Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[Jester]

Marx was probably the most misunderstood philosophers of that era, so much so that at one point he declared in response to French revolutionaries, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist". I don't believe Marx would have been a supporter of the Soviet model, or its meager shadow in Cuba.

I don't think Marx was particularly misunderstood. The Communist Manifesto is quite clear - Marx favoured revolutions, dictatorship of the proletariat, the whole nine yards. Certainly he envisioned something more broadly based, perhaps more along the lines of the abortive German revolutions of the 1920s, but it seems clear to me that he would have approved of the Russian and Cuban revolutions. At least, he seemed to advocate revolutions quite like them.

That he found the appropriation of his name by particular French revolutionaries to be distasteful when he was in the middle of an argument with them is hardly a demonstration that he was widely misunderstood, or that he did not advocate the philosophy widely attached to his name.

Capitalism goes back to that point at which the first person decided to trade to another the first bauble for something the other "owned".

I think it's a little more modern than that. Ownership is a much more fundamental concept than capitalism - what I have may be for personal use, but if it does not represent value that I can put towards the creation of future wealth, then it's not capital in any meaningful sense. Certainly if there is no capital, there is no capitalism - and I would say that capitalism represents the mature flowering of capital as a major social force, rather than just the existence of any capital at all.

-Jester

[Jester]

But there is the 'mantra' that Everlasting Economic Growth will bring happiness. Simple logic indicates that it leads to depletion of resources at best, but 'Religions' are seldom bothered by logic, is it not? :whistling:

I'm not sure "simple logic" gets you there. What logic refutes the argument that economic growth generates technological innovation (and vice versa), which has been historically successful at overcoming or adapting to the depletion of resources? You may believe that we will fail to generate solutions, but that's an opinion, not a deductive conclusion.

The end of economic growth would bring misery, or at least, reinforce existing misery in much of the world. Unemployment would skyrocket, and poor countries would remain poor, unless the end of growth was also followed by a remarkable redistribution.

To me, the question is how to put proper prices in place, so that economic growth happens along channels which will extend our time here on earth, rather than cut it short. Of course, once we get off this rock and into space in a meaningful way, the resource constraints on Earth will largely be lifted, and we will (hopefully) come to recognize the enormous value of our only biosphere.

-Jester

[Zenda]

My remark was partly intended to be a joke, but I see it's much more serious as I thought. Look at your arguments: you *believe* that science and engineering will always provide a solution before it's too late, and that it's the only way to avoid misery in the world.

What logic refutes the argument that economic growth generates technological innovation (and vice versa), which has been historically successful at overcoming or adapting to the depletion of resources?

Not sure which historic feats you are referring to. We might have postponed depletion in some cases, or switched to other resources, but that won't last forever, will it? No matter how little you consume, there will always be some loss. And ofcourse, we have Jevons Paradox.

The end of economic growth would bring misery, or at least, reinforce existing misery in much of the world. Unemployment would skyrocket, and poor countries would remain poor, unless the end of growth was also followed by a remarkable redistribution.

It's not the economic growth of the developing countries we should worry about. They are still developing their economy, after all. Besides, the total impact of those countries is much smaller of that of the developed world. We can ask them to stop growing when that's no longer the case, if that day ever arrives.

Of course, once we get off this rock and into space in a meaningful way, the resource constraints on Earth will largely be lifted

Is that the equivalent of 'Heaven'? Think about it. If that happens we will only be increasing the scale of matters. Personally, I 'believe' we will have consumed most of our planet and be out of living space before we will be able to reach the nearest habitable planet or minable object in a 'economic feasable' way.

But assuming that technological advancements make it in time, how do you envision moving to another place? How many people will leave the planet, compared to the numbers staying behind? Would it really change the situation here?

I 'believe' in what I see as the answer to the Fermi Paradox: a galactic race that has survived extinction long enough to be able to 'conquer' the universe will be smart enough not to want that. There is no gain, if you think about it. One individual can only live on one planet at the time. Would it make you happier, knowing that some people live unreachably far away?

[eppie]

Karl Marx is quite obviously the founder (prophet?) of Communism. Pretty much all Communist doctrines trace their origins back to him, usually but not always through Lenin. Various schisms give their particular interpretations (Trotskyites, Maoists, Guevarists, Neo-Marxists, etc...) but all owe their fundamental belief structure directly to Marx. Antecedents exist, but are generally ignored.

Capitalism is a much broader thing. Where does capitalism start? You could say Adam Smith, but he was only writing about the spirit of something that was taking place during his time, the unification of markets and specialization of labour in Britain, spurred on by increasing international commerce. That commerce, and the banking that made it possible, were innovations that go back long before, to France, to Italy, to the Netherlands (always the Netherlands!) and so forth. Being a "capitalist" does not require belief in much more than the functioning of markets and the relative importance of private property. It doesn't even strictly exclude being some stripe of socialist - I would consider myself to have both strong capitalist and socialist influences.

In short, one can talk about big-C "Communism," but only about little-c "capitalism."

-Jester

The big difference in my opinion is that communism is an ideology that requires people to do something that goes against their natural urges; namely share things equally. That is why it requires a 'belief' with the people to make it work. You must believe it is better to share than to only think about increasing your own wealth. Of course, as I said before, this is very difficult to maintain in a society (almost as difficult as a libertarian society:)) and that is why often totalitarian regimes are 'necesarry'.

Capitalism is much more natural, you directly see what the reaction is of your action, so no ideology has to be preached. (of course the inherent depletion of resources (mentioned by Zenda) and the inherent gap between rich and poor (internationally) are bad, but John Doe the farmer will never realize this (see the difficulty of getting people to do something against global warning even though the potential conseuqences are disastrous and will lead to huge losses of wealth).

To entirely different systems, but I think it is not correct, fair and useful to call communism a religion. Instead of talking about some supernatural being, and preaching behaviour that supposedly pleases this supernatural being is something else than an ideology that, although difficult to realize, might be a way of ensuring the survival of our species. (might, because there is no certainty there:) )

[Jester]

Look at your arguments: you *believe* that science and engineering will always provide a solution before it's too late, and that it's the only way to avoid misery in the world.

No, I don´t. I merely don´t see how it is you can, in a logical sense, dismiss them as automatically false, except perhaps in the trivial, second law of thermodynamics sense.

I 'believe' in what I see as the answer to the Fermi Paradox: a galactic race that has survived extinction long enough to be able to 'conquer' the universe will be smart enough not to want that. There is no gain, if you think about it. One individual can only live on one planet at the time. Would it make you happier, knowing that some people live unreachably far away?

That´s a novel reading of the Fermi Paradox. I always figured the idea was that either they didn´t exist, or they blew themselves to bits.

However, yes, it would make me happier knowing that other humans live unreachably far away. I like the human race, and nothing provides insurance against the thousands potential cosmic disasters quite like being spread over astronomical distances.

But the argument for getting into space isn´t just about that. There are resources there. Lots of them. Minerals to mine, energy to collect, space to live in. Even leaving aside the enormous scientific potential (which is still our best motivation), there are limits on terrestrial life that would be lifted entirely by space colonization.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Would it really change the situation here?

There are many people who think that the survival of the human species is somehow important. To those, every measure which increases the chances of survival is worthwhile. The greatest single measure that can be taken is to colonize one or more planets, either in this solar system, or (preferably) in others.

I 'believe' in what I see as the answer to the Fermi Paradox: . . .

Perhaps. If the need for a large moon to stabilize the spin of a planet is indeed a necessity for the development of advanced lifeforms and the only way to get a large moon is an extremely low probability collision, then there is no Fermi paradox. The great estimator just didn't have all the parameters.

--Pete

[Jester]

To entirely different systems, but I think it is not correct, fair and useful to call communism a religion. Instead of talking about some supernatural being, and preaching behaviour that supposedly pleases this supernatural being is something else than an ideology that, although difficult to realize, might be a way of ensuring the survival of our species. (might, because there is no certainty there:) )

None of Confucianism, Buddhism nor Daoism postulates a "supernatural being" as the core of their religion. Yet, they are still religions. Why? Well, I'm pretty much a functionalist, so I ask whether it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion. But even if we don't adopt that perspective, they each have a "process" that is granted overriding allegiance - the worship of ancestors, the path to enlightenment, or the Way. Similarly, Marxism postulates a "supernatural" process of history (dialectical materialism) which dictates the correct course of action for all actors, as well as representing an inevitable outcome. That sounds pretty religious to me.

As for ensuring the survival of the species, I think the verdict is more or less in on that one. For all the environmental excesses of American capitalism, they're practically Greenpeace compared with Russian Communism, a system that ravaged the environment with almost absurd ferocity for its entire existence. I think, were I placing bets on the salvation of humanity, that the smart money is definitely not on Communism.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Similarly, Marxism postulates a "supernatural" process of history (dialectical materialism) which dictates the correct course of action for all actors, as well as representing an inevitable outcome. That sounds pretty religious to me.

Speaking of Hegelian Dialectics... :) Don't you think that the current and previous American governance by crisis fits that model exactly?

When Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”...

This is the Hegelian Dialectic I'm seeing, in the health care debate, in the Afghan debate, in the Energy Tax, in the Stimulus, in the Bailouts. They spend weeks forming, reforming, hashing, and rehashing bills, and then they vote on them without reading them within 24 hours of formation without proper debate. Emergency votes... All the time...

1. Bring attention to a problem you declare to be a crisis of earth shattering proportion (we're all gonna die!).

2. Use proxies to incite anger in the streets, use the media, hold press conferences to talk about the problem,

3. People will flock (like sheep) to your door demanding that the something be done now – then you offer a solution that will cost money, increase the number of government jobs, infringe on rights, and transfer power/property to the government.

Once the majority of jobs in America are depending on government, what is the likelihood of ever reducing the size of government? Who would ever vote for a pay cut?

[Jester]

Speaking of Hegelian Dialectics... :) Don't you think that the current and previous American governance by crisis fits that model exactly?

No?

When Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”...

That's an idea as old as the hills. It was a favourite of Henry Kissinger's, for starters (I think he refers to "moments of white heat"). In normal times, people stick to the status quo. So change requires abnormal times.

This is the Hegelian Dialectic I'm seeing, in the health care debate, in the Afghan debate, in the Energy Tax, in the Stimulus, in the Bailouts. They spend weeks forming, reforming, hashing, and rehashing bills, and then they vote on them without reading them within 24 hours of formation without proper debate. Emergency votes... All the time...

1. Bring attention to a problem you declare to be a crisis of earth shattering proportion (we're all gonna die!).

2. Use proxies to incite anger in the streets, use the media, hold press conferences to talk about the problem,

3. People will flock (like sheep) to your door demanding that the something be done now – then you offer a solution that will cost money, increase the number of government jobs, infringe on rights, and transfer power/property to the government.

That's not a Hegelian dialectic. That's not a dialectic at all. There's no confrontation of opposing forces, no synthesis. It's just a three step process. And, frankly, it sounds like democracy - political parties put out their ideas, people react to those ideas, which spurs the government to action.

Speaking of overhyping a vague problem into an earth-shattering crisis, using the media to rally crowds of angry people, and demanding that something be done now now now, that seems to be happening on the right more than the left these days.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

That's an idea as old as the hills. It was a favourite of Henry Kissinger's, for starters (I think he refers to "moments of white heat"). In normal times, people stick to the status quo. So change requires abnormal times.

Although, honesty, which is also as old as the hills, seems to be in short supply. Honestly, is there really any crisis in the last dozen years in America that requires rushing through legislation in 24 hours and emergency vote in Congress? Legitimately, maybe a couple.

That's not a Hegelian dialectic. That's not a dialectic at all. There's no confrontation of opposing forces, no synthesis. It's just a three step process. And, frankly, it sounds like democracy - political parties put out their ideas, people react to those ideas, which spurs the government to action.

Well, it sure seems like confrontation of opposing forces, synthesis, resolution and due to the rapidity of the process it is not like a democracy where constituents are able to inform their representative of their viewpoints.

Speaking of overhyping a vague problem into an earth-shattering crisis, using the media to rally crowds of angry people, and demanding that something be done now now now, that seems to be happening on the right more than the left these days.

Yes, I'm seeing it from both sides. Although, there is a difference between agitating your own political base, and the intellectually dishonest practice of working the solution backwards toward the crisis that needs resolution (e.g. PNAC developing plans for an Iraqi invasion).

[Jester]

Although, honesty, which is also as old as the hills, seems to be in short supply. Honestly, is there really any crisis in the last dozen years in America that requires rushing through legislation in 24 hours and emergency vote in Congress?

You're really big on this whole "emergency" thing - the meme that this is all being rushed through. But both houses have been arm wrestling over the ins and outs of possible plans, bills, deals, methods, etc... for well over six months now. If they're trying to close the deal when the negotiations finally work out, but before someone changes their mind, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Everyone knows the issues at hand. They've been wrangling over them for ages.

Of course, the "rush" meme is being propagated by groups who benefit from delay - see below.

Well, it sure seems like confrontation of opposing forces, synthesis, resolution and due to the rapidity of the process it is not like a democracy where constituents are able to inform their representative of their viewpoints.

???

There have been polls day in and day out, town hall meetings since the beginning of the year, protests, media campaigns, etc, etc. Constituents have had more than ample opportunity to make their views known on the subject of health care reform - and anyone who cares to educate themselves should be more than able to negotiate the various possibilities being discussed (Triggers, opt-ins, opt-outs, etc...). None of this is secret, and I can only imagine that most politicians are receiving far more feedback than they can conceivably use at this point - much of it drummed up by one interest group or another.

What the polling does seem to confirm is that people want Congress to s**t or get off the pot. The longer they haggle, the more people get sick of the bickering, and turn against the Congress as a whole. If delay causes health reform to sink, who wins? The current rent-monopolizing HMOs, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical industries. Funnily enough, they're also the ones funding the campaigns of the key stallers in congress (Max Baucus, that means you.) I wonder how that happened...

Yes, I'm seeing it from both sides. Although, there is a difference between agitating your own political base, and the intellectually dishonest practice of working the solution backwards toward the crisis that needs resolution (e.g. PNAC developing plans for an Iraqi invasion).

This would be in reference to what, in the current situation?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If they're trying to close the deal when the negotiations finally work out, but before someone changes their mind, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

You mean "take the vote before anyone knows what they are voting on".

...much of it drummed up by one interest group or another.

... and eventually the truth will prevail. People will read the bill and understand what it means to them.

What the polling does seem to confirm is that people want Congress to s**t or get off the pot. The longer they haggle, the more people get sick of the bickering, and turn against the Congress as a whole. If delay causes health reform to sink, who wins?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124202/No-Clear...are-Reform.aspx

The American people are tired of Congress. They are tired of the square wheels on the car, and every year they vote for a tire change, they get more square wheels on the car. The system is broken. It seems they only make square wheels, even though some are branded with a D, and some are branded with an R. Meanwhile, there are these problems, like the economy, and radical Islam trampling over the nation and the feds are oblivious to how their actions instigated or exacerbate the situation. They are doing everything they can to re-inflate the bubble to push off the suffering for another day, when the stink of it doesn't stick to them.

But, looking at health care specifically, if that is what you are focused upon. According to Gallup, most people believe they would be worse off with the current bill. People are pretty evenly split on whether it is good or bad for the country, and as time passes more people are leaning against the bill.

This would be in reference to what, in the current situation?

Well, I was pointing out a case where Bush also used the 1) trump up a crisis, 2) fan the media fires, 3) implement the expensive, liberty robbing, canned solution that you thought up before doing number 1. So, some Al Queda terrorists based out of Afghanistan drop the twin towers due to a failure of many agencies of the Federal government to protect American borders. The American vengeance level is high, and so the President could have justified bombing almost any Islamic nation with a high level of support. This gave Cheney and his PNAC friends the opportunity to dust off their anti-Iraq play book and sew together lies and half truths to depose Saddam. Remember the Patriot Act? I'm not saying that their may not be strategic reasons for being in Iraq beyond the comprehension of the general populace, however, we are paying for the war, so we should really be let in on the real reasons why we are there. If it wasn't oil, or at least oil price stability, then what the flying flock or sheep was it?

So that was an example. Bush beat us up with a hammer too, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have the pneumatic hammer. That slippery slope got vertical real fast.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/11/news/econo...ates_economies/

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/12/news/econo...ficit/index.htm

"For the month, the Treasury took in $135.3 billion from various sources and spent $311.7 billion."

Yeah, that stimulus was great... Now, let's see... Krugman would say the feds are not spending enough. Which, to me is the old, "Having lots of sex to prevent pregnancies" method of economics. But, I know who is getting screwed.

[eppie]

If it wasn't oil, or at least oil price stability, then what the flying flock or sheep was it?

I have explained you many times; it was to give tax payers money, via a diversion, to the companies that do construction work and sell weapons (the weapons industry didn't suffer at all in the economic crisis....isn't that just great?), of course also oil companies, but not in the obvious way (going to Iraq to secure oil) no, using US subsidies to sell oil cheap in Iraq, so that the 'build-up' of the country can be sped up.


And I am absolutely shocked that you compare this disaster with the new health care plans. Who cares if there will be a few 1000 more jobs in the government.....these people get a job, can buy a house and in this way are a full member of the US economy. The people that profitted from the Iraq war, have their money in places where the american people don't benefit at all (off shore accounts.etc.etc.)

Why is it that Republican voters don't care being extortioned by the rich but freak out when somebody wants to improve the health care system?

[Jester]

According to Gallup, most people believe they would be worse off with the current bill. People are pretty evenly split on whether it is good or bad for the country, and as time passes more people are leaning against the bill.

No, according to Gallup, there is no majority opinion at all about the personal impact of the bill. 26% say better, 36% say worse, 31% say not much difference, and 7% have no opinion. Were we in a partisan bickering mood, we could take turns reading that as "57% say a health care bill would not diminish their health care quality" or "67% say that a health care bill would be negative or neutral." The poll also does not ask about anything specific - for instance, it says nothing about a public option, which tends to be popular in polls. It just asks generically about a "bill" - whatever that bill may be.

However, this poll question specifically ignores one of the major reasons people support health care reform - what it will do to *other* people. If you asked me in Canada whether my health care would get better with a private system, the answer would be yes, but I'd also oppose that reform because of its impact on others.

If you look at the "good for the country numbers", there's pretty much an even split - 41% say yes, 40% say no. This number is up, but the increase is almost entirely from an increase in those opposed (from undecided) - a product the massive anti-health reform campaign that's been getting so much media coverage, especially on Fox.

So that was an example. Bush beat us up with a hammer too, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have the pneumatic hammer. That slippery slope got vertical real fast.

The majority of the current fiscal trouble is still directly attributable to Bush's mad spending - even if we don't blame him one iota for the financial crisis. Pelosi and Reid are responsible for only a tiny fraction of it, and that's the fraction that's helping put the economy back together.

Yeah, that stimulus was great... Now, let's see... Krugman would say the feds are not spending enough. Which, to me is the old, "Having lots of sex to prevent pregnancies" method of economics. But, I know who is getting screwed.

Are you familiar with the work of Steven Landsburg? "More sex is safer sex"? If people who use condoms had more sex, it actually would prevent pregnancies. But fun libertarian logic games are neither here nor there.

Unemployment is still way up. States are cutting back programs drastically to meet their budget targets. More stimulus directed at bailing out states would help end the haemorrhage of jobs, and help the economy return to normalcy, to quote the not-great Warren Harding. Without more stimulus, I sure know who is getting screwed - the millions of people getting laid off.

-Jester

Afterthought: a stimulus that does not run into deficit is not a stimulus...

After-afterthought: how does Islam fit into all this? "Trampling over the nation" how?

[kandrathe]

The majority of the current fiscal trouble is still directly attributable to Bush's mad spending - even if we don't blame him one iota for the financial crisis. Pelosi and Reid are responsible for only a tiny fraction of it, and that's the fraction that's helping put the economy back together.

What did the mad spending get us? Other than the wars, which are certainly not budgeted, and an unaffordable prescription drug program, I don't recall any other expensive Bush initiatives. The mad spending is actually the ballooning growth of social programs under the weight of retiring baby boomers.

Are you familiar with the work of Steven Landsburg? "More sex is safer sex"? If people who use condoms had more sex, it actually would prevent pregnancies. But fun libertarian logic games are neither here nor there.

No. And, it doesn't surprise me that some guy tried to sell that snake oil. Were I 18 again, I might have been a proponent.

Unemployment is still way up. States are cutting back programs drastically to meet their budget targets. More stimulus directed at bailing out states would help end the haemorrhage of jobs, and help the economy return to normalcy, to quote the not-great Warren Harding. Without more stimulus, I sure know who is getting screwed - the millions of people getting laid off.

With the current debt, and existing stimulus and deficit spending, everyone's future is bleak. Do you agree that the focus (80%) of the prior non-stimulus on propping up the failing state budgets was the core of our current problems? Had the government spent a trillion dollars on industrial outcomes that would improve the non-government side of the US GDP, then we might have averted the malaise we are in currently. Giving the money to the states to enable them to avoid their budget cuts only delayed that decision for a year, meanwhile the private sector is still unable to satisfy the growing appetite of government.

It is a pretty simple problem. People view government jobs as equal to private sector jobs. Realistically, it takes X amount (probably about 8 to 10) private sector jobs to provide the funding for one government job. Then also, the government needs to spend money on actual products and services, which require more private sector jobs to fund. In these down turns, people actually consume more services thus propelling government spending even higher, and requiring more people to actually manage the demand for services.

When the size of government exceeds about 10% it becomes unsustainable.

http://www.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/tools/ces/Results.aspx

If you look at Minnesota (MSA specifically), as an example, Government supplies about 14% of the jobs. Those jobs are funded by the health of the other 86%, but a large portion of the private sector jobs are in the service sector (non-manufacturing), and so they are reliant on their customers willingness to consume services. Once the slope of the economic curve points negative, most companies get conservative and the death spiral ensues. Eventually, the amount of revenue collected in taxes drops to a level where the amount of government we have is unsustainable.

The way I look at it is that government is a parasite on industry. A necessary parasite when kept small and focused on the one side effect we need, which is keeping civil order. But, it easily grows to a point where it jeopardizes the health of the host by sapping resources which are needed for growth and sustenance.

After-afterthought: how does Islam fit into all this? "Trampling over the nation" how?

That was a comment on *real* threats, as opposed to the phantom threats we are focusing our energies upon by traveling the golf courses of Asia.

[eppie]

It is a pretty simple problem. People view government jobs as equal to private sector jobs. Realistically, it takes X amount (probably about 8 to 10) private sector jobs to provide the funding for one government job. Then also, the government needs to spend money on actual products and services, which require more private sector jobs to fund. In these down turns, people actually consume more services thus propelling government spending even higher, and requiring more people to actually manage the demand for services.

You think the problem is simple because you think most government jobs are useless.

But of course they are not, and many private sector jobs could be turned in to government jobs, the same as it is also possible the other way around.

What would be the advantage of a privately owned insurance company compared to a state runned one? Even if there would be more effective labour in a private one (something which I don't believe in) you would just be paying people salary that otherwise wouldn't have job and would need unemployment benefits.
The disadvantages of private insurance companies to me seem bigger; possible involvement of foreign entities in a basic need for the people, spending on extreme salaries for CEO's, spending on commercials, dealing with people's health as if it has a monetary value etc. etc. Plus that having private companies arranging things like health insurance, electricity, water requires a lot of government work for checking if things go as they should go.

We have also all seen that big banks are so big that they have almost equal power as a government. People need banks (you can't get your salary in cash and hide it under your pillow), people pay for banks services and we all know that banks make lots of money. I don't see your problems with government if you must realize that companies have probably much more power over many people.
It would be great if you could decide yourself for what to pay (like you suggested before, paying for firemen and policemen together with the other people from your neighboorhood), however, this is much to complicated for most people, and people tend not to agree on many things....I would like to see the yearly meeting which decides how much to pay to the private firebrigade this year).


ps. did you read what Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs said? He found that banks are doing Gods work. For God's work he made 53 miljon dollars in 2006 for example. There is enough money to go around, you just have a problem dividing it a bit normally.

[Jester]

What did the mad spending get us? Other than the wars, which are certainly not budgeted, and an unaffordable prescription drug program, I don't recall any other expensive Bush initiatives.

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theatre?"

Not that there needs to be any more to condemn the man, but the first gigantic round of bailout money was on Bush's watch.

No. And, it doesn't surprise me that some guy tried to sell that snake oil. Were I 18 again, I might have been a proponent.

I would have thought Steven Landsberg would have been up your alley, being almost absurdly libertarian. Guess not.

With the current debt, and existing stimulus and deficit spending, everyone's future is bleak.

I wouldn't be that pessimistic about it. The debt sucks, but it's not *that* crippling. (The stimulus is helping not hurting, so that's backwards.) But in any case, the US is still vastly richer not only than it has been historically, but also vastly richer than any other country in the world (save Luxembourg and a couple other microstates). If your future looks bleak, it still looks a lot less bleak than ordinary life for most people on the planet.

Do you agree that the focus (80%) of the prior non-stimulus on propping up the failing state budgets was the core of our current problems?

First, wasn't the amount for propping up state budgets more like 10% than 80%? Second, heck no. That's not "non-stimulus," whatever on earth that means. That's stimulus - money in the hands of people who are going to spend it on stuff they need. Government employees with jobs. Welfare cheques in the mail. Public works contracts that go through, rather than being cancelled.

The implosion in state budgets is something the Feds should have done far more to deal with - and still should. As Atrios points out, it's like having 50 little Herbert Hoovers, tightening belts and slashing costs and sinking the country deeper into depression. A boost to the state budgets would be the fastest, easiest way to get money into the economy directly, rather than throwing it at banks who will just sit on it, or at projects which will not yield results for another year at least.

Had the government spent a trillion dollars on industrial outcomes that would improve the non-government side of the US GDP, then we might have averted the malaise we are in currently.

How do you spend on "industrial outcomes"? Subsidize industry directly? That's not creating "non-government" work. That's just giving government money to private companies, and asking nothing in return - industrial welfare. If you were just going to be giving money away, why not give it to consumers?

It is a pretty simple problem. People view government jobs as equal to private sector jobs. Realistically, it takes X amount (probably about 8 to 10) private sector jobs to provide the funding for one government job. Then also, the government needs to spend money on actual products and services, which require more private sector jobs to fund. In these down turns, people actually consume more services thus propelling government spending even higher, and requiring more people to actually manage the demand for services.

While I have no idea if your numbers work out, the principle is fine. So, what happens when people lose those jobs, both in government and outside of it? What happens when they don't receive support? They stop private spending, which lowers the velocity of money. Tax revenue drops, consumer spending drops, private firm profits drop, and the economy enters into a deflationary spiral 'o death (See: Depression, Great.) What keeps you out of it is a temporary increase in government spending, until the economy has time to get back on its feet and up to normal employment. Then you can talk about raising more revenue to pay down the debt.

When the size of government exceeds about 10% it becomes unsustainable.

Where'd you get that number? The top of your head? The US average is about 17%, from your own link. Canada is 20%. The UK is 20%. The Scandanavian countries hover around 30%. None of these countries has yet imploded - they're still the richest, most successful countries around. Is your idea seriously that almost the entire first world has between 1.7 and 3 times the sustainable level of government employees? That somehow seems implausible.

The way I look at it is that government is a parasite on industry.

"The parasite has his eye on Rapture. Keep your eye on the parasite."

-Jester