Economics

Cutting Government Will Boost the Economy

Why Keynesianism is still wrong.

|

Budget sequestration is as modest a step toward cutting Leviathan as one can imagine. Further progress will be difficult as long as people believe that slashing the size of government conflicts with reviving the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his recent debate on Charlie Rose, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said that even wasteful government spending should not be cut, because it would undermine job creation and economic recovery. This view isn't quite as popular as it once was, but it is still influential.

The logic of the argument is that insufficient consumer spending caused the Great Recession, the anemic recovery, and persistent high unemployment. If people aren't spending, so goes the argument, businesses lay off workers. And when the newly unemployed workers reduce their spending, more workers are laid off. This ripple effect puts the economy into recession. To end the recession, consumer demand must grow again, but it can't grow because unemployment is high. It's a vicious circle: people don't spend enough because they don't have jobs, but they can't find jobs because people aren't spending enough.

Therefore, says Krugman, government must spend. This is why he supports more debt. And this is why he thinks cutting spending to rein in the deficit is precisely the wrong thing to do now. Keep the deficit spending going to create jobs, Krugman says, and worry about the debt later. There'll be plenty of time for that.

If this were really how things worked, we'd be in a fix. But they don't work that way. Business cycles — the boom and bust — don't happen because consumers all mysteriously decide to cut their spending, throwing people out of work. And since that's not the cause of the downturn, increased government spending is not the cure.

In other words, the spending frenzy, the deficit, and the debt all can be addressed while the economy is recovering. In fact, radically downsizing government is the key to recovery.

Recessions begin because a string of large-scale business investments prove to be unsustainable in light of real economic conditions. Why would so many entrepreneurs make the same mistake at the same time? Because the government and its central bank — the Federal Reserve — create misleading signals in the form of artificially low interest rates and (before the most recent recession) artificially high demand for housing. These policies fool entrepreneurs into thinking that consumers are saving rather than spending, that is, deferring consumption until the future. Businesses then use the easy credit for long-term interest-rate-sensitive projects, such as housing and stages of production remote from the consumer-goods level. Yet consumers have not curtailed spending.

The recession sets in when interest rates rise and the cluster of errors is revealed. The malinvestments are liquidated, and workers are laid off. If the economy is to recover, the structure of production must be realigned with real economic factors, including people's consumption/saving preferences. This is a costly and time-consuming process because workers may need retraining, buildings may need modifying, and machinery may need to be moved or junked. Government policy misshaped the economy, which now must be reshaped into something more appropriate.

Government's only proper task is to get out of the way so that the recovery can be as fast and painless as possible. In the past, when government cut spending and taxes with the onset of a recession, recovery was sure and swift. What the economy needs is resources — savings — to recover. If the government consumes scarce resources, they are unavailable for private efforts. And if the Fed keeps interest rates low, it discourages saving.

Krugman and other Keynesians are wrong when they call for more deficit spending, because that would transfer scarce capital from recovery efforts to politicians, who can have no idea what they are doing. Since government spending faces no market test, it is unlikely to be what is needed. Only investment guided by the price and profit/loss system can make things right. But that requires government to relinquish its claim on private resources.

We can have a vibrant economy and much less government.

This article originally appeared at The Future of Freedom Foundation.

NEXT: Date for Venezuelan Presidential Election Set

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cart before the horse.

    1. my roomate’s aunt makes $77 hourly on the laptop. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her income was $15342 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diP-o_JxysA

      1. I’m not falling for this again! Maybe you can tell me I’ve won the Nigerian Lottery. I might fall for that.

        1. I have the prince on line 1 for you.

  2. Sometimes man, you jsut have to rol lwith it.

    http://www.PrivacyAnon.tk

    1. Alright, we get it anon-bot, bend over and take it.

  3. that would transfer scarce capital from recovery efforts to politicians, who can have no idea what they are doing

    I think you can safely delete the word “can” from that sentence.

  4. when will the Keynesianists EVER admit; “OK, we tried, and it FLOPPED — over and over — who are these guys Mises and Rothbard, again?”

    1. Not going to happen. Their noble efforts have been foiled at every step by evil austeritistians.

      1. I should be pissed, but I chuckle at how Krugman tries to make fun of Austrian economists by calling them “austerians” in his NYT articles

        I guess it works with his base.

        1. ? and the Austerians are only crying 46 tears these days.

    2. Duh – the issue is we haven’t believe ENOUGH – just a little more blood letting “quanititative easing” and gummint “pump priming” and the patient will recover!

  5. I wish this had been a true story:

    Kruggy goes bankrupt

  6. These policies fool entrepreneurs into thinking that consumers are saving rather than spending, that is, deferring consumption until the future.

    I’m not 100% on board with this reasoning as to why, for instance, new home construction stepped up. It wasn’t an expectation of people spending savings but just the aforementioned artificially raised housing demand through lending policies.

    But more importantly, and I can’t prove this yet, the sequester has been letting its dog do its business on my lawn.

    1. I blame the sequester for keeping me from sleeping with Kate Upton.

      1. You’re wrong. She’s really mine, and the sequester is keeping her from me.

        1. I vote she is the first human we clone.

          Also, this is why there are no libertarian wom….

          1. The Russians are on top of it. http://swimdaily.si.com/2013/0…..pelganger/

    2. While the Fed held a lot of the blame for the housing bubble, they weren’t alone. It was a perfect storm of Fed-controlled low interest rates, lots of overseas cash looking for a safe place to park, governmental interference with lending standards, and a government sanctioned security ratings scheme that didn’t work.

      Only one of those reasons didn’t have to do with government interference in the market.

      1. Even that one likely had to do with other governments.

      2. Only one of those reasons didn’t have to do with government interference in the market.

        Sure it did. That money would have normally gone into Treasury Bonds. Rates on TBs were artificially lowered by the Fed. So, they went for the higher yield in MBSs. After all, they were just as safe. Amirite?

      3. That is all nutjob right-wing AM propaganda.

        Stop getting your talking points from fat rush.

        /shrike

        1. He’s obviously a Christfag Bushpig.

  7. How did the economy ever function before our wise elites started controlling it?

  8. Krugman and other Keynesians are wrong when they call for more deficit spending, because that would transfer scarce capital from recovery efforts to politicians, who can have no idea what they are doing.

    Fixed

  9. Did David Gregory just compare Rand Paul’s filibuster to the caning of Sumner?

  10. Also- how does it happen that when Congressmen and Senators talk about the “giveaways” and “loopholes” in the tax code, they treat them as if they have no idea how they got there? Apparently they were handed down on tablets of stone.

    1. One man’s tax incentive is another man’s loophole……

  11. True Keynesians would have been pushing for surpluses the last 13 quarters when the GDP was growing.

    1. I’ve yet to meet one Keynesian who argued for reduced government spending *before* the fact. Yet that’s what Keynes said. In actual fact there are no Keynesians, there are just people using Keynes as an excuse to always and everywhere increase government spending.

      p.s. Not that I am arguing that Keynes was right, but if you’re going to call yourself a Keynesian at least follow Keynes.

      1. This. The real Keynes also clearly said that you’re not supposed to raise taxes in the middle of a global depression (hello Herbert Hoover).

        The tax increases on every worker that took effect at the beginning of this year exposed all our phony Keynesians as the lying scumbags that they are.

        1. But, but, but that wasn’t a tax increase it was just the end of a holiday.

          /progtard

  12. Government policy misshaped the economy, which now must be reshaped into something more appropriate.

    And we all know who is best qualified to fix the problem.

    Top Men, to the rescue!

  13. Most of Obama’s supporters really do think economic growth comes from the government.

    In their world, economic growth has nothing to do with investment, technology gains, productivity, increasing free trade, lower taxation, etc.

    They believe in REAL voodoo economics. They think economic growth is an invisible force that permeates economies, and where it comes from and where it goes would be a complete mystery if not for their assumption that Barack Obama has the spirit-essence of economic growth infused with his soul. They seem to think economic growth ultimately springs from their belief in Obama!

    I’ve heard a lot of people on left crowing about decreasing unemployment and higher stock prices lately, but I’m yet to see any of them make a reasonable connection between anything Barack Obama has done and lower employment or higher stock prices. But then if I need reasons to believe in voodoo, I guess I’m missing the whole point of worshiping Obama.

    1. Simply put, they do not understand inflation. Neither does Krugnuts.

    2. But all the bad economic performance that came before was Obama’s fault, right?

      1. No, it came from similar policies that were implemented by every president we’ve had since LBJ.

        1. Not since FDR?

      2. Nice strawman buddy. Next time build it higher.

      3. In what way are any of Barack Obama’s policies responsible for lower unemployment, Tony?

    3. Well said. Another important issue is to note that all of the major metropolitan cities cannot function without Federal largess.

      Most of the cities are democratic out of need. The lower class of our society gravitates towards large cities where welfare services are readily available.

      This will not truly fix itself until we see the decline of NY, LA , Chicago, Detroit etc. to implosion. Then and only then, will a base economic system exist.

      And, it is coming, like a tidal wave.

  14. Happy Daylight Saving Day! Huzzah! The greatest day of the year!

    1. Progressives fucking with our clocks in an attempt to boost consumption and debt.

      1. It’s so little kids don’t have to walk home from school in the dark.

        Why won’t you think about the children????

        1. The reason to live in AZ: no DST.

          I can’t think of any other reasons, sadly.

          1. Who could possibly be against the sun setting later?

            1. Who could possibly be against the sun setting later?

              Vampires?

            2. DST controls the sun? Awesome!

          2. Constitutional carry would be the other one.

          3. The reason to live in AZ: no DST.

            I can’t think of any other reasons, sadly.

            It’s way cheaper than LA. A cheaper, much drier, much less entertaining LA.

  15. So the little bit of Sunday news shows I caught suggests the weeks narrative was supposed to be the new bipartisan spirit in Washington inspired by Obama’s bold, unprecedented outreach to the “less-extreme” wing of the Republican Senate and the inevitability of a Jeb Bush nomination for 2016. Even that kook extremist Rand Paul couldn’t totally derail the “real news” that the future of the GOP is Moderate Maverick McCain and “it’s Jeb’s turn”.

    1. …”inspired by Obama’s bold, unprecedented outreach to the “less-extreme” wing of the Republican Senate”…

      So was he pictured in robes, leading the host through the desert?

  16. Nanoparticles loaded with bee venom kill HIV

    Bee venom contains a potent toxin called melittin that can poke holes in the protective envelope that surrounds HIV, and other viruses. Large amounts of free melittin can cause a lot of damage. Indeed, in addition to anti-viral therapy, the paper’s senior author, Samuel A. Wickline, MD, the J. Russell Hornsby Professor of Biomedical Sciences, has shown melittin-loaded nanoparticles to be effective in killing tumor cells.

    The new study shows that melittin loaded onto these nanoparticles does not harm normal cells. That’s because Hood added protective bumpers to the nanoparticle surface. …

    According to Hood, an advantage of this approach is that the nanoparticle attacks an essential part of the virus’ structure. In contrast, most anti-HIV drugs inhibit the virus’s ability to replicate. But this anti-replication strategy does nothing to stop initial infection, and some strains of the virus have found ways around these drugs and reproduce anyway.

    “We are attacking an inherent physical property of HIV,” Hood says. “Theoretically, there isn’t any way for the virus to adapt to that. The virus has to have a protective coat, a double-layered membrane that covers the virus.”

  17. What a despicable lying little shit Krugabe is.

    1. He just said that killing terrorists is better than interrogating them.

  18. OT

    linky

    People living in the Falkland Islands are voting in a referendum on their political status on Sunday and Monday at a time of heightened tensions between Argentina and Britain over their sovereignty.

    “The Falkland Islanders are a peaceful, hard-working and resilient people. Our society is thriving and forward-looking. All we ask is to be left in peace to choose our own future, and responsibly develop our home for our children and generations to come,” the government says.

    This has made me reevaluate my position. I, for some reason, assumed the people of the Falklands wanted to be part of Argentina.

    1. Why would you think that?

      They’re all the descendants of Scottish and English sheep farmers.

      1. Never really looked into the issue. Assumed, due to its geographic location it would be more beneficial for them to be part of Argentina.

        And imperialist GB is ALWAYS wrong. Duh!

        1. The US has a stronger claim for Bermuda than Argentina does for the Falklands.

          1. Strange that very few people give a thought to what would happen to the Falkland Islanders if Argentina gained the island. How would the English speaking, Anglican and Presbyterian populace be treated by the Argentine government? How would the populist, nationalist government of de Kirchner deal with this minority? How much tolerance will they be treated with? Or do they expect to exile all the Islanders if they gain control of the island?

          2. I would say that the only claim any country has over an area is the consent of its inhabitants.

            1. The only claim any ruling class (countries are collections of dirt that can’t act) has over an area is superior firepower and/or decent PR.

      2. I hear that the people of the Falklands like to f*** sheep.

      3. I thought they were the descendants of sheep-rapers?

  19. Remain calm.

    Still, despite active public inquiry, DHS has not only remained silent, but has gone so far as to literally black out information regarding its purchases. Such redactions are only supposed to be allowed when authorized by Congress or for national security reasons. In at least one solicitation, the DHS asserted that its contract to purchase ammunition on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not subject to “full and open competition”, claiming that the waver was justified by an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire bullets. They noted that a shortage could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to know what constitutes the nature of that unusual and compelling urgency? One that additionally warranted the purchase of nearly three thousand armored mine-resistant vehicles with multiple gun ports to accommodate 50-caliber weapons?

    Urgent threats will be neutralized.

    Order will be maintained.

    1. Wouldn’t it be nice to know what constitutes the nature of that unusual and compelling urgency? One that additionally warranted the purchase of nearly three thousand armored mine-resistant vehicles with multiple gun ports to accommodate 50-caliber weapons?

      The most transparent administration in history strikes again!

  20. Government is the source of our economic disfunction but cutting it won’t “fix” the economy. Since the 1973 oil embargo permanently raised the cost of the commodity content of manufactured goods, drastic intervention in the economy by the Fed and accelerating deficit spending by the federal government (and states) has leveraged the economy to appear more prosperous and productive than it really is. Add to that, the drastic leverage employed by consumers in the middle class through the use of home loans, credit lines and student loans and you have an over heated, classic case of too many (phantom) dollars chasing to few goods. This explains most of the inflation that has characterized the last 50 years of the US economy.
    Krugman argues, correctly, that if this leverage is taken away too quickly, the economy we know will decline…he’s right. We have grown used to the trappings of Empire, spending more each year on war making, a notoriously inefficient (in terms of its economic multiplier) way to spend. Every one of the 435 Congressional districts receives defense spending. Republicans (and most Democrats) won’t let go of these “job creating” dollars without a fuss and there can be no new government spending paradigm without a drastic rethinking of our Empirical aspirations.

    1. Needs more parentheses and CAPS.

      I miss Hercule.

    2. Why would you waste so much of your time writing something so fallacious? You should respect yourself more than that.

    3. Spending more each year on war making.

      We spend far less on the military as a percentage of GDP today than we did in the 1950’s, or event he 1980s. Virtually the entire increase in spending is entitlements. Your facts are wrong.

      1. His post was moronic, but he what he stated is true. Spending on the military has increased significantly in nominal and real terms. He didn’t say anything about % of GDP, and it makes no sense why military spending would need to be kept at a certain percentage of GDP. Just because your economy grows doesn’t mean your defense needs are any greater, let alone greater in an equal proportion to economic growth

        1. True, but there is another variable that you overlook. As technology progresses so do the capabilities of adversary threats. To keep pace you must spend more to counter the more sophisticated threat. Such is the nature of defense/warfare.

          I don’t think the increase is in any way tied to GDP, but in order to maintain the same level of security, you must spend more with each iteration.

          1. Not necessarily. More spending does not automatically equal more security anymore than government spending in any other area automatically equates with superior results in that area

          2. Better technology is not always more expensive. That is partly due to nature of the military-industrial complex in the US. Crony-socialism and all that.

  21. OT: Fierce brawl mars Canada’s 10-3 win over Mexico

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…..9-22-36-21

    You see, strict immigration policy isn’t so much about keeping immigrants out, but its really about keeping Mexicans and Canadians apart so they don’t kill each other.

    1. We’re kind of like the world’s largest demilitarized zone.

      1. Needs some UN observers

      1. What a load of crap. Running up the score is always preferable etiquette-wise to letting up on your opponent. When you let up on your opponent he knows you don’t even respect him enough to do your best. If you have the score run up on you, at least you know where you stand.

        It’s even dumber in baseball, where you have to make every out. You could make the case that the right thing to do in a similar football game is to take a knee, because you’ve earned the time-management victory. In baseball six runs in a half-inning is hardly unheard of.

        It seems to me that starting a brawl is far more offensive than playing the game.

        1. Absolutely right. If the other team wants to avoid embarrassment, do their fucking jobs and get some outs. Baseball especially is a game of stats. When a coach puts the damper on his players he is hurting their all time records which is why the gloryhounds (and within the context of sports there ain’t nothing wrong with that) play the game in the first place.

          1. As Whitey Herzog said one time: he would stop trying to score runs on bunts and steals when he had a lead when the other team promised to not hit any 3-run homers.

  22. Men are pigs because ADVERTISING!

    In the latest issue of the journal Sex Roles, a trio of psychologists at the University of Manitoba analyzed the advertising images in a slate of magazines targeted at men, from Fortune to Field and Stream.

    File under ostentatious outrage.

    1. These advertising trends speak to the latest development in Hugh Hefner’s sexual revolution. When Playboy launched in 1953, it was billed as a liberating, sophisticated, and intellectual response to conservative sexual norms. It featured icons like Marilyn Monroe and Ray Bradbury. It was not, in fact, inconceivable to read it for the articles. Sixty years later, the magazine’s advertisers are chasing a readership of middle-aged men who are undereducated and underpaid.

      I like the terms undereducated and underpaid. ‘Under’ according to who?

    2. There is a journal entitled Sex Roles? I did a face palm and stopped reading right there.

  23. “In fact, radically downsizing government is the key to recovery [insert any good thing ever dreamed of].”

    This article is so full of horseshit I don’t even know where to begin. A recession is a macroeconomic phenomenon, defined in part as a widespread drop in spending (which can be caused by a number of things such as the bursting of a bubble). That fewer customers leads to higher unemployment should be fairly easy logic to follow. So should the concept that the federal government, with its ability to deficit spend, can make up for the lack of demand and break the vicious cycle. Government, as a market participant, isn’t an evil foreign magical force. It’s just another customer.

    There isn’t a lack of capital or capacity. There is a lack of utilization of them because of reduced demand. Using government to smooth over the business cycle–the Keynesian approach–worked more or less for decades. The neoliberal cult that followed it has only resulted in increasingly large swings–perfectly predictably. The Great Depression should have killed laissez-faire bullshit, but if the great recession finally didn’t for you then your head is quite firmly up your ass.

    1. That’s right, Tony! Teapublicans are all about greed and hate. They don’t care about protecting women and children and they don’t want to pay there fair share. Im a bisiness owner who pays my fair share!

    2. So when we radically decreased the size of government and government spending after WWII and immediately had a massive boom period, you know, after having no such boom period during the New Deal, how would Tony explain that?

      Virtually ever Keynesian economist thought we were going to slip back into the Great Depression due to spending cuts after the war.

      Perhaps more importantly, Keynes himself believed his system couldn’t work unless the government was running surpluses in good times, something that has never happened. There’s enormous amounts of evidence that the ‘multiplier’ decreases and finally disappears entirely the more debt a nation has. That’s not even getting into Thomas Sargent’s recent work, which won him a Nobel Prize, wherein he explains that stimulus doesn’t actually work because people adjust their expectations to future inflation and future governmental intervention.

      You don’t know much about Keynesianism, and you know even less about other modes of economic thought.

      1. Sargent considers himself a (qualified) Keynesian. His work on expectations is meant to tie up loose ends in Keynesian thought and contribute some mathematical tools Keynes lacked, or in his words, he “captures Keynes’s argument, makes it rigorous, and pushes it further.” He did not oppose government intervention responses to the financial crisis (again, with qualifications).

        I could ask you your own question. How do you explain large economic growth even with confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy? Clearly–and this is Sargent’s complaint about economic discourse–this is more complicated than the slogans thrown around in places like this. But unfortunately laissez-faire advocates only have slogans, since they don’t apparently even believe in applying math to their theories.

        1. Tony, what the fuck is the point in having high tax rates if they don’t give you higher revenues? Look at this:

          http://ivn.us/wp-content/uploa…..of-GDP.jpg

          Our tax RATES have plummeted since the 1960s, but our tax REVENUES have remained virtually identical. This idea liberals have that the 1950s and ’60s were some left wing dream and that’s why we had high levels of growth is nothing but a sick, deluded joke. There were so many tax loopholes that no one came close to paying those rates.

          That’s not even getting into this problem:

          http://blog.heritage.org/wp-co…..nd-gdp.gif

          Military spending has fallen from a high of 9.3% in the 1960s to 4% today. We spent far less money overall in the 1960s, meaning that our budget used to be almost entirely military spending, and it is now almost entirely entitlements. So this period of time that you love pointing to has a couple of inconvenient truths when it comes to left wing economic thought:

          1. Revenues were no higher despite those ‘confiscatory tax rates’ because no one came close to actually paying those rates and

          2. More than half our budget at the time was military spending, whereas today it is mostly domestic spending. If domestic spending is the key to economic well being, than why did our biggest periods of economic growth have virtually no domestic spending when compared to today?

          1. I assume you’re now going to leave because someone actually quoted statistics and numbers. Just like you always do once it’s no longer possible for you to shoot from the hip while providing no evidence.

          2. You’re gonna have to not throw that bullshit chart about allegedly stable revenues despite tax rate changes. Tax rate changes on a hundred-point scale are often large, because they’re simply a matter of policy and can be changed at the stroke of a pen. Tax revenues as a proportion of GDP is, of course, not going to swing that widely. But no economist thinks that revenues wouldn’t have been higher, say, in the absence of the Bush tax cuts. No serious economist think that tax cuts pay for themselves or that rates have no effect on revenues (it’s just not gonna look like much when plotted on the same hundred-point scale as tax rates). This is de Rugy-esque misleading chart bullshit that’s been repeatedly debunked.

            The first role of social welfare programs is not to boost the economy, but to help people in need. Nevertheless, it seems logical that keeping people out of poverty leads to a more advanced economy (since it frees people to do more with their lives than try to meet basic needs) and contributes to overall demand. But larger factors are what determine the health of the economy. I would say there’s a very good correlation between income inequality and economic health, and the periods you describe had a much more equitable distribution (thanks largely to higher tax rates).

            1. Tony, try to keep up. They constantly move the poverty line up. Poverty, as people used to know it, has been utterly eliminated in this country. The only reason people still talk about poverty is because they move the goalposts. This is not that hard to understand.

              1. If we are not as poverty-stricken as a third-world shithole, great, but I can attribute it to social institutions for that purpose, which are a constant in non-shithole countries.

                I do think ours need to be more robust and that having most of the country’s wealth instead serving the function of making the wealthy even wealthier so they can buy more elite shit is not productive. And there’s no need for immoral socialist thievery. The rich have been playing that game for a long time now, so it’s only the correction of that imbalance.

                1. What imbalance?

                  1. The poor are now fat and unhealthy and can’t afford the very best i-phones and luxury autos. It’s not fair or balanced (just like FOX news). We demand new i-phones every year to correct the imbalance.

                2. We’re not as poverty stricken as a third world shithole specifically because we’re capitalists and every third world shithole is either socialistic, fascist or otherwise autocratic.

                  Our wealth is entirely based on our rules allowing individual accumulation and individual use of capital, something that you want to do away with.

                  We’re not a third world shithole because people like you historically haven’t had enough power to make us one.

            2. “You’re gonna have to not throw that bullshit chart about allegedly stable revenues despite tax rate changes. Tax rate changes on a hundred-point scale are often large, because they’re simply a matter of policy and can be changed at the stroke of a pen. Tax revenues as a proportion of GDP is, of course, not going to swing that widely.”

              So you have nothing to actually debunk his facts? If revenue as % of GDP doesn’t change much, the only way actual revenues can increase significantly is if there is a significant increase in growth compared to what otherwise would have happened. Are you seriously arguing that increasing taxes increases economic growth? Tax revenue as % of GDP was greater from 1980-2010 than it was from 1950-1980.

              “No serious economist think that tax cuts pay for themselves or that rates have no effect on revenues”

              It depends on the rates. Very few economists think the Laffer Curve is completely false. They just disagree on where the revenue-maximizing rate is.

              “I would say there’s a very good correlation between income inequality and economic health, and the periods you describe had a much more equitable distribution”

              How does simply taking money away from one person make another person better off? It’s not like that money was redistributed to the poor. Aside from SS, there was virtually no federal welfare spending until the late 60’s. And studies have shown that the effective rate paid was nowhere near as high as the marginal rates would indicate.

    3. “This article is so full of horseshit I don’t even know where to begin.”

      Change ‘This article’ to ‘Tony’ and you will be right on the money.

      If I were to begin, I guess your assertion yesterday that this country has a relatively paltry safety net would be as good place as any. Really dood, that gave us all a good laugh.

      Why dont you go kill yourself by sticking your head in an oven…..an electric oven.

      1. Then he disappeared when we started showing him evidence that America’s safety net is on par with Europe’s, and is in many cases more generous. Tony doesn’t do well when you start posting facts and figures. They confuse him and he has to run away and have a nice cry.

        1. If he feels it is true, then by golly no facts are going to get in the way!

      2. We only have single-payer heatlhcare for the old and poor. Do you think you could live lavishly on Social Security? Programs for the poor are a joke and have suffered cut after cut. We do have a relatively stingy safety net. It’s probably bigger than you want, but the fact that we actually have a lot of preventably hungry and sick people in this country is all the evidence I need.

        1. There goes our immoral statist pig again. Insisting he should be able to “live lavishly” at the expense of others.

          You are a vile creature.

          1. I didn’t say that.

            1. THE FUCK YOU DIDN’T!

              1. Tony is a liar. When are you going to figure that out?
                He is a liar whose only morality is “might makes right.”
                He feels that it is perfectly acceptable lie, cheat, steal, rape, and ever murder, as long as his side is the winning side.
                He is no better than an animal.

              2. I asked whether he thought Social Security was too generous. I didn’t say I think it should give old people enough to afford a pool and tennis court. I am saying our safety net is relatively meager.

                1. Relatively meager, compared to a continent with nearly 13% unemployment. Horror of horrors, we should be more like them!

                  1. Europe is not pursuing the correct policies to lower unemployment, as every Keynesian will say. The presence or absence of social welfare programs is really not the basic issue in recessions. We’ve had them during good times and bad.

            2. You implied it. It is right there in black and white.
              So, is the oven finished pre-heating yet? Must not be since you are still posting here. Give it a few minutes. I hope you have it on broil.

            3. My investment account at work is 11% of my salary. My employer matches 2:1 so I only pay 3.5%.

              That will give me (if your and your kind don’t destroy the economy) enough money to retire on.

              Social security takes 8.65% from me and another 8.65% from my employer and by the time I retire, it will probably be a smaller amount of money compared to cost of living than now and in 15 years when I am ready to retire it would not surprise me if they have moved the S.S. age to 70 so that I have to retire without S.S.

              How come 11% will give me a good retirement income but 17.3% will not give me ****shit?

        2. We spend more money per household in poverty than the average American household makes. I posted this yesterday.

          Preventably hungry? I thought the problem with inner cities was that people eat too much and are too fat, which is why we need to stop them from eating fatty foods. Now I hear that the problem is that poor people have no food and they’re starving? Man, it must take some talent to live with those competing thoughts in your mind and not go stark raving mad.

          I also like ‘preventably sick.’ As if universal healthcare will make disease pathogens wither up and die.

          1. Yes we have hunger in this country. Poor people get fat because the cheapest food is bad food. Why are you putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them?

            1. Poor people are fat for the same reason they are poor. They are lazy and make poor decisions. Like you.

            2. Because there is no hunger in this country, you dink. Food is something easily provided by charity, and it has historically been well provided by charity. Why do we need food stamps when food is the poster child of an item that can easily be provided through charitable contributions and food pantries?

              If you go and work at a food pantry, you’ll see that they have so much food that they throw most of it away. If anything, food stamps are wasteful since large amounts of charitably donated food goes to waste by being unnecessarily substituted for government subsidized food.

              1. Also, if you look at these ‘people in America going hungry!’ statistics, you’ll see that none of them have to do with people who actually don’t have food. They have to do with ‘food insecurity’ a metric where the government basically says ‘if anyone in a household ever has to go without food for even an evening, the entire household is suffering food insecurity.’ It’s an awful metric, which is why it’s great for left wing talking points.

                1. Irish, ‘food insecurity’ is even more stupid than that. It’s being insecure. It doesn’t mean not having dinner. It means not knowing what is for dinner. And then eating dinner. It’s a bunch of emotive bullshit. No wonder Tony latches on to it.

                  1. The United States stopped describing hunger in 2006 and preferred food insecurity. Take the facts for what they are. I think the claim “there are no hungry people in the US” is laughably in need of citation, and I’m not sure what your point would be. We need to make more hungry people because we don’t have enough for your liking?

                    1. We need to make more hungry people because we don’t have enough for your liking?

                      I’d expect no less from you Tony, than to obfuscate the issue by claiming I want people to starve, especially given that I already explained how charity can easily stop anyone in need from starving.

                      Also, from your link:

                      In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007. In households with very low food security, the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity

                      HAHAHAHAHA. So the absolute worst people in the food insecurity index, had ‘some’ household members reduce their food intake, and their normal eating patterns were ‘disrupted.’ That’s the worst group of people, Tony. Your link seems to provide me with a decent amount of evidence to claim no one in America is starving.

                    2. Also, here’s a link showing how food prices have absolutely collapsed over the last several decades.

                      And, here’s another showing what percent of income Americans spend on food over time.

                      The second link shows that spending on food by the average American has fallen from 40% in 1900 to 13% today. Do you think people were starving in America in 1970 when 24% of their income was spent on food, as opposed to 13% today?

                    3. Do you think

                      No. Tony does not think. He emotes. Never ever give him credit for thinking. That’s what human beings do. He is not a human being. He is an animal.

                    4. He is worse than an animal. He is a sockpuppet.
                      Stop giving him the attention he so richly craves.

                    5. Humans are animals. Just saying.

                    6. So therefore we need to make some starving people?

            3. Tony:

              Why are you putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them?

              Hilarious.

            4. Even in the 1960’s when Michael Harrington wrote his book on how bad the poor have it, he said they were not hungry and that you often could not tell who they were because they dressed like everyone else and had cars (although not luxury ones).

          2. I used to hear a radio ad about hungry people all the time. It asserted that 1 in 8 americans struggles with hunger.

            What utter horseshit. I have been to places where there is hunger. Trust me when I tell you there is no hunger in this country.

            Is the oven hot yet Tony?

            1. So we should definitely cut aid to the poor, because there aren’t enough hungry people?

            2. SB

              It’s an easy argument to proliferate. When capitalism eliminates hunger we redefine it as food insecurity. When it eliminates poverty, we just move the poverty line higher.

              It is a never ending excuse to steal from the rich…and keep it.

              Now it’s income inequality. The argument that keeps on giving.

              The bottom line is, no matter how much they steal, it will never satisfy them. It will NEVER be enough for disgusting, vile, statist pigs.

              1. Look. The rich do not pay their fair share. How do we know this? They’re rich! How can they have paid their fair share and still be rich? How fair is it that there are starving children while rich people do rich people things? They can always give some more because they didn’t pay their fair share. As I said above, if they had paid their fair share then they wouldn’t be rich. Why do you hate starving children and lick the boots of the rich capitalists who hold you down?

              2. “Now it’s income inequality. The argument that keeps on giving.”

                The latest term, or the latest I have heard from our very own Tony is relative poverty.

                You are right, that one just keeps on giving. No matter how much the least income is, as long as someone has more, then they are poor.

                For the useful idiots it is all about envy, and for the leadership it is all about stealing as much as they can.

        3. “Do you think you could live lavishly on Social Security?”

          Is the purpose of government safety net programs to allow recipients to live lavishly?

          “Programs for the poor are a joke and have suffered cut after cut.”

          Lines like these make me think Tony might actually be a sockpuppet. How the fuck can any sane person think welfare programs have been cut in recent years? Spending and enrollment on programs from Medicaid to food stamps, etc. have skyrocketed. And there’s also the EITC.

          “It’s probably bigger than you want, but the fact that we actually have a lot of preventably hungry and sick people in this country is all the evidence I need.”

          Where exactly in America are these starving masses? Obesity is a far greater problem among America’s poor than hunger is. And are there no hungry or sick people in Europe? Giving a government insurance card to everyone doesn’t magically prevent sickness or even guarantee treatment.

          1. I was trying to say SS provides barely enough to live a life with basic needs met.

            Yes enrollment in safety net programs have gone up, because more people have become poor.

            I believe in having a safety net, but I believe in minimizing its need by having an economy that distributes the fruits of its productivity largely to those who contribute to that productivity instead of CEOs and investors.

            1. You believe in theft.

              You believe in stealing from those who’ve earned it and giving it to Tony.

              You are an immoral piece of shit.

              1. Nope, I don’t.

                1. When you take from one person for the explicit purpose of giving it to another, what would you call it?

                  1. When you take from one person for the explicit purpose of giving it to another, what would you call it?

                    According to Tony when you do not take something from the rich and give to the poor, you are taking from the poor and giving to the rich. You see, that poor person may have expected the handout, so by not giving them the handout you are taking from them what they would have purchased with the handout. What’s worse is that because the handout would have come from money taken from a rich person, the effect is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Thus not giving equals taking.

                  2. Depends on who’s doing it. If government’s doing it, I call it fiscal policy.

                    Government also has the power to imprison you for life under the right circumstances, a power not granted to individuals. Governments can do things individuals can’t. Government also gets to decide what the definition of “theft” is. And unless you’re an anarchist, calling taxation theft means you support some measure of theft, so I’m not sure what you’re getting mad at me about.

                    1. Yes, but a minimal level of government is necessary for things that cannot be done any other way, like providing courts. This is necessary.

                      There’s a difference between that and taking money with the explicit goal of providing direct payments to another individual. That’s theft.

                      Also, if the government kills someone for no reason, is it not murder? Because it occurs to me that ‘If government’s doing it I call it fiscal policy’ sounds an awful lot like ‘If the president does it, it’s not illegal.’

                    2. There’s a difference between that and taking money with the explicit goal of providing direct payments to another individual.

                      This is Tony’s cue to say there is no difference between using taxes to pay an officer of the court to do his job, and using tax dollars to pay a welfare layabout.
                      You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who is so fucking irrational that they do not understand the difference between paying someone to do their job and paying someone to sit on their ass.

                    3. Providing courts and national defense and whatever other policies you endorse requires taxation and spending via means no different from paying for any other program. Your argument boils down to a preference for a set of programs, not a moral red line you won’t cross, because you readily cross it for that minimum number of programs you are OK with so as not to be an anarchist. Paying for programs you don’t like is theft. It may be a policy difference you have with the government. But calling all political perspectives different from yours immoral is childish and disingenuous.

                    4. Your argument boils down to a preference for a set of programs, not a moral red line you won’t cross, because you readily cross it for that minimum number of programs you are OK with so as not to be an anarchist.

                      Not at all true.

                      The only authority the federal government has is that provided it by the constitution. Paying for those things is fine. They are your only positive rights.

                      You don’t get to make up positive rights on your own whim. Doing so infringes upon my rights.

                      None of this is outside libertarian principles. Your attempts to couch it as such is disingenuous.

                    5. But what government is currently doing, in large part, and what I want it to do are completely constitutional. If you want to make a different case then there are plenty of sympathetic judges out there, but I kind of hope my view of constitutionality wins.

                    6. Show me in the Constitution where the government is given the authority to provide healthcare or retirement funds.

                      They ARE NOT Constitutional. Prior to FDR, these concepts were laughed at, for the simple reason that they are blatantly unconstitutional.

                      You and your ilk have changed the definitions to fit your desires. That’s two different things.

            2. “….an economy that distributes the fruits of its productivity largely to those who contribute to that productivity instead of CEOs and investors.”

              Workers of the world unite!

              You are a marxist Tony. How does it feel to be in bed with the likes of Stalin? And pray tell, how do these socialist utopias turn out in reality?

              Didnt Dennis Rodman just go to NK and report on what fabulous parties Kim Jong Un throws in a country where people are starving to the point of murdering and eating their own children?

              I dont think that the evil you represent is out of ignorance. I think it is deliberate and calculated.

            3. “Yes enrollment in safety net programs have gone up, because more people have become poor.”

              Either way, how the fuck can you claim these programs have suffered “cut after cut?” It’s simply not true

              “I believe in having a safety net, but I believe in minimizing its need by having an economy that distributes the fruits of its productivity largely to those who contribute to that productivity instead of CEOs and investors.”

              CEOs and investors don’t contribute to productivity. You really are a moron. This isn’t to say that there aren’t CEOs, investors, etc that don’t acquire their wealth in an unjust manner, but you happen to support almost all of the policies that are the biggest contributors to this (our monetary system, the regulatory state, deficit spending, bailouts, corporate subsidies as long as they are to the right kind of corporation, etc.)

              1. The first sentence of the last paragraph should end with a ?

                1. It is blindingly obvious that if our economy is tilted to favor a particular class of people, it is not the poor and it is the rich. You would have to have a pretty aggressive socialist regime in place for the opposite to be true, and we haven’t had one of those in a long time. Not to mention that being rich is itself to be privileged and have a greater say in government policy. It would be nice if we had controls in place to protect against the influence of money on policy, but I don’t think anyone here would acknowledge that we do, and most would probably endorse removing more of them.

                  It can only logically be the case that the people at the top make more than their “fair share” based on their actual economic worth. We need to be constantly and vigilantly correcting for that natural market outcome. Your entire purpose in life is facilitating the imbalance, up to and including blaming poor people for economic downturns and attacking them as parasites.

                  1. “It is blindingly obvious that if our economy is tilted to favor a particular class of people, it is not the poor and it is the rich”

                    As I said, you support, whether out of ignorance or malice, the big policies that unfairly favor the rich.

                    “It would be nice if we had controls in place to protect against the influence of money on policy, but I don’t think anyone here would acknowledge that we do, and most would probably endorse removing more of them.”

                    Yep, if you just pass a law saying, “rich people can’t influence politicians” that’s just gonna get rid of the problem. It’s that easy. I mean the Bush years were a paradise free of corrupt interference from the wealthy, right? And of course we all know campaign donations force people to fill in a particular bubble on a ballot.

                    “It can only logically be the case that the people at the top make more than their “fair share” based on their actual economic worth. We need to be constantly and vigilantly correcting for that natural market outcome.”

                    Um, you missed a few steps in the process of making a solid argument there. Just a couple small leaps in logic. And as I said, you support the most heinous policies that unjustly enrich the upper class.

                    “Your entire purpose in life is facilitating the imbalance,”

                    You’re right Tony. I’m just a robot created and operated by the Koch Brothers as part of their secret plot to take over the world. And you know all this because I’m not a socialist.

                    1. “up to and including blaming poor people for economic downturns and attacking them as parasites.”

                      When have I ever blamed poor people for economic downturns? If you’ve ever read anything I’ve said on the subject, you would know that I put that blame squarely at the feet of the politicians and Federal Reserve members that crafted the shitty policies that led to the financial crisis. I’ve also never called poor people “parasites.” If you define the term as someone who lives at public expense, then yes, many poor people are parasites. But so are many middle-class and a good number of rich people. In any case, I’ve never been someone to blame people who take advantage of government programs that they are eligible for. I also love how you just assume that I’m rich – you know nothing about me.

              2. The programs have been cut, in no small part thanks to Bill Clinton. I’m talking about the benefits. More enrollment simply means more people qualify for them. And reducing the benefits doesn’t seem to reduce the need.

                1. I love that you completely ignore the fact that all of your vaunted Dems and other statist fucks ARE the super rich and work the system to benefit themselves and their buddies.

                2. TANF is a drop in the bucket in terms of social spending. There are far more expensive programs, even if we exclude SS and Medicare

            4. Whose fault is that? They take 16-17% of people’s salaries for S.S. which is a huge proportion but rather than invest it, they spent it already and the program is in serious trouble. Surprising, given that it is gov’t run and they always do everything so well.

        4. We only have single-payer heatlhcare for the old and poor.

          Who else would require charity?

          Face it. You want single payer for everyone, so YOU WILL GET IT. You are a pig. You want someone to take from those who’ve earned it and give it to you. You are the lowest form of excrement in existence.

          An immoral, disgusting, thieving pig.

          1. And you’re an adolescent-minded Ayn Rand fanatic. Unless you’re an anarchist you believe in redistribution. It doesn’t really matter what you spend it on, it’s still, in your words, taking from those who’ve earned and giving to someone else.

            There is very little “moral” about capitalism. Capitalism is the (government-supported) means by which people exploit the resources nature provided and try to take as much for themselves. If you are going to concern yourself with whether people are “earning” what they make, then you’re going to have to do some serious poking around in people’s lives. You “leave me alone” absolutist moral prigs are quite something.

            1. This has been explained to you again and again. Fuck, I’ve done it several times myself, let alone the countless times by others. You are worthy of nothing but contempt.

              So fuck off you immoral, disgusting cunt!

              1. FdA, he will never get it because he cannot think. He emotes. He feels.

                Capitalism is wrong because inequality feels icky. Government redistribution is good because it feels warm and fuzzy.
                Capitalism is wrong because rich people make him feel angry. Taxes and such are good because they stick it to the rich.

                Everything else is just rationalizing.

                Also, remember that it is not possible to have an honest conversation with a dishonest person.

                1. You don’t have an entire fact-evading philosophy based on “government is icky!”?

                  1. Like I said, he is incapable of rational thought.

                  2. I don’t think government is icky. I think government action beyond what is necessary for the existence of a stable society is immoral and rests largely on coercion and threats of violence.

                    1. Of course you acknowledge that maintaining a stable society thus also results largely on coercion and threats of violence. You endorse government just as long as it’s doing the bare-bones minimum of governing, which is essentially rounding up people or shooting them. The only aspects of government you endorse are the most explicitly violent ones. So your moral requirements break down and are not a legitimate argument against advocates of programs that merely tax and spend.

                    2. My moral arguments regarding government do not break down. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                    3. In order to do so it has to tax and spend.

                      So you’re okay with taxing and spending. You just think government should be doing it only for certain purposes and not others. So exactly what I said. Your differences are with policy, not the inherent morality of how government enacts it.

                      That’s why we have democracy! So you can make your case and try to get a majority of people to buy it. It’s the fairest way to decide simple matters of policy, and good luck with that!

                    4. That’s the only solution you can think of because you are an immoral, disgusting, dem felating piece of crap.

                    5. No Tony. It is NOT as you said.

                      The government can raise taxes to pay for the duties it is tasked with in the Constitution. No more.

                      We do NOT have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic. The difference is, in a Constitutional Republic, 51% of the population cannot vote away the rights of the other 49%.

                    6. If we are running a government that is in large part unconstitutional, then we have the judicial branch to figure that out–that’s the constitutional process we have. Your assertions of constitutionality in contradiction to established constitutional case law is, again, just a moral gold star you’re giving yourself by fiat.

                      And you need to stop being confused about minority civil rights, which are protected by law, vs. the claim that people with minority political views should get to trump the majority because they say so.

                    7. Positive vs negative rights Tony. For the 20th fucking time.

                    8. I like that Tony’s argument is essentially this: Whatever the Supreme Court currently believes, that’s what the constitution actually means.

                      You do realize that it’s possible for five members of the Supreme Court to have a mistaken view of constitutional law, right? That’s why the minority on the court writes dissents.

                      And the political minority shouldn’t get to control the political minority any more than the majority should control the minority. That’s why individual rights exist, you fascist twit. You do realize that’s what your political views actually amount to, right Tony? Low rent fascist mob rule?

                    9. You do realize that it’s possible for five members of the Supreme Court to have a mistaken view of constitutional law, right?

                      I’m not sure what that could mean, since they are the final arbiter on constitutionality. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what higher authority you’re implying exists?

                    10. Tony:

                      I’m not sure what that could mean, since [Supremes] are the final arbiter on constitutionality. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what higher authority you’re implying exists?

                      This is self-contraditory at multiple levels.

                      First, you’re flirting with the idea that “all language has subjective meaning,” and implying that there must be some “authority” to assign meaning. Can you demonstrate this? I doubt you can.

                      Secondly, if you believe that all language has subjective meaning, you’re engaging in a huge performance contradiction by engaging in argumentation: how does one determine the meaning of any of your statements, or any of your opponents? Is there an authority determining the meaning of every statement? If not, then this implies that effective communication is impossible. Yet, here you are, arguing and responding to arguments, as if you understand. Blatant performance contradiction.

                      Finally, it would be just like a statist to assume that language requires some central authority to understand. Yet, here we humans are, effectively, objectively communicating, without an authority dictating what everyone’s meaning is. For statists, such decentralized coordination is taken completely for granted, to the point that such feats are assumed impossible.

                    11. Look this isn’t that complicated. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. They say what it means. If they stray too far from the plain obvious meaning of something, people will bitch, and they do regardless. But you don’t get to say the constitution means something just because you want it to, and that trumps the supreme court. I’m not saying the language is subjective necessarily, just that it’s open to interpretation within certain reasonable bounds.

                    12. Tony:

                      Look this isn’t that complicated. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. They say what it means. If they stray too far from the plain obvious meaning of something, people will bitch, and they do regardless.

                      Right, so when you say:

                      I’m not sure what that could mean, since they are the final arbiter on constitutionality. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what higher authority you’re implying exists?

                      Well, it could mean, as you say, “if they stray too far from the plain obvious meaning of something.”

                      In other words, it’s not complicated, Tony.

                    13. Not only are you retarded Tony, you really are a disgusting and immoral douche nozzle.

                    14. That’s why we have democracy! So you can make your case and try to get a majority of people to buy it. It’s the fairest way to decide simple matters of policy, and good luck with that! violate the natural rights of the minority.

                      We do not have democracy, simpleton.

                    15. You people really think it’s convincing to argue that whatever policy preferences you happen to have are “natural rights” not to be defied by the preferences of majorities? Sounds like good old fashioned authoritariansm to me.

                    16. Tony:

                      You people really think it’s convincing to argue that whatever policy preferences you happen to have are “natural rights” not to be defied by the preferences of majorities? Sounds like good old fashioned authoritariansm to me.

                      Tony:

                      Why are you putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them?

            2. Capitalism Socialism is the (government-supported) means by which people in power exploit the resources nature provided and try to take as much for themselves.

              Fixed it for you.

    4. So all that deficit spending under Bush was a-ok?

      The fact that you’re agreeing with Dick Chaney really disappoints me Tony.

      (Not really cause you’re a statist piece of shit and a complete demfag who only thinks deficit spending is ok when a dem does it.)

  24. We should hire the Japanese to bomb Washington.

    Think of the stimulative effect!

    1. That’s awful!

      Well, ok, but only if the Senate is in full session. Sorry, Rand, we really like you but collateral damage you know…

    1. What the hell do Limeys need with teeth! Those fucking barbarians drink warm beer! No one even knows what they eat, but I’m certain it doesn’t require teeth.

  25. But unfortunately laissez-faire advocates only have slogans, since they don’t apparently even believe in applying math to their theories.

    2 + 2 = 4

    1. You just won math.

      A is A!

      I just won philosophy!

      1. Just like freedom is slavery and not taking is giving?

  26. “Programs for the poor are a joke and have suffered cut after cut.”

    Food stamps, for example; slashed nearly to nothing. In fact, I hear if you actually still have sufficient strength to drag yourself through the door on your distended, rumbling belly, they automatically disallow your claim.

  27. Where exactly in America are these starving masses?

    At teh TRAKTUR PULLZ.

    duh.

    1. America is still one of the few places in the world where obesity is a problem–among the poor!

      Okay, maybe if you go to Samoa. but apart from that? Fat poor people, that’s gotta be new to history.

  28. I just won philosophy!

    Seriously?

    With: Capitalism is the (government-supported) means by which people exploit the resources nature provided and try to take as much for themselves. ?

    I think not.

    1. The point is people’s personal moral uprightness is not a factor in capitalism. You guys need to stopped being obsessed with how people choose to live their lives. Public policy, whether in your direction or mine, is about macroeconomic and social outcomes. It’s not about punishing or rewarding people for being good. Especially since defining good as being able to make money is about as bankrupt a moral philosophy as can be imagined.

      1. You guys need to stopped being obsessed with how people choose to live their lives.

        You can choose to live your life in any manner you see fit. But the minute how you choose to live your life infringes on my right to live as I see fit, you become immoral.

        Why is this so difficult for you?

        1. You guys need to stopped being obsessed with how people choose to live their lives opposed to supporting my comfy lifestyle of living in mommies basement

          I wanted to put this into context for you with some sock puppet to English translation.

        2. So you’re an immoral pig too, since you use public resources every single day, which I helped pay for. Pig!

      2. Hahahahahahahahahaha

      3. No one ever said capitalists are good people. Adam Smith actually had a more personally negative view of capitalists than Marx did. Our view is that the best macroeconomic and social outcomes occur through people being able to effectively exchange goods and services without being coerced. ‘Stealing from people results in good social outcomes’ is a hell of a lot more bankrupt of a view than what we’re arguing.

        1. Irish| 3.10.13 @ 7:35PM |#
          “No one ever said capitalists are good people.”
          And it’s not required they be so for the mechanism to work, unlike shithead’s alternative.

        2. Except it’s not stealing.

  29. I’m shocked people still respond to “TONY”

  30. Responding to Tony is a lot like throwing rocks at frogs to make them jump in the water. It’s something to do.

    1. And occasionally, one won’t move quickly enough and you score a hit.

  31. You guys need to stopped being obsessed with how people choose to live their lives.

    You’re fucked up.

    1. The best reaction to Tony, is no reaction at all. Just ignore him and eventually he will go into a hissy fit rage and say something so stupid that we can have at least get some entertainment value from him via RFLMAO.

  32. I just find it amusing to see our little buddy continually trying to hang labels on us. It’s like watching a three year old trying to re-enact the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

    1. He’s just mad at you and all the rest of us, because we don’t think that he is entitled to part of our earnings, for the good of the collective(IOW, him).

  33. I’m better than you, ch 674329

    I LIVE in a 420-square-foot studio. I sleep in a bed that folds down from the wall. I have six dress shirts. I have 10 shallow bowls that I use for salads and main dishes. When people come over for dinner, I pull out my extendable dining room table. I don’t have a single CD or DVD and I have 10 percent of the books I once did.

    I was overcome by fatigue halfway through, but I’m pretty sure I know how it ends.

    1. From the guy who started treehugger.com, lol.

      What a wonderful choice he made. Now, if he can only get the government to force you to make the same choice, all will be well.

    2. Sumbitch seems to have a computer and net access. I guess that’s ‘acceptable’ to idiots.

      1. It is rather convenient how he can ignore the oppressed peasant labor that was used to manufacture his new iSomething.

        Imagine if this guy could afford a Prius, his puffed up head wouldn’t even fit in it.

        1. Whereas you’re better for not giving a shit that peasant labor made most of your stuff.

  34. Tony| 3.10.13 @ 6:17PM |#
    “The point is people’s personal moral uprightness is not a factor in capitalism”…

    Hard to believe, but shithead is correct. Capitalism functions regardless of whatever asshole is trading.
    Our supposed “angelic” POTUS has fucked thing up royally, claiming to wish otherwise. That asshole Steve Jobs made more people happy and wealthy than the lying POTUS could ever hope to.
    Even that hypocrite Buffett manages to do the same, by *not* giving money to the gov’t.

    1. What’s funny is that Tony sees that as a bad thing, when actually it’s a feature. Capitalism works regardless of the morality of anyone involved. So long as they aren’t actually defrauding anybody, the kind of person a capitalist is will be totally irrelevant.

      Isn’t a system that works regardless of the morals of the people involved in it the best kind of system? That way, no one ever ends up at the whim of a mad or evil man.

      1. No only that, but free markets encourage people to behave ‘better’ than they are naturally inclined to.

      2. Well, it works in tandem with people’s natural wickedness or uprightness. You’re twisting the point to mean something absurd, that capitalism is an emotion- and moral judgment-free zone of rational purity. That’s obviously bullshit.

        My point was that YOU guys are constantly obsessed with whether people are being productive or not, making the judgment that if people aren’t working to feed themselves then they should just starve. That’s an ethic found in some religions, but it also tends to go along with an ethic of charity. I’d prefer you keep your moral obsessions out of policy is all.

  35. Speaking of ridiculous archaic pseudo-economics….I’m back in school full-time after a 5+ year hiatus and the professor of my US history since 1867 class is teaching us about “trickle down theory”. I almost laughed when he started writing it out, slowly and deliberately on the board. I hadn’t heard that straw man since high school, like 10 years ago. Of course, back then I was too ignorant to yet realize it was a straw man.

    1. So are you saying that the wealth was never meant to trickle down? Perhaps it was supposed to be a gusher and not a trickle, thus making supply-side economics even more of a failure? What’s the straw man?

  36. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was $16116 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site

    http://fly38.com

  37. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????
    ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.