel (maybe even to me at that
> time). The fact is that he was way off--execpt for the world population of
> 1999, where he was maybe 10% high.
I haven't read that novel, but would point out that China has been on
the ragged edge of survival and is now doing better thanks to stringent
population control and efforts to join the business world as a center
of manufacturing. Without those two measures, China would surely
be a considerably more miserable place to live now.
> > My point (which is the one that matters) was that all else
> > held constant, we are (the vast majority that is) individually
> > better off the less of us there are.
>
> Not al all obvious.
>
> >You picked the extreme in
>
> > which there were not enough people to allow the division and
> > specialization of labor so as to disprove my thesis and in that
> > condition you are correct and I am in error. I was asking you
> > to take a gander at the other outlandish, and ridiculous extreme.
> > Neither extreme would tell us much about reality. So I must
> > amend my position and say that within realistic limits the vast
> > majority will be better off individually the less of us there
> > are.
>
> I aagree that for any given level of technology there is some optimum population
> that can be supported. Above that population, living standards will be reduced.
> Just as they will be reduced if the population is lower. (Hey, that is why I
> called
> it the "optimum population" ;-)
>
> But that number changes (increases) with better technology. And no one can
> say for sure what the number is. Today the world is likely below it--but we
> could pass it, and not know until after that happened.
The scary thing is that present prosperity runs on fossil fuel. Even if
it lasts 500 years, when it's mostly gone, then what? The arbitrary
value of 500 years is a tiny blip in the history of our species, and
an even smaller blip in the history of the diverse life since Cambrian
times. Empty the fuel tanks and unplug the generators and we're
right back to living in the 1800s. The hope that something will turn
up depends for its fulfillment on our investing in research to find
longer-term power sources. Making better use of energy resources
now wouldn't hurt either.
> > That is a logical imperative that no amount of Republican
> > tap dancing is going to defy.
>
> What's with the "Republican" hang up?? I am not one, and may find time to explain
> why in a post.
I think the reason for picking on Republicans about this is that many
Republican businesspeople feel that more people is better, maybe
because more people = more consumers or more hungry cheap
labor. Either way, such businesspeople imagine that more people
= more profits and wealth for themselves. I for one have no interest
in reproducing irresponsibly to make some other person richer.
The other school of political thought that wants to claim that more is
better is that of religious conservatives, who hate abortion and think
that arguing for population growth is a way to oppose abortion. These
conservatives are mostly Republican.
So far, our discussion of how the economy's been doing in the
past 20 yrs including the steady improvement since 1992 fails to
note that the improvement comes about 20 years after Roe vs.
Wade, about the time the million babies a year who weren't born
would have been entering the job market. The sad fact is that labor
and even human life seems to obey the law of supply and demand,
so that we cheapen ourselves by overdoing reproduction. There's
just no reason to think that supply and demand can be over-ruled
by a theological or philosophic assertion of the sanctity of human
life. So if we really hold life to be sacred, we must take it easy
in reproduction and not crowd the planet and job market and make
resources scarce for our subsequent generations.
John
Jim Blair
>
>I haven't read that novel, but would point out that China has been on
>the ragged edge of survival and is now doing better thanks to stringent
>population control and efforts to join the business world as a center
>of manufacturing. Without those two measures, China would surely
>be a considerably more miserable place to live now.
Hi,
But is the improvement because of population control or because
they left Marx and are encouraging capitalism? And if both, what
percent of each?
on the "optimum population":
>
> But that number changes (increases) with better technology. And no one can
> say for sure what the number is. Today the world is likely below it--but we
> could pass it, and not know until after that happened.
>
>The scary thing is that present prosperity runs on fossil fuel. Even if
>it lasts 500 years, when it's mostly gone, then what?
Actually the CO2 may become a limit before we "run out" ;-(
But there is nuclear and maybe hydrogen fusion. And space.
on the "Republican" hang up:
>I think the reason for picking on Republicans about this is that many
>Republican businesspeople feel that more people is better, ...
I thought the Democrats were the "party of the people" and the
Republicans the party of the elite few?
Chas
JohnT wrote:
A recession is not necessarily deflationary conditions that results in
an economy being caught in the liquidity trap, which is what makes
a depression such a severe condition.
The notion of a liquidity trap has really been discredited
by the operation of the real balance effect.
A deficit financed on the open market without any new money being
pumped into the economy does nothing for gross economic activity.
Govt spending is irrelevant to the basic monetary equation.
A case of complete crowding out will not speed the velocity
coefficient.
Jim Blair
>
>The other school of political thought that wants to claim that more is
>better is that of religious conservatives, who hate abortion and think
>that arguing for population growth is a way to oppose abortion. These
>conservatives are mostly Republican.
Hi,
I agree. (this last part of my reply got cut off. I'm still learning
a new newsreader ;-(
>
>So far, our discussion of how the economy's been doing in the
>past 20 yrs including the steady improvement since 1992 fails to
>note that the improvement comes about 20 years after Roe vs.
>Wade, about the time the million babies a year who weren't born
>would have been entering the job market. ....
Wrong conclusion. Immigration has more than offset the Roe v Wade
loss.
But if you say Roe v Wade has caused the recent drop in crime...
Well see my file on that at:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/abort.htm
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
jim blair
>...: People who derive income from rent and interest (not
> profit) and from capital gains are not productive.
Hi,
If I defer current consumption and instead build a machine tool or plow or
other piece of capital, or I build a rental house, you say that is not being
"productive"?
> The wealth
> created by their ownership is zero and any underlying capital
> will still produce whether they are dead or alive.
Would the underlying capital have existed if someone had not built it?
And would anyone build it if there were no incentive? Would you build a
rental duplex if you could not keep the rent?
> I've had access to running water all my life, and it does
> not run any better now than it did 20 years ago.
About 40% of people do not. They are the poor.
> The number of hours worked to pay for this wonderful "life style"
> is not subjective either. In spite of your trumped up numbers
> most people are working more than ever.
Cite the source for that. The figures I see say individual people now work a
smaller fraction of their lives than ever before, at least in the US.
The bogus claim is that :"families" work more hours per year now, and for lower
wages than during the 1950's. Both of these "facts" are because more wives now
work outside the home.
> Your numbers do not
> reflect the miserable work involved in job seeking, retraining,
> preparation, and time invested in continually looking for
> work.
> Those hours have increased markedly over the period
> in which you make your claims.
Think job turnover is a lot greater now than in the past? Figures?
JohnT
Jim Blair wrote:
> JohnT <j...@informatics.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I haven't read that novel, but would point out that China has been on
> >the ragged edge of survival and is now doing better thanks to stringent
> >population control and efforts to join the business world as a center
> >of manufacturing. Without those two measures, China would surely
> >be a considerably more miserable place to live now.
>
> Hi,
>
> But is the improvement because of population control or because
> they left Marx and are encouraging capitalism? And if both, what
> percent of each?
China is so close to the ragged edge on food production, according
to an article I read in Atlantic Monthly a few years ago, that it
does not have the land to waste on a modern system of roads to
support widespread use of automobiles. It needs the land for food
production.
> on the "optimum population":
>
> >
> > But that number changes (increases) with better technology. And no one can
> > say for sure what the number is. Today the world is likely below it--but we
> > could pass it, and not know until after that happened.
>
> >
> >The scary thing is that present prosperity runs on fossil fuel. Even if
> >it lasts 500 years, when it's mostly gone, then what?
>
> Actually the CO2 may become a limit before we "run out" ;-(
>
> But there is nuclear and maybe hydrogen fusion. And space.
I don't think it's realistic at this time to suggest that there would be
any massive emigration to space colonies. If Ford Motors ever
starts making UFOs cheap enough that every family in the industrial
world can afford one, then maybe.... I want a nice white one with
racing stripes and my alma mater's mascot painted on it.
> on the "Republican" hang up:
>
> >I think the reason for picking on Republicans about this is that many
> >Republican businesspeople feel that more people is better, ...
>
> I thought the Democrats were the "party of the people" and the
> Republicans the party of the elite few?
The power elite of the Republican party consists of monied people,
but they don't mind having a bunch of suckers tagging along. Both
the social and economic conservatives of the Republican party are
inclined, for different reasons, to favor irresponsible population
growth. Better-educated more-logical people recognize the need to
achieve a steady state of population and economic activity.
John
JohnT
Jim Blair wrote:
> JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net> wrote:
> >
> >The other school of political thought that wants to claim that more is
> >better is that of religious conservatives, who hate abortion and think
> >that arguing for population growth is a way to oppose abortion. These
> >conservatives are mostly Republican.
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree. (this last part of my reply got cut off. I'm still learning
> a new newsreader ;-(
>
> >
> >So far, our discussion of how the economy's been doing in the
> >past 20 yrs including the steady improvement since 1992 fails to
> >note that the improvement comes about 20 years after Roe vs.
> >Wade, about the time the million babies a year who weren't born
> >would have been entering the job market. ....
>
> Wrong conclusion. Immigration has more than offset the Roe v Wade
> loss.
With the presence of those who were abortion victims + immigrants,
we would have a different employment picture, I'm sure.
I don't feel that the US population should be conned into partially doing
itself in to make room for immigrants. If the object is to promote
responsible
reproduction, it does little good to accommodate the irresponsibility of
others. But Republicans who refuse to support foreign aid for family
planning in countries that know they've got a population growth problem
are not doing anyone a favor.
> But if you say Roe v Wade has caused the recent drop in crime...
> Well see my file on that at:
It's unclear whether Roe vs. Wade has caused the drop in crime
by reducing the number of kids growing up in dysfunctional homes
or by improving the job market. The most common customers of
abortion services are 20-something educated women with careers
or in preparation for them, in other words, women smarter than
average who would have had babies smarter than average. What
we've instead had for most of the years since the 1970s is social
policies rewarding less smart and productive people for having
kids. Now we look at educational performance and wonder why
there's a drop in students' achievement. Environment and mental
stimulation (education) has some effect on achievement, but the
dominant factor in achievement is heredity, genetics. You can
read about that in any good book on child development.
John
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
>
> > profit) and from capital gains are not productive.
>
>
> If I defer current consumption and instead build a machine tool or plow or
> other piece of capital, or I build a rental house, you say that is not being
> "productive"?
You know better that that, and so do I. If you do what you
have said you will derive income from profit. That is why
the parenthetical about profit in the above sentence. I
know full well that I must put it in every sentence or my
detractors will ever find ways to use the sentence out of
context.
> > The wealth
> > created by their ownership is zero and any underlying capital
> > will still produce whether they are dead or alive.
>
> Would the underlying capital have existed if someone had not built it?
Would trees exist if they the sun don't shine? Again, you
try to make a point and are so lame about it that you sound
like Limpblade himself. The question to be asked, and the one
you dare not ask is "How should we encourage the development
of real capital"? You can bet your sweet ass that is not
encouraged by enforcing the rights of asset owners to collect
land rent and interest in fiat money.
> And would anyone build it if there were no incentive?
Some would. But the point you are making is valid: The
risk of investing should be offset by the rewards.
Would you build a
> rental duplex if you could not keep the rent?
No. But the rent that I keep should come from the rent
of the structure (my actual investment in the duplex),
and not from the land under it.
> > I've had access to running water all my life, and it does
> > not run any better now than it did 20 years ago.
>
> About 40% of people do not. They are the poor.
>
> > The number of hours worked to pay for this wonderful "life style"
> > is not subjective either. In spite of your trumped up numbers
> > most people are working more than ever.
>
> Cite the source for that. The figures I see say individual people now work a
> smaller fraction of their lives than ever before, at least in the US.
It was the source you gave that showed a .5% decrease in
hours worked over the last "n" years (n was 10 to 30, I
can't remember such tripe),
> The bogus claim is that :"families" work more hours per year now, and for lower
> wages than during the 1950's. Both of these "facts" are because more wives now
> work outside the home.
So what's you point? When I use numbers you get all bent
about it, and when I use logic you reject that too.
> > Your numbers do not
> > reflect the miserable work involved in job seeking, retraining,
> > preparation, and time invested in continually looking for
> > work.
>
> > Those hours have increased markedly over the period
> > in which you make your claims.
>
> Think job turnover is a lot greater now than in the past? Figures?
>
Yes. I believe that job turnover is much greater now than
in the past. But I'm sure you can pull some numbers out
of your ear to convince us all that we are just imagining
this reality.
Jim Blair
Mike Coburn wrote:
>> >...: People who derive income from rent and interest (not
>>
>> > profit) and from capital gains are not productive.
>> If I defer current consumption and instead build a machine tool or plow or
>> other piece of capital, or I build a rental house, you say that is not being
>> "productive"?
>
>You know better that that, and so do I. If you do what you
>have said you will derive income from profit. That is why
>the parenthetical about profit in the above sentence.
Hi,
So in your dictionaly, rent IS profit? The money the landlord collects
from the tenant is "profit"? But the rest of us have been calling it
"rent". The profit is what the landlord (investor) has left after
all of the expenses of operating the house are paid. Repairs, insurance,
etc.
>....I
>know full well that I must put it in every sentence or my
>detractors will ever find ways to use the sentence out of
>context.
OK. I sometimes use terms in "--" as well.
>> > The wealth
>> > created by their ownership is zero and any underlying capital
>> > will still produce whether they are dead or alive.
>>
>> Would the underlying capital have existed if someone had not built it?
>
>Would trees exist if they the sun don't shine?
???? No, but the trees currently growing in the big corporate tree farms
would not be a very productive source of wood if they were not planted and
managed by the corporations.
Again, you
>try to make a point and are so lame about it that you sound
>like Limpblade himself. The question to be asked, and the one
>you dare not ask is "How should we encourage the development
>of real capital"? You can bet your sweet ass that is not
>encouraged by enforcing the rights of asset owners to collect
>land rent and interest in fiat money.
If that is what the US has been doing for the past 10 (20?, 50?, 100?)
years, then I would say that it has been working pretty well.
>
>> And would anyone build it if there were no incentive?
>
>Some would. But the point you are making is valid: The
>risk of investing should be offset by the rewards.
>
> Would you build a
>> rental duplex if you could not keep the rent?
>
>No. But the rent that I keep should come from the rent
>of the structure (my actual investment in the duplex),
>and not from the land under it.
Isn't the tennant paying for use of the house you built? How much
rent would you get for the empty lot? Maybe you mean the difference
in rent collected on a house, and the rent on the land? (a parking
space,or a tent site?)
>> > The number of hours worked to pay for this wonderful "life style"
>> > is not subjective either. In spite of your trumped up numbers....
They are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
>> > ....most people are working more than ever.
Cite the source for that. The figures I see say individual people now
work a
smaller fraction of their lives than ever before, at least in the US.
>It was the source you gave that showed a .5% decrease in
>hours worked over the last "n" years (n was 10 to 30, I
>can't remember such tripe),
I'll check again with the BLS.
The bogus claim is that :"families" work more hours per year now, and for
lower
wages than during the 1950's. Both of these "facts" are because more
wives now
work outside the home. See:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/wwives.txt
>
>So what's you point?
That contrary to your claim, people in the US are living better and
longer, but working no more (or even less) to do that. That
"the system" is not as bad as you say.
>...When I use numbers you get all bent
>about it, and when I use logic you reject that too.
Yes. When you use numbers that you just make up, or that are based on
your personal experience. And your "logic" is illogical. Or based on
assumptions that I think are false.
>
>> > Your numbers do not
>> > reflect the miserable work involved in job seeking, retraining,
>> > preparation, and time invested in continually looking for
>> > work.
>>
>> > Those hours have increased markedly over the period
>> > in which you make your claims.
>>
>> Think job turnover is a lot greater now than in the past? Figures?
>>
>
>Yes. I believe that job turnover is much greater now than
>in the past.
Give me some source. How do you know?
Data on this can be misleading as well. High turnover CAN mean that
people are finding better jobs to move into. It depends on why they
changed jobs.
>...But I'm sure you can pull some numbers out
>of your ear to convince us all that we are just imagining
>this reality.
I would hope so. See
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/86.txt
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
>...., and the result was that
>monetary policy does it all, and fiscal policy does nothing for GDP.
Hi,
I'll say more on this when (if?) I find time. I use monetary policy
to mean interest rates and the fed buying or selling bonds.
Fiscal policy means tax and spending policies.
You mean the same? (people in this ng make up their own definitions ;-)
....
>.... During Reagan's terms, nobody on the high side
>of the median income was encouraged to have any sense of
>sacrifice to defeat the Evil Empire. It appears instead that they
>were given free reign to practice conspicuous consumption while
>kids and poor folks did without, while the poverty rate rose and
>the lower quintile got a lower share of the national income.
Like to see your figures on this, but comparison of "poverty rate"
between different countries or different times in the same country
are meaningless. The definition of "poverty" is different in each
comparison. In the US it changes constantly as does the methods used
to measure it.
My page on this is at:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/poor.htm
And "lower SHARE of national income? Meaning while their incomes
increased,it was not as fast as the other quintiles? And do you
think this means that the PEOPLE in the bottom quintile in 1981
didn't have more income by 1989??
You must know better than that. Hubbard study and all.
Mike Coburn
>
>
> Mike Coburn wrote:
>
> >> >...: People who derive income from rent and interest (not
> >>
> >> > profit) and from capital gains are not productive.
>
> Jim Blair:
>
> >> If I defer current consumption and instead build a machine tool or plow or
> >> other piece of capital, or I build a rental house, you say that is not being
> >> "productive"?
>
> >
> >You know better that that, and so do I. If you do what you
> >have said you will derive income from profit. That is why
> >the parenthetical about profit in the above sentence.
>
> Hi,
>
> So in your dictionaly, rent IS profit? The money the landlord collects
> from the tenant is "profit"? But the rest of us have been calling it
> "rent". The profit is what the landlord (investor) has left after
> all of the expenses of operating the house are paid. Repairs, insurance,
> etc.
I don't see any place here where I have said that "rent" is profit.
The income derived from the total rent of the structure less the rent
derived from the land, less the costs of the structure and its
maintenance
are "profit". Hint: Income derived from the _structure_ less the
costs of building and maintaining the structure is profit. Income
derived from the rent of the land is not profit. It is simply rent.
The point being that capital produces profits. Land produces rent.
> >....I
> >know full well that I must put it in every sentence or my
> >detractors will ever find ways to use the sentence out of
> >context.
>
> OK. I sometimes use terms in "--" as well.
>
> >> > The wealth
> >> > created by their ownership is zero and any underlying capital
> >> > will still produce whether they are dead or alive.
> >>
> >> Would the underlying capital have existed if someone had not built it?
> >
> >Would trees exist if they the sun don't shine?
>
> ???? No, but the trees currently growing in the big corporate tree farms
> would not be a very productive source of wood if they were not planted and
> managed by the corporations.
>
> Again, you
> >try to make a point and are so lame about it that you sound
> >like Limpblade himself. The question to be asked, and the one
> >you dare not ask is "How should we encourage the development
> >of real capital"? You can bet your sweet ass that is not
> >encouraged by enforcing the rights of asset owners to collect
> >land rent and interest in fiat money.
>
> If that is what the US has been doing for the past 10 (20?, 50?, 100?)
> years, then I would say that it has been working pretty well.
But that is because you are blind as a bat. I look at what
could have been and ask "why not". You compare this wealthy
nation (wealthy in natural resources per capita) to other,
overpopulated and even less well managed sovereignties and
conclude that or social organization is responsible for all
of our individual wealth. And that the since we managed to
get away with the prevalent stupidity then it must not be
stupidity. There is a limit to how far Republican posturing
will take us. The rise in oil price was the anticipated
trigger, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.
> >
> >> And would anyone build it if there were no incentive?
> >
> >Some would. But the point you are making is valid: The
> >risk of investing should be offset by the rewards.
> >
> > Would you build a
> >> rental duplex if you could not keep the rent?
> >
> >No. But the rent that I keep should come from the rent
> >of the structure (my actual investment in the duplex),
> >and not from the land under it.
>
> Isn't the tennant paying for use of the house you built? How much
> rent would you get for the empty lot? Maybe you mean the difference
> in rent collected on a house, and the rent on the land? (a parking
> space,or a tent site?)
That is much closer. The major portion of the market rent
form the land should be confiscated and redistributed equally
to all persons in the sovereignty. You would then still
profit from your actual investment in the creation and
maintenance of the structure.
>
> >> > The number of hours worked to pay for this wonderful "life style"
> >> > is not subjective either. In spite of your trumped up numbers....
>
> They are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
>
> >> > ....most people are working more than ever.
>
> Cite the source for that. The figures I see say individual people now
> work a
> smaller fraction of their lives than ever before, at least in the US.
>
> >It was the source you gave that showed a .5% decrease in
> >hours worked over the last "n" years (n was 10 to 30, I
> >can't remember such tripe),
>
> I'll check again with the BLS.
>
>
> The bogus claim is that :"families" work more hours per year now, and for
> lower
> wages than during the 1950's. Both of these "facts" are because more
> wives now
> work outside the home. See:
So the claim is _not_ bogus.
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/wwives.txt
>
> >
> >So what's you point?
>
> That contrary to your claim, people in the US are living better and
> longer, but working no more (or even less) to do that. That
> "the system" is not as bad as you say.
The point is, Jim, that the system is a piece of shit. Any
gains that have been made in productivity that have inured
to the benefit of the actual producers (spelled workers), have
been in spite of the current system.
> >...When I use numbers you get all bent
> >about it, and when I use logic you reject that too.
>
> Yes. When you use numbers that you just make up, or that are based on
> your personal experience. And your "logic" is illogical. Or based on
> assumptions that I think are false.
I used YOUR numbers, and I really don't care about your
_opinions_ regarding my logic, or assumptions.
> >
> >> > Your numbers do not
> >> > reflect the miserable work involved in job seeking, retraining,
> >> > preparation, and time invested in continually looking for
> >> > work.
> >>
> >> > Those hours have increased markedly over the period
> >> > in which you make your claims.
> >>
> >> Think job turnover is a lot greater now than in the past? Figures?
> >>
> >
> >Yes. I believe that job turnover is much greater now than
> >in the past.
>
> Give me some source. How do you know?
OK. The source is my own experience, and the experience of
_ALL_ of the people I know who are not Republicans, and
_ALL_ of the people I know who are reasonably intelligent
and who may otherwise be Republicans.
> Data on this can be misleading as well. High turnover CAN mean that
> people are finding better jobs to move into. It depends on why they
> changed jobs.
WOW! You mean you were unable to find some numbers that say
job turnover is less and you have to now weasel into making
job turnover a good thing? The economists in the pay of the
Republicrats (includes about 95% I suppose) had better be
careful. They may soon be "turning over".
> >...But I'm sure you can pull some numbers out
> >of your ear to convince us all that we are just imagining
> >this reality.
>
> I would hope so. See
>
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/86.txt
>
Hope as you will.........
Jim Blair
Jim Blair wrote:
>> Wrong conclusion. Immigration has more than offset the Roe v Wade
>> loss.
JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net> wrote:
>
>With the presence of those who were abortion victims + immigrants,
>we would have a different employment picture, I'm sure.
Hi,
True,
>.... If the object is to promote
>responsible
>reproduction, it does little good to accommodate the irresponsibility of
>others. But Republicans who refuse to support foreign aid for family
>planning in countries that know they've got a population growth problem
>are not doing anyone a favor.
I agree.
But if you say Roe v Wade has caused the recent drop in crime...
Well see my file on that at:
>It's unclear whether Roe vs. Wade has caused the drop in crime
>by reducing the number of kids growing up in dysfunctional homes
>or by improving the job market. The most common customers of
>abortion services are 20-something educated women with careers
>or in preparation for them, in other words, women smarter than
>average who would have had babies smarter than average.
But the women who get abortions are disproportionately poor,
"non-white" and single. Their male kids are a pretty close match to the
jail population. And an intelligent single mom is still more likely
to raise a disfunctional kid than a married woman of average intelligence.
>....What
>we've instead had for most of the years since the 1970s is social
>policies rewarding less smart and productive people for having
>kids.
And a marriage penality.
>....Now we look at educational performance and wonder why
>there's a drop in students' achievement. Environment and mental
>stimulation (education) has some effect on achievement, but the
>dominant factor in achievement is heredity, genetics. You can
>read about that in any good book on child development.
>
>John
>
>
I agree. But it helps a lot if the parents are married.As Dan Quayle
pointed out.
abcd...@my-deja.com
Chas <CharlesN...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> --------------9B6753CB206F7C8CE58A2554
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> JohnT wrote:
>
> > A recession is not necessarily deflationary conditions that results
in
> > an economy being caught in the liquidity trap, which is what makes
> > a depression such a severe condition.
> >
>
operation of the real
> balance effect.
>
> >
> > pumped into the economy does nothing for gross economic activity.
> > Govt spending is irrelevant to the basic monetary equation.
>
coefficient.
>
> >
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
> <p>JohnT wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=+1>A recession is not necessarily
deflationary
> conditions that results in</font>
> <br><font size=+1>an economy being caught in the liquidity trap, which
> is what makes</font>
> <br><font size=+1>a depression such a severe condition.</font>
> <br><font size=+1></font> </blockquote>
> <font size=+1>The notion of a liquidity trap has really been
discredited
> by the operation of the real balance effect.</font>
> <br>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=+1></font>
> <br><font size=+1>A deficit financed on the open market without any
new
> money being</font>
> <br><font size=+1>pumped into the economy does nothing for gross
economic
> activity.</font>
> <br><font size=+1>Govt spending is irrelevant to the basic monetary
equation.</font></blockquote>
> <font size=+1>A case of complete crowding out will not speed the
velocity
> coefficient.</font>
> <br><font size=+1></font>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=+1></font>
> <br><font size=+1></font> </blockquote>
> <font size=+1></font></html>
>
> --------------9B6753CB206F7C8CE58A2554--
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What is economics? What is New Economics? Why should
> one
> > > learn economics? ......Could you distinguish the real socialism
from
> > communism or others?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could any economist, economics-professor, or
> Nobel-Prize
> > > > > > receiver answer the following simple questions in open?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1) Is value the basis of economics? Why?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2) Could any body produce your subjective value?
How?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3) Is knowledge subjective or objective value? Why?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4) Where does knowledge come from? How?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you need to know the answer, please, look at the
> home
> > > > page:
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.angelfire.com/ga/chaok , you could find
> more.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Reading without thinking is nonsense; reading
without
> > > > > > > understanding is in vain!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------
-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
abcd...@my-deja.com
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
> USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
> binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
> call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
>
>
abcd...@my-deja.com
abcd...@my-deja.com
JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net> wrote:
>
>
> jim blair wrote:
>
> > Mike Coburn wrote:
> >
> > > intend to go. If that is "detached from reality" then
> > > so be it.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is when you try to describe the terrible living conditions there
based on the
> > prediction made in a 1966 science fiction novel. Harrison may have
sounded
> > realistic to many people when he wrote the novel (maybe even to me
at that
> > time). The fact is that he was way off--execpt for the world
population of
> > 1999, where he was maybe 10% high.
>
> the ragged edge of survival and is now doing better thanks to
stringent
> population control and efforts to join the business world as a center
> of manufacturing. Without those two measures, China would surely
> be a considerably more miserable place to live now.
>
> > > held constant, we are (the vast majority that is) individually
> > > better off the less of us there are.
> >
> > Not al all obvious.
> >
> > >You picked the extreme in
> >
> > > which there were not enough people to allow the division and
> > > specialization of labor so as to disprove my thesis and in that
> > > condition you are correct and I am in error. I was asking you
> > > to take a gander at the other outlandish, and ridiculous extreme.
> > > Neither extreme would tell us much about reality. So I must
> > > amend my position and say that within realistic limits the vast
> > > majority will be better off individually the less of us there
> > > are.
> >
> > I aagree that for any given level of technology there is some
optimum population
> > that can be supported. Above that population, living standards will
be reduced.
> > Just as they will be reduced if the population is lower. (Hey, that
is why I
> > called
> > it the "optimum population" ;-)
> >
one can
> > say for sure what the number is. Today the world is likely below
it--but we
> > could pass it, and not know until after that happened.
>
> The scary thing is that present prosperity runs on fossil fuel. Even
if
> value of 500 years is a tiny blip in the history of our species, and
> an even smaller blip in the history of the diverse life since Cambrian
> times. Empty the fuel tanks and unplug the generators and we're
> right back to living in the 1800s. The hope that something will turn
> up depends for its fulfillment on our investing in research to find
> longer-term power sources. Making better use of energy resources
> now wouldn't hurt either.
>
> > > That is a logical imperative that no amount of Republican
> > > tap dancing is going to defy.
> >
> > What's with the "Republican" hang up?? I am not one, and may find
time to explain
> > why in a post.
>
> because more people = more consumers or more hungry cheap
> labor. Either way, such businesspeople imagine that more people
> = more profits and wealth for themselves. I for one have no interest
> in reproducing irresponsibly to make some other person richer.
>
> better is that of religious conservatives, who hate abortion and think
> that arguing for population growth is a way to oppose abortion. These
> conservatives are mostly Republican.
>
> past 20 yrs including the steady improvement since 1992 fails to
> note that the improvement comes about 20 years after Roe vs.
> Wade, about the time the million babies a year who weren't born
> and even human life seems to obey the law of supply and demand,
> so that we cheapen ourselves by overdoing reproduction. There's
> just no reason to think that supply and demand can be over-ruled
> by a theological or philosophic assertion of the sanctity of human
> life. So if we really hold life to be sacred, we must take it easy
> in reproduction and not crowd the planet and job market and make
> resources scarce for our subsequent generations.
>
> John
>
jim blair
> >
> > But is the improvement because of population control or because
> > they left Marx and are encouraging capitalism? And if both, what
> > percent of each?
> JohnT wrote:
> China is so close to the ragged edge on food production, according
> to an article I read in Atlantic Monthly a few years ago, that it
> does not have the land to waste on a modern system of roads to
> support widespread use of automobiles. It needs the land for food
> production.
Hi,
??? But modern agriculture produces many times more food on the same
land. Sounds to me that IS what they need--starting with GMO crops that
can produce more food using less energy imput (like tractors and herbicides)
And the Chinese seem to know this and are pressing genetics research. My
main concern is that if they press this science and we in the west retreat from it
China may again take the lead from the West.
>....I don't think it's realistic at this time to suggest that there would be
> any massive emigration to space colonies. If Ford Motors ever
> starts making UFOs cheap enough that every family in the industrial
> world can afford one, then maybe.... I want a nice white one with
> racing stripes and my alma mater's mascot painted on it.
We don't all have to go into space to benefit from it.
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
JohnT
Jim Blair wrote:
>
> JohnT <j...@inXSformatics.net> wrote:
>
> But if you say Roe v Wade has caused the recent drop in crime...
> Well see my file on that at:
>
> >It's unclear whether Roe vs. Wade has caused the drop in crime
> >by reducing the number of kids growing up in dysfunctional homes
> >or by improving the job market. The most common customers of
> >abortion services are 20-something educated women with careers
> >or in preparation for them, in other words, women smarter than
> >average who would have had babies smarter than average.
>
> But the women who get abortions are disproportionately poor,
> "non-white" and single. Their male kids are a pretty close match to the
> jail population. And an intelligent single mom is still more likely
That's not what I've heard. I think it was my local paper several
years back that had a story about a report indicating that the typical
woman utilizing abortion services was a 20-something single woman,
either in a career or pursuing education.
This is a huge discrepancy between versions of "information."
jim blair
> > >It's unclear whether Roe vs. Wade has caused the drop in crime
> > >by reducing the number of kids growing up in dysfunctional homes
> > >or by improving the job market. The most common customers of
> > >abortion services are 20-something educated women with careers
> > >or in preparation for them, in other words, women smarter than
> > >average who would have had babies smarter than average.
Jim Blair:
> > But the women who get abortions are disproportionately poor,
> > "non-white" and single. Their male kids are a pretty close match to the
> > jail population. .....
JohnT:
> That's not what I've heard. I think it was my local paper several
> years back that had a story about a report indicating that the typical
> woman utilizing abortion services was a 20-something single woman,
> either in a career or pursuing education.
Hi,
Note that there is no inconsistancy between our two "facts". Yes the
"typical"
(= median?) woman who gets an abortion is as you say. But (for example)
black women are about 10% of the population in Wiscaonsin and get over 20%of
the abortions, and Wisconsin is not unusual in this. See my web page for the
facts on this:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/abort.htm
See "the Facts".
Thus my claim is true as well.
> This is a huge discrepancy between versions of "information."
No, just a difference in how to look at the same information. And my way
seems much more informative (to me at least ;-)
I mean maybe the Irish drink only 40% of the whisky in my town. But if the
only Irishman in my city of 100,000 is Paddy O'Connor?
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
>
>This is a huge discrepancy between versions of "information."
Hi,
See
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abort.html
where you find items like:
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well
below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely
as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times
as likely
and
58% of women having abortions in 1995 had used a contraceptive method
during the month they became pregnant.
and
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as
that associated with abortion.
Jim Blair
>> >Yes. I believe that job turnover is much greater now than
>> >in the past.
jim blair:
>> Give me some source. How do you know?
MC:
>
>OK. The source is my own experience, and the experience of
>_ALL_ of the people I know who are not Republicans, and
>_ALL_ of the people I know who are reasonably intelligent
>and who may otherwise be Republicans.
Hi,
With this, as with incomes and time spent working, you use your personal
experience to compare the US today with the 1970's and 1950's?
Like just what fraction of the US population do you know? And how
diverse or how representative are your friends? Both today and in 1950?
...
jeb:
Data on this can be misleading as well. High turnover CAN mean that
people are finding better jobs to move into. It depends on why they
changed jobs.
MC:
>WOW! You mean you were unable to find some numbers that say
>job turnover is less and you have to now weasel into making
>job turnover a good thing?
I am just stating an obvious fact. Job turnover CAN be a good thing.
It depends on the reasons why people change jobs.
....
MC:
>> >...But I'm sure you can pull some numbers out
>> >of your ear to convince us all that we are just imagining
>> >this reality.
jeb:
> I would hope so. See
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/86.txt
JohnT
jim blair wrote:
Touche! But regarding income levels, though private insurance may
cover abortion, people on welfare in many states aren't. Being black
doesn't mean being poor or unemployable. Being on welfare is by
definition being poor, and on average a recipient is less employable
than those with jobs. That is, among other factors, a result of employers'
assessments of individuals who apply for jobs.
> See "the Facts".
>
> Thus my claim is true as well.
>
> > This is a huge discrepancy between versions of "information."
>
> No, just a difference in how to look at the same information. And my way
> seems much more informative (to me at least ;-)
>
> I mean maybe the Irish drink only 40% of the whisky in my town. But if the
> only Irishman in my city of 100,000 is Paddy O'Connor?
Is he the fellow who read the ad, "Drink Canada Dry", and tried?
John