Re: Free Market
Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That wasteful government spending is the source of inflation. If this were
> true, then the inflation curve would track the government spending curb.
Which it does, at least better than it tracks money supply. If you look at the
time series for inflation, money supply, and government spending since
1970, inflation tracks spending more closely than money supply. You will
need to take an average to remove some noise (I suggest 5 year average),
but the difference is obvious if you graph it. I'm amazed you haven't done
this already. It even holds for countries other than the US.
> That there is no data supporting monetary policy has an effect on the
> economy.
I did not make this statement. In fact, I said that during banking panics that
the Fed can play an important role (by increasing the money supply to
meet the sudden demand for money).
> That monetary policy of lowering interest rates to banks is one and the same
> as the federal government running a deficit.
> The money the Fed lends to
> banks expands the money in the economy, but it does not count as an asset
> that governments can spend.
As far as I can tell, your much vaunted physicist-method of statistical
proof is to eyeball some tabular data, give a few poorly understood
anecdotes, and then claim that all the economists and your brother-in-law
agree, so your statement must be correct. QED.
Evidently you are not familiar with economists such as Thomas Sargent
or John Muth. You might want to look them up (or marry one of their sisters).
As long as you are talking about magnitudes of causes, surely
you can tell us which measure of monetary base the Fed is able
to directly control? No doubt you know the size of total bank reserves,
over which the Fed controls the interest rate? How does that compare
to GDP? And I'm sure you can state a mechanism as to
how bank reserves (you know, of course, that the reserve requirements
apply only to checking deposits, not money market accounts, savings
accounts or CD's) control the amount of bank lending? Then show
us how total outstanding credit and loans have been a constant multiple
of bank reserves? Or even that bank reserves and loans have been
going in the same direction? Have you looked at the autocorrelation of
the FF rate with T-bill yields? Which one leads the other? Do you think
the Fed is setting T-bill yields, or simply following T-bill yields as
set by the market? No doubt you can show us how the FF rate is
more influential than corporate bonds, mortgage rates, and long-term
bond rates on the economy? (or that the FF rate controls those
other rates)
No doubt you are aware that money and government bonds are easily
interchangeable. Interchanging them, in fact, is how the Fed modulates
the money supply. Cutting interest rates means that the Fed replaces
treasury bonds with currency ("federal reserve note") and bank reserves.
The Fed controls the mix, but not the total amount of government liabilities.
It is when the total amount of government liabilities grows faster than
productivity that inflation becomes a big problem. You like to talk about
large causes. This is rather obvious: if fiscal policy creates more
government liabilities (money supply + treasury bonds) than the economy
can handle, the price of those liabilities will fall, interest rates will rise,
and
inflation will occur. The Fed cannot control total government liabilities, that
is the job of Congress. Luckily, foreigners have been snapping up
US Treasuries like mad this decade, so inflation has been tame. If that
changes soon, though, look out above! (That is one reason why many
economists thought FNM and FRE had to be bailed out, since a lot of
their debt was held by foreigners, and we don't want to piss off our
creditors)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Free Market
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Williams > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:10 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Free Market > > > Would you care to inform me what "my theory" is that you repeatedly refer > to, claim all economists disagree with, and proceed to list some data and > some anecdotal evidence that you say disproves "my theory"? That wasteful government spending is the source of inflation. If this were true, then the inflation curve would track the government spending curb. That there is no data supporting monetary policy has an effect on the economy. That monetary policy of lowering interest rates to banks is one and the same as the federal government running a deficit. The money the Fed lends to banks expands the money in the economy, but it does not count as an asset that governments can spend. If you make a flat statement, I tend to believe that's what you believe. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Would you care to inform me what "my theory" is that you repeatedly refer to, claim all economists disagree with, and proceed to list some data and some anecdotal evidence that you say disproves "my theory"? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Free Market
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Williams > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:47 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Free Market > > Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > There are rigorous ways to look at correlations and to ask questions > > precisely that decrease the chance at false correlations. > > Yes. > > > But, before I apply the toolbox of techniques I've learned such > techniques > > to analyzing your and my hypotheses, I'd like to know if it would mean > > anything to you. Are you convincible by numbers? > > Of course, but you do not seem to have understood what I wrote. I understood. It is true that I cannot prove my assertions beyond a shadow of a doubt, just as one cannot prove global warming and the rise of CO2 levels are not just coincidence. But, I will make a > There are > dozens of important variables that could be relevant, and you have only a > few years of data points during FDR. Are you seriously suggesting that you > can prove that 1 or 2 variables are responsible for the majority of > the change in GDP over a period of a few years? If you can achieve > that, you surely missed your calling as an economist. There is nothing new in what I'm writing. I've seen these arguments from well respected economists. It's true that economists tend to overstate their understanding. But, I have much less ambitious goals. It is theoretically possible that small causes are the real source of big effects, but it is very reasonable to look at big causes for big effects. Your statement about monetary policy places you in opposition to just about everything I've read by or heard from economists. It could be blind luck that increasing the supply of money increases GDP, and can cause inflation if and only if the increase in money exceeds the increase in goods and services. Me, I believe that something between the understanding of fiscal economists, and monetary economists is closest to the best model. I agree that a great deal of humility is needed by these folks, because things like the "rule of 7" are not valid, nor is the idea that monetary policy alone can handle inflation. But, there are enough data, including the timing of the changes in the economy after changes in Fed. policy that matches expectations repeatedly to come up with a reasonable phenomenology. Your view, on the other hand leads to predictions that counter data. Yes, there could be a wealth of unseen effects, etc. But, allowed that type of latitude, I could claim just about anything. Now, for the first order data: government intake, output, inflation and GDP growth since 1929 (1930 is listed first because it reflects growth/shrinkage from '29 to '30. fed fedreal GDP recpexpen inflate growth 19304.2%3.4%-3.7%-8.6% 19313.7%4.3%-10.4% -6.4% 19322.8%6.9%-11.7% -13.0% 19333.5%8.0%-2.7%-1.4% 19344.8%10.7% 5.6% 10.8% 19355.2%9.2%1.9% 9.0% 19365.0%10.5% 1.1% 12.9% 19376.1%8.6%4.3% 5.3% 19387.6%7.7%-2.9%-3.5% 19397.1%10.3% -1.2%8.1% 19406.8%9.8%1.4% 8.5% 19417.6%12.0% 6.8% 17.1% 194210.1% 24.3% 7.9% 18.4% 194313.3% 43.6% 5.3% 16.4% 194420.9% 43.6% 2.3% 8.2% 194520.4% 41.9% 2.7% -1.2% 194617.6% 24.8% 12.1%-11.1% 194716.5% 14.8% 10.7%-0.7% 194816.2% 11.6% 5.7% 4.3% 194914.5% 14.3% -0.1%-0.6% 195014.4% 15.6% 1.1% 8.7% 195116.1% 14.2% 7.2% 7.6% 195219.0% 19.4% 1.6% 4.0% 195318.7% 20.4% 1.3% 4.6% 195418.5% 18.8% 1.0% -0.7% 195516.6% 17.3% 1.7% 7.1% 195617.5% 16.5% 3.4% 2.0% 195717.8% 17.0% 3.3% 2.0% 195817.3% 17.9% 2.4% -1.0% 195916.1% 18.7% 1.1% 7.2% 196017.9% 17.8% 1.4% 2.5% 196117.8% 18.4% 1.1% 2.3% 196217.6% 18.8% 1.4% 6.0% 196317.8% 18.6% 1.1% 4.3% 196417.6% 18.5% 1.5% 5.8% 196517.0% 17.2% 1.9% 6.4% 196617.4% 17.9% 2.9% 6.6% 196718.3% 19.4% 3.1% 2.5% 196817.7% 20.6% 4.3% 4.8% 196919.7% 19.4% 4.9% 3.0% 197019.0% 19.3% 5.3% 0.2% 197117.3% 19.5% 5.0% 3.3% 197217.6% 19.6% 4.2% 5.4% 197317.7% 18.8% 5.6% 5.8% 197418.3% 18.7% 9.0% -0.6% 197517.9% 21.3% 9.3% -0.4% 197617.2% 21.4% 5.7% 5.6% 197718.0% 20.7% 6.4% 4.6% 197818.0% 20.7% 7.1% 5.5% 197918.5% 20.2% 8.3% 3.2% 198019.0% 21.7% 9.2% -0.2% 198119.6%
Re: Free Market
Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are rigorous ways to look at correlations and to ask questions > precisely that decrease the chance at false correlations. Yes. > But, before I apply the toolbox of techniques I've learned such techniques > to analyzing your and my hypotheses, I'd like to know if it would mean > anything to you. Are you convincible by numbers? Of course, but you do not seem to have understood what I wrote. There are dozens of important variables that could be relevant, and you have only a few years of data points during FDR. Are you seriously suggesting that you can prove that 1 or 2 variables are responsible for the majority of the change in GDP over a period of a few years? If you can achieve that, you surely missed your calling as an economist. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Free Market
> I have no doubt that insuring banks benefits long term growth. So the FDIC is > helpful. It would be interesting if a Berkshire Hathaway were to start insuring > some bank deposits, say, amounts over $100K, to see whether we could get > at least limited competition in the bank insurance market. I presume you know some of the fundamentals of both the banking and the insurance industry. In banking, the reserves need only be 10% of M1 see http://www.theshortrun.com/data/Financial/aggregates/msexplain.html for good descriptions of M1, M2 & M3). > As for the Fed, they can be helpful in a severe liquidity crunch, such as during > bank runs, but the Fed is more intrusive than it needs to be. I'd like to see > the Fed keep quiet except in the case of banking panics. I have not seen anything > to convince me that it is anything more than an grand illusion that the Fed > actually has significant control over the economy (outside of a liquidity > crisis) by varying short term interest rates. The Fed is a bit like the rooster that > thinks his crowing raises the sun each day. Hmm, as you also mention below, you are rather skeptical about correlations. What do you base that on? Let me bring up something you said earlier > Sounds like the rooster again, I think. The problem with this sort of analysis > is that there is a lot of randomness in economic growth figures. I expect you can > probably find a lot of variables that correlate with the data you mention (have you seen > the graph of global warming versus number of pirates?). You would have to do a huge > statistical study to convince me that FDR actually caused the economy to change > that drastically that quickly. Well, I should probably give you a bit of my background here. I've been working in physics for the last 30 years or so (finished my Phd Dissertation 1-82 in particle physics) and am fairly familiar with statistical analysis. I've been dealing with false and true correlations for all of that time. There are rigorous ways to look at correlations and to ask questions precisely that decrease the chance at false correlations. For example, there are a lot of things that went down as global warming increased, as well as a lot that didn't. You have a very simple model (up/down) for global warming and piracy and the chances of false correlations are good. Indeed, Monte Carlo techniques lend themselves very well to this type of analysis. Another example of false correlations is the correlation of cancer with high voltage power lines. The trick involved is to look for a 3 sigma relationship in any type of cancer. There are so many types of cancer, that one of them is bound to have a 3 sigma signal. Again, Monte Carlo techniques are invaluable in doing rigorous, straightforward, efficient modeling of these types of questions. I've been involved in similar debates to this in the past on Brin-L, and have done Monte Carlo analysis. With today's computer speeds, it is straightforward to run 1 million cases in a few seconds (maybe a few minutes for complicated analysis). Further, Monte Carlo's allow/require one to explicitly instead of implicitly state assumptions. And, furthering the value of Monte Carlos, the analytical models employed by the major houses, Freddy and Fanny did not accurately predict the recent meltdown/Black Swan, but Taleb (who tends to rely more on Monte Carlos and less on analytical approximations) did. But, before I apply the toolbox of techniques I've learned such techniques to analyzing your and my hypotheses, I'd like to know if it would mean anything to you. Are you convincible by numbers? I'm cutting the rest of your response because I think that a rigorous reply would only be meaningful if you accept what I've been taught as rigor as valid. BTW, I do realize that economics is no more than a dismal science, but that doesn't mean that techniques of science cannot be borrowed to look at some of the historical information. - Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Do you agree that having a FDIC and a Federal Reserve System is an acceptable > intervention in the free market? Sure, they can be helpful. I'd like to see private bank insurance rather than the FDIC, but that is probably a pipe dream since even a Berkshire Hathaway is not big enough to insure a significant fraction of the banks, and there are not enough Berkshire Hathaway's to insure them all. But bank failures are extremely bad for growth, and I have no doubt that insuring banks benefits long term growth. So the FDIC is helpful. It would be interesting if a Berkshire Hathaway were to start insuring some bank deposits, say, amounts over $100K, to see whether we could get at least limited competition in the bank insurance market. As for the Fed, they can be helpful in a severe liquidity crunch, such as during bank runs, but the Fed is more intrusive than it needs to be. I'd like to see the Fed keep quiet except in the case of banking panics. I have not seen anything to convince me that it is anything more than an grand illusion that the Fed actually has significant control over the economy (outside of a liquidity crisis) by varying short term interest rates. The Fed is a bit like the rooster that thinks his crowing raises the sun each day. All the Fed is doing when they vary interest rates is controlling whether government obligations take the form of treasury bonds or money supply (currency and reserves). Inflation is primarily the result of unproductive government spending, and if the government is spending a lot of money unproductively, it does not matter whether the Fed tilts towards greater money supply or greater treasury debt. If the government wants to limit inflation, they should reduce unproductive government spending. > FDR responded with a more Keynesian policy after 1932. Economic growth from > '32 > to '37 was significant, about 7% per year. Then, FDR significantly reduced > the > Federal deficit in '37-'38, and there was a downturn of about 4%. This is > consistent with Keynesian theory. Sounds like the rooster again, I think. The problem with this sort of analysis is that there is a lot of randomness in economic growth figures. I expect you can probably find a lot of variables that correlate with the data you mention (have you seen the graph of global warming versus number of pirates?). You would have to do a huge statistical study to convince me that FDR actually caused the economy to change that drastically that quickly. Basically, you'd have to make a list of dozens of things which occurred around that time, study the correlation of them, and show me that FDR was significantly more important than all the other factors. It would be a heck of a lot of work, and I doubt you will find much more than random chance. It takes decades for the signal to appear out of random fluctuations with this sort of data. > So, I'd argue that historical data applies bounds on both sides of the pure > free > market/socialist debate. Clearly, full socialism doesn't work. It was tried > by > countries for decades, forced on the people by a barrel of a gun, and we thus > have decades of data on it. I agree with this, since you are indeed talking about many decades of data. I just don't agree that your shorter-term examples are proof of much. > For me, somewhere around the Clinton economic line looks pretty good, > especially > in comparison to the more free market theories that have been practiced in > the > last 8 years. I would not call the last 8 years free market. Between the prescription drug fiasco, the farm bill, the wasteful defense spending in Iraq, and the recent government bailouts of Bear, Fannie, and Freddie, I think the last 8 years are less free market than the Clinton years. I'm of the opinion that we already have far too many laws and regulations and government systems, and almost all news ones are likely to be harmful. I suspect the Clinton years worked well primarily because the government did not undertake any big new projects...it was lucky Hillary's health care plan did not go through, or maybe it was not luck, maybe a Democratic president and a Republican congress is best for limiting new government projects. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
At 12:46 PM Friday 9/12/2008, William T Goodall wrote: >On 12 Sep 2008, at 18:22, John Garcia wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > >> > >>> Charlie Bell wrote: > > Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your > wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health > needs > and basic support for society. > > >>> In theory. In practice, tax is used to finance the tax-collecting > >>> nomenklatura and the parasites that infest the congress. > >> > >> Adjusting for the natural greed and malfeasance of human beings > >> (which > >> must always be taken into account, because they've always been a > >> factor), taxes are the dues we pay for being part of a society. > >> They're the bit that each of us chips in to provide the things that > >> none of us could possibly afford in private. > >> > >There's insurance for health, tolls for roads, fees for schools... Why >do we need inefficient monopolies imposed on us by armed thugs? 'Cuz it beats leaving the armed thugs free to do anything they want to the rest of us? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
John has been writing from a position that strongly supports the market over government control vs. most of the folks on the list. I've tended to be more on John's side than not in this discussion, but I'm a proponent of a mixed economy, and will argue that produces the greatest wealth in the long run. The US has had a mixed economy since the '30s, and has had it's greatest prosperity when the party that is less free market oriented in power (still seen with a 2 year time delay for actions to take place) than when the party that is more free market oriented. The US has had the strongest economy in the world, and had been the engine of world economic growth from '92 to about '07. It is the least socialistic of the major economies, so that gives a second boundary for me. Anyone (especially John because he's new here) can ask me questions about my views, but now I want to ask questions of John. Virtually every economist has agreed that there has to be some government interference in a totally free market. Free market purists think this is anathema; but your posts give the feeling of a free market realist, not a purist. But, I've been wrong when working from the "feel" of email, so I'll ask some questions to improve my understanding. For example, the Federal Reserve Banking System was one of the first examples of the US government interfering with the free market. Before that, banks issued their own money, and big downturns resulted from bank runs. The natural tendency of a businessman during a downturn is to ensure that they minimize their own exposure, thus tightening the money supply during downturns. The macro-effect of this had often resulted in panics as the supply of money dried up. Monetarists have argued that this is the primary, if not singular cause of the Great Depression. I've read persuasive arguments that the Feds actually loosened the money supply slightly from '29 to '32, but that the drastic slowing of the velocity of money ended up with a net, large reduction in the availability of money. Do you agree that having a FDIC and a Federal Reserve System is an acceptable intervention in the free market? Second, you asked for an example where free markets != best productivity. The answer to that, especially from fiscally oriented economists, is that the concentration of wealth in a small fraction of companies in the late 1920s was harmful to the economy and contributed significantly to both the market bubble and the devastating economic contraction between 29 to 32. I'll try to dig up the sources I used to research this for a brin-l debate I had about 5 years ago, but the concentration of wealth was in relatively few hands (both in corporate and personal terms) during the late 1920s. This was one contributing factor to the strength of the Great Depression, there was not money available for new businesses; factories stood idle. FDR responded with a more Keynesian policy after 1932. Economic growth from '32 to '37 was significant, about 7% per year. Then, FDR significantly reduced the Federal deficit in '37-'38, and there was a downturn of about 4%. This is consistent with Keynesian theory. Looking a bit later than that, the period of '39-'45 saw the Federal government come to dominate the economy with WWII. If you look at it from an economic perspective, it was the Feds going into debt to build things that would get blown up. The economy grew 12% per year from '40 to '45, and had a downturn after the war that existed, but (at 6% per year for 2 years before turning back up) it was small enough for the net effect to be very positive. Indeed, the period from 32 to 50 saw GDP growth that we would love today. So, I'd argue that historical data applies bounds on both sides of the pure free market/socialist debate. Clearly, full socialism doesn't work. It was tried by countries for decades, forced on the people by a barrel of a gun, and we thus have decades of data on it. The pure free market extreme doesn't have decades of data behind it because, almost by definition, it is not forced on the people by the government. So, we have to look at shorter periods and the effects of different mixtures to determine that line. For me, somewhere around the Clinton economic line looks pretty good, especially in comparison to the more free market theories that have been practiced in the last 8 years. So, I've asked questions and given a bit of data supporting my position that a mixed economy works best. The real question is what mixture. Please feel free to ask questions to better understand what mixtures I'm thinking of. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On 12 Sep 2008, at 18:22, John Garcia wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: >> >>> Charlie Bell wrote: Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs and basic support for society. >>> In theory. In practice, tax is used to finance the tax-collecting >>> nomenklatura and the parasites that infest the congress. >> >> Adjusting for the natural greed and malfeasance of human beings >> (which >> must always be taken into account, because they've always been a >> factor), taxes are the dues we pay for being part of a society. >> They're the bit that each of us chips in to provide the things that >> none of us could possibly afford in private. >> There's insurance for health, tolls for roads, fees for schools... Why do we need inefficient monopolies imposed on us by armed thugs? Devil's Advocate Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Free Market
"Who cares if the mice nibble the crust, as long as the bread is still there?" Mercedes Lackey, "Storm Breaking" http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:22:30 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Re: Free Market > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > > > Charlie Bell wrote: > > >> > > >> Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your > > >> wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs > > >> and basic support for society. > > >> > > > In theory. In practice, tax is used to finance the tax-collecting > > > nomenklatura and the parasites that infest the congress. > > > > Adjusting for the natural greed and malfeasance of human beings (which > > must always be taken into account, because they've always been a > > factor), taxes are the dues we pay for being part of a society. > > They're the bit that each of us chips in to provide the things that > > none of us could possibly afford in private. > > > > Dave > > > > ___ > > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > > > > "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > Charlie Bell wrote: > >> > >> Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your > >> wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs > >> and basic support for society. > >> > > In theory. In practice, tax is used to finance the tax-collecting > > nomenklatura and the parasites that infest the congress. > > Adjusting for the natural greed and malfeasance of human beings (which > must always be taken into account, because they've always been a > factor), taxes are the dues we pay for being part of a society. > They're the bit that each of us chips in to provide the things that > none of us could possibly afford in private. > > Dave > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Charlie Bell wrote: >> >> Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your >> wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs >> and basic support for society. >> > In theory. In practice, tax is used to finance the tax-collecting > nomenklatura and the parasites that infest the congress. Adjusting for the natural greed and malfeasance of human beings (which must always be taken into account, because they've always been a factor), taxes are the dues we pay for being part of a society. They're the bit that each of us chips in to provide the things that none of us could possibly afford in private. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Charlie Bell wrote: > > Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your > wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs > and basic support for society. > In theory. In practice, tax is used to finance the tax-collecting nomenklatura and the parasites that infest the congress. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On 12/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM, John Williams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> >> If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why >> don't you give them some of your wealth? > > > Here in the United States, like many countries, if you're making a > good > income and you're giving part of your wealth to the weak and > vulnerable, > you're almost certainly breaking the law. > > It's called tax evasion. Oh, I thought it was just what tax is - it's giving up some of your wealth to pay for roads, schools, infrastructure, basic health needs and basic support for society. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > however, if you have any genuinely realistic suggestions how i can > use my "wealth" to help others (other than giving it to you) i will > consider them. jon > I have! Give it to _me_!!! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > nick did you mean to say... you're NOT giving part of your wealth...? tax > evasion is something mostly engaged in by the wealthy, and it is legal if > you use loopholes created for that purpose!~) > You have confused tax avoidance, which is legal, with tax evasion, which is not. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why > don't you give them some of your wealth? Here in the United States, like many countries, if you're making a good income and you're giving part of your wealth to the weak and vulnerable, you're almost certainly breaking the law. It's called tax evasion. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > no one individual (not even bill gates) is going to make a > dent in wage inequities, out of their own pocket. Ah, I see, you don't want to give your own money to help people. You want to give OTHER people's money! A cunning plan... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > does it take that much intelligence to submit to economic slavery > rather than starve? Choosing to do a job that makes you better off than choosing to do some other job (or not working at all) does not take a lot of intelligence. Which is part of why I think that people are capable of making that choice. If you think that some people are not being paid adequately, why don't you give them some of your wealth? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>go back and read what i did > i am NOT > telling anyone how much property they can own, OR how much they can consume. Good for you! I'm glad to hear that you no longer support restrictions on property ownership and free trade. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you tell me, john, I already did. You believe that the amount you own is okay, but people may not own more than you. You believe that the way to allocate resources is for everyone to ask you if it is okay, since you obviously know what everyone else should do. > i want to create such a utopia on my land, Good luck with that. > but you insist that > i would live there alone like a hermit, rather than recognize that there are > people who have a more advanced perspective. I do? You can live there with as many people as you want. What makes you think I care what you do? It is you who seem to want to force your opinions on others. Telling us how much property we may have and how much we may consume. > do you > really believe that foreign workers choose to want to use the short hoe so we > can eat lettuce for a few cents > less per head. Yes, I really believe that foreign workers are intelligent enough to decide whether they want to take a job or not. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free market
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > how does the free market allocate resources and cash returns? The free market does not "allocate" cash returns. The free market allocates resources (for details, please study basic economics). Cash returns are the outcome of an investment. In simple terms, the return on investment is a measure of the desirability of a product or service and the efficiency of producing it. For example, Apple's shares had a high return after the release of the iPods and iPhones, since Apple was able to make these products efficiently enough that people were willing to pay significantly more for them than it cost Apple to make them. I cannot teach you basic economics on an email list, but if you are interested I could give you a reading list on the subject. I already referenced a good book to start with: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8733.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free Market
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There you go again, putting words in my mouth. It's a tough job, but someone has got to do it. > However, if you want to give me half the excess, I will accept. It's negative (I'm one of those oppressed renters that you evil plutocratsand property owners keep down) So, -40 acres - 1 house. So I'll await the 20 acres and 1/2 house you owe me. > by regulating profit gouging and excessive greed, etc. And what exactly constitutes profit gouging and "excessive" greed, and how do you propose to regulate it? What gives you the right to bar consenting parties from making a deal? How do you know what constitutes a fair price, and what is "excessive"? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
