Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[kandrathe]

In the "big world of politics," everyone is mainstream compared with somebody else. There's always a crazier crazy. In the world in which you live, the developed world circa 2010, no, your beliefs about government are not mainstream.

I'm no more odd than Ron Paul. There is about 1/3 of the electorate over here with me, so no I don't feel all that extreme. Let's just say, I'm not as extreme as say Jefferson was. I actually believe in having a standing army and navy.

A few billions here, a few billions there, and you'd maybe amount to a few % of the Federal budget.

Perhaps 30%.

Now we're no longer talking about efficiency gains, but budget cuts, which is exactly the point: you can get the program, provided at any government level, or you can get the money used to fund it. That's the trade off. It doesn't matter if it's the States or the Feds.

We haven't talked about cutting anything the States were doing. They will probably want to do that as well, since their spending is also unsustainable. If you want to pay for health care, Social Security, and poverty programs, you are going to need to find the money somewhere. Debt is not the answer.

This is status quo to you? 10% unemployment? Frozen credit markets? The deepest worldwide recession since the 1930s? This is *exactly* when the government should be using deficit spending: during an economic crisis!

Unless the debt and other government meddling is what is causing the crisis.

I think you mean that the *debt* is passing GDP.

Yes, that is what I mean.

The real question is whether the US can repay its debts. The answer to that question is "obviously, yes."

You are missing the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Now, the US probably should devalue its currency, at least a little. It would increase exports, which would assist recovery. The only problem is, interest rates are already at the 0% bound.

The liquidity trap. Devaluing the currency makes everyone holding the currency poorer, especially seniors on fixed incomes where their holding are in US$. It in effect makes the prices, and cost of everything appear to increase since the value of a dollar is less. That would certainly hurt our poor recession strapped populace.

So, how do you decrease the interest rate below 0%, or something to that effect?

You don't

Fiscal stimulus. The government "prints money" by borrowing. As a big bonus, you also get to fix bridges that need fixing, educate people who need educating, and research things that need researching.

OMG. You really need to be locked in a room with some Austrian economists for awhile until I convert you. Keynes was right on some things, and very very wrong on others.
"Keynes said three things in the General Theory. First: the labour market is not cleared by demand and supply and, as a consequence, very high unemployment can persist forever. Second: the beliefs of market participants independently influence the unemployment rate. Third: It is the responsibility of government to maintain full employment."

BUT... "Keynes thought that consumption depends on income. Two decades of research on the consumption function, following world war two, led to a different conclusion. Consumption, and this is two thirds of the economy, depends not on income but on wealth. This is no small matter: the theory of the multiplier and the implication that fiscal policy can get us out of the current crisis rests on exactly this point." {emphasis by me} Over the past 2 years, 20 to 25% of US wealth disappeared (if it ever existed). No one is even looking at the costs anymore. I haven't seen real numbers for awhile on how badly things have slid. Consider just housing, and all the foreclosures, where the banks have been dumped assets and are getting back pennies on the dollar for them. Then, the home owner who used to have equity (wealth), but now only has their increasing debts, less or no income, and a devalued dollar.

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. Is there a problem that decreasing the size of the Federal Government *doesn't* solve, to your way of understanding?

I said "tick", not "tack".

Or... Are you asking, can the government be too small? Sure. When we are threatened by foreign invasion, or getting bullied on treaties, and trade agreements. Is there a role for a federal government; yes, as clearly expounded by positive rights granted by the Constitution. But, not, by the ways Federal power has been manufactured by construction by certain court decisions.

If you like to force people to do what you want, then a bigger government is a good solution. Yes, it might be better for them, if you force them to do it your way. What are the ultimate long term costs? I believe it splays open the system for abuse, which is what we are seeing now. If you instead desire people to have more freedom, then a smaller government is better. Less power is less power abused, and the result is that people will need to take care of themselves, and each other directly without being forced to do it.

What does the lack of freedom look like? Hundreds of thousands of pages of rules that are made to control our actions, and our money taken away to give away to others who've not earned it. It looks like the President of the US telling major corporations what to do, or else. It looks like the Presidents top aides and advisers arm twisting, and threatening people to do things their way, or else. I've never seen such outright and bold coercion and extortion used in government... ever. Not even in Chicago.