Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[Quantum Windbag]

Between Quantum Windbag and Daveman, we have the following two rules.

a) we must reduce the debt to grow the economy and
b) reducing the debt reduces the money supply.

Can anyone tell us how these two statements are inconguent.

HINT: See Hume, Essay, "On Money".

Did I say that reducing the debt reduces the money supply?

No.

Did Daveman?

No.

I guess that means here is that we have a lying sack of shit that cannot do simple math, so he is reduced to making stuff up in order to fool himself into thinking he is smart.

Yeah, that is exactly what daveman said, In response to my comment on increasing taxes, daveman said that it reduces the money supply. You have said the other.

Damn, you are one of the idiots that thinks he is smart because he once read a book he didn't understand, aren't you?

Let me explain reality to you, Under the current economic conditions in the US, ie when the US government runs a massive deficit and the Federal Reserve uses quantitative easing to buy bonds, taxes have an inverse impact on the money supply. In other words, right now raising taxes is deflationary because it reduces the money supply.

If you didn't understand that, Daveman is right, taxes do reduce the money supply. This is such an accepted tenet of economics that only idiots don't get it, which explains your confusion. Even Obama gets it, probably because every economic adviser he has tells him the same thing. That means that he is smarter than you, which makes you pretty dumb.

Feel free to use Google to try and find someone to prove me wrong, it could be educational. I doubt you will pay attention, but there is always a chance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only problem with the debt and deficit is that eventually.... Well, nothing.

Eventually, revenues must be increased to continue forward.

And, as long as the tax is increased slowly and across the board, there is no deterious effect.

The real effect is a reduction in labor utilization. Labor, until we tap out on resources, is everything. People work to produce product and services valued by others. In doing so, they get some pieces of paper that allow them to obtain some of those goods and services. As long as those pieces of paper, or electronic digits, are passes out in some economically appropiate proportions, then they take on the value that is appropriate to the amount of goods and services produced.

It really is just that simple.

And, if everyone is paying some tax rate of, say 50%, then the prices adjust to the amount of money available to be spent.

It really is, just that simple.

The problems with the economy has nothing to do with the govenment unless they a) crowd out some production or investment or b) fail to stabilize the economy.

Even then, crowding out really isn't an issue if the govt happens to be acting in a manner that the private sector otherwise would.

By your logic, we could eventually increase taxes to 500% of income and it wouldn't hurt the economy.

By the way, the government will never act in a way the private sector does. It is impossible because the government doesn't react to changes in supply and demand the way the private sector has to. The government doesn't depend on demand to survive because it forces people to comply.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Same thing holds true, you fucking moron. Government adds NOTHING of value. Government ALWAYS operates at a loss.

Put one dollar in, get less than one dollar out -- because you have to pay the people collecting, counting, and disbursing the dollars.

Then, by your accounting, every company operates at a loss because it costs to produce.

The reality of economics and accounting is that the governmemt is simply another company with a mandatory subscription price. It collects revenue, pays for labor and materials, and provides a product. Numerous products.

Honestly, daveman, the more I read your posts, the more I recognize that your concepts of economics, accounting, and government...your common sense, is off in la la land.

You should simply throw out everything you think you know and start over from the correct foundation. This foundation is that economics is about the production and redistribution of goods and services. It is not about money. Money is a social tool that we use to account for the redistribution of goods and services.

The government is merely another entity through which economic activity flows. It's no different in this sense than a household or a corporation, etc.

It is fair to debate the efficacy of government spending, and whether or not it is more or less efficient than other entities. On aggregate, I don't believe it is. However, that doesn't mean everything the government does destroys value.

At its best, the government exists as a drain on the economy. At its worst, the government exists as an enemy of the economy. Even NASA, which is the best example of what government can accomplish, does more harm than good. For decades it was the only way to get anything into space, and it still exerts a negative impact on space exploration by demanding that all endeavors receive its approval before they can get off the ground. I see no evidence anywhere that the government ever exerts a positive effect on the economy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then, by your accounting, every company operates at a loss because it costs to produce.

The reality of economics and accounting is that the governmemt is simply another company with a mandatory subscription price. It collects revenue, pays for labor and materials, and provides a product. Numerous products.

Honestly, daveman, the more I read your posts, the more I recognize that your concepts of economics, accounting, and government...your common sense, is off in la la land. (This doesn't make you dumb or anything. It is just that starting with the wrong foundation leads to faulty conclusions, no matter how good the reasoning. It is easy to start with the $ and try to do home econ.)

You should simply throw out everything you think you know and start over from the correct foundation. This foundation is that economics is about the production and redistribution of goods and services. It is not about money. Money is a social tool that we use to account for the redistribution of goods and services.

The government is merely another entity through which economic activity flows. It's no different in this sense than a household or a corporation, etc.

It is fair to debate the efficacy of government spending, and whether or not it is more or less efficient than other entities. On aggregate, I don't believe it is. However, that doesn't mean everything the government does destroys value.

Well put. This approach means delving into the details of specific programs to determine their value. Sweeping generalities just won't suffice.

As a matter of example, we might consider the section of the ACA that incentivises education in the medical sector by allocating funds towards paying off student loans for Drs, nurses, and the like contingent upon them serving in geographic areas that are deficient in medical workers.

Also, in the ACA, is a section dedicated to rural communities which can be underserved due to simply lower geographic demand density.

These are investment programs that take the long term into account, an investment strategy that isn't as well served by the private markets.

Diverting resources form a productive sector of the economy to a non productive sector might look good if you are in the non productive sector, but they still drain the productive sector. That means the government always has a negative impact for those of us who can't follow a chain of logic.

 

[Toro]

Then, by your accounting, every company operates at a loss because it costs to produce.

The reality of economics and accounting is that the governmemt is simply another company with a mandatory subscription price. It collects revenue, pays for labor and materials, and provides a product. Numerous products.

Honestly, daveman, the more I read your posts, the more I recognize that your concepts of economics, accounting, and government...your common sense, is off in la la land.

You should simply throw out everything you think you know and start over from the correct foundation. This foundation is that economics is about the production and redistribution of goods and services. It is not about money. Money is a social tool that we use to account for the redistribution of goods and services.

The government is merely another entity through which economic activity flows. It's no different in this sense than a household or a corporation, etc.

It is fair to debate the efficacy of government spending, and whether or not it is more or less efficient than other entities. On aggregate, I don't believe it is. However, that doesn't mean everything the government does destroys value.

At its best, the government exists as a drain on the economy. At its worst, the government exists as an enemy of the economy. Even NASA, which is the best example of what government can accomplish, does more harm than good. For decades it was the only way to get anything into space, and it still exerts a negative impact on space exploration by demanding that all endeavors receive its approval before they can get off the ground. I see no evidence anywhere that the government ever exerts a positive effect on the economy.

Infrastructure, education, research and development, police and the army are all examples of the government adding value to the economy.

 

[oldfart]

I believe that calculation leaves something out:

The cost of government itself. Every dollar taxed and redistributed has some portion of it offset by the cost of taxing it and redistributing it.

Government doesn't operate for nothing. And it adds nothing of value to the transaction.

Tell that to the military and to disaster victims you fucking moron.

Same thing holds true, you fucking moron. Government adds NOTHING of value. Government ALWAYS operates at a loss.

Put one dollar in, get less than one dollar out -- because you have to pay the people collecting, counting, and disbursing the dollars.

Nie to know you regard the military as producing nothing of value.

 

[itfitzme]

The only problem with the debt and deficit is that eventually.... Well, nothing.

Eventually, revenues must be increased to continue forward.

And, as long as the tax is increased slowly and across the board, there is no deterious effect.

The real effect is a reduction in labor utilization. Labor, until we tap out on resources, is everything. People work to produce product and services valued by others. In doing so, they get some pieces of paper that allow them to obtain some of those goods and services. As long as those pieces of paper, or electronic digits, are passes out in some economically appropiate proportions, then they take on the value that is appropriate to the amount of goods and services produced.

It really is just that simple.

And, if everyone is paying some tax rate of, say 50%, then the prices adjust to the amount of money available to be spent.

It really is, just that simple.

The problems with the economy has nothing to do with the govenment unless they a) crowd out some production or investment or b) fail to stabilize the economy.

Even then, crowding out really isn't an issue if the govt happens to be acting in a manner that the private sector otherwise would.

By your logic, we could eventually increase taxes to 500% of income and it wouldn't hurt the economy.

By the way, the government will never act in a way the private sector does. It is impossible because the government doesn't react to changes in supply and demand the way the private sector has to. The government doesn't depend on demand to survive because it forces people to comply.

No, you are simply demonstrating a propensity for mindless absurdities. Mindess absurdity doesn't fall under the heading of logic. It just demonstrates that you are a moron.

 

[itfitzme]

Did I say that reducing the debt reduces the money supply?

No.

Did Daveman?

No.

I guess that means here is that we have a lying sack of shit that cannot do simple math, so he is reduced to making stuff up in order to fool himself into thinking he is smart.

Yeah, that is exactly what daveman said, In response to my comment on increasing taxes, daveman said that it reduces the money supply. You have said the other.

Damn, you are one of the idiots that thinks he is smart because he once read a book he didn't understand, aren't you?

Let me explain reality to you, Under the current economic conditions in the US, ie when the US government runs a massive deficit and the Federal Reserve uses quantitative easing to buy bonds, taxes have an inverse impact on the money supply. In other words, right now raising taxes is deflationary because it reduces the money supply.

If you didn't understand that, Daveman is right, taxes do reduce the money supply. This is such an accepted tenet of economics that only idiots don't get it, which explains your confusion. Even Obama gets it, probably because every economic adviser he has tells him the same thing. That means that he is smarter than you, which makes you pretty dumb.

Feel free to use Google to try and find someone to prove me wrong, it could be educational. I doubt you will pay attention, but there is always a chance.

I can guarantee that my education far exceeds yours. *There is no "explaining reality" to come from you as you have a propensity for wild fantacies.

 

[itfitzme]

A far more interesting question is if the economy is even capable of a steady state condition with a stable money supply or if growth is required. The money supply requires borrowing in order to be maintained. Without continuous recirculation of debt and borrowing by the private sector, the money supply contracts. Thankfully, population growth requires constant economic growth to just maintain standard of living. So, is that growth the only thing that stands between stability and recession?

 

[jasonnfree]

A far more interesting question is if the economy is even capable of a steady state condition with a stable money supply or if growth is required. The money supply requires borrowing in order to be maintained. Without continuous recirculation of debt and borrowing by the private sector, the money supply contracts. Thankfully, population growth requires constant economic growth to just maintain standard of living. So, is that growth the only thing that stands between stability and recession?

So then immigration would be a positive. Yes or no? Increased demand and all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government is merely another entity through which economic activity flows. It's no different in this sense than a household or a corporation, etc.

It is fair to debate the efficacy of government spending, and whether or not it is more or less efficient than other entities. On aggregate, I don't believe it is. However, that doesn't mean everything the government does destroys value.

At its best, the government exists as a drain on the economy. At its worst, the government exists as an enemy of the economy. Even NASA, which is the best example of what government can accomplish, does more harm than good. For decades it was the only way to get anything into space, and it still exerts a negative impact on space exploration by demanding that all endeavors receive its approval before they can get off the ground. I see no evidence anywhere that the government ever exerts a positive effect on the economy.

Infrastructure, education, research and development, police and the army are all examples of the government adding value to the economy.

No, they are examples of the government providing a service. Since I actually pointed out that government services are not always disastrous, you pointing out other services that are less than disastrous doesn't actually make a new point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only problem with the debt and deficit is that eventually.... Well, nothing.

Eventually, revenues must be increased to continue forward.

And, as long as the tax is increased slowly and across the board, there is no deterious effect.

The real effect is a reduction in labor utilization. Labor, until we tap out on resources, is everything. People work to produce product and services valued by others. In doing so, they get some pieces of paper that allow them to obtain some of those goods and services. As long as those pieces of paper, or electronic digits, are passes out in some economically appropiate proportions, then they take on the value that is appropriate to the amount of goods and services produced.

It really is just that simple.

And, if everyone is paying some tax rate of, say 50%, then the prices adjust to the amount of money available to be spent.

It really is, just that simple.

The problems with the economy has nothing to do with the govenment unless they a) crowd out some production or investment or b) fail to stabilize the economy.

Even then, crowding out really isn't an issue if the govt happens to be acting in a manner that the private sector otherwise would.

By your logic, we could eventually increase taxes to 500% of income and it wouldn't hurt the economy.

By the way, the government will never act in a way the private sector does. It is impossible because the government doesn't react to changes in supply and demand the way the private sector has to. The government doesn't depend on demand to survive because it forces people to comply.

No, you are simply demonstrating a propensity for mindless absurdities. Mindess absurdity doesn't fall under the heading of logic. It just demonstrates that you are a moron.

Did you not argue that raising taxes slowly and across the board there is no deleterious effect? (Keep in mind that the post where you said it is nested above before you try to deny it.)

Since you are the one that didn't put any boundaries on your absurdity, and all I did was take it to its logical conclusion through reductio absurdum to show how stupid your position is. If you don't like it, I suggest you clarify your statements so that you don't say things that are so stupid that even you can figure out they are absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, that is exactly what daveman said, In response to my comment on increasing taxes, daveman said that it reduces the money supply. You have said the other.

Damn, you are one of the idiots that thinks he is smart because he once read a book he didn't understand, aren't you?

Let me explain reality to you, Under the current economic conditions in the US, ie when the US government runs a massive deficit and the Federal Reserve uses quantitative easing to buy bonds, taxes have an inverse impact on the money supply. In other words, right now raising taxes is deflationary because it reduces the money supply.

If you didn't understand that, Daveman is right, taxes do reduce the money supply. This is such an accepted tenet of economics that only idiots don't get it, which explains your confusion. Even Obama gets it, probably because every economic adviser he has tells him the same thing. That means that he is smarter than you, which makes you pretty dumb.

Feel free to use Google to try and find someone to prove me wrong, it could be educational. I doubt you will pay attention, but there is always a chance.

I can guarantee that my education far exceeds yours. *There is no "explaining reality" to come from you as you have a propensity for wild fantacies.

Since I never read that book, I won;t dispute your assertion that your education exceeds mine.

I will, however, point out that you didn't actually refute my assertion that taxes do decrease the money supply in the current economy. I guess that means that, despite your education, I proved you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A far more interesting question is if the economy is even capable of a steady state condition with a stable money supply or if growth is required. The money supply requires borrowing in order to be maintained. Without continuous recirculation of debt and borrowing by the private sector, the money supply contracts. Thankfully, population growth requires constant economic growth to just maintain standard of living. So, is that growth the only thing that stands between stability and recession?

So then immigration would be a positive. Yes or no? Increased demand and all.

That is not a simple question. Increased immigration is good if the immigrant pool doesn't present a drain on resources by adding to the pool of people drawing on social services.

 

[Toro]

At its best, the government exists as a drain on the economy. At its worst, the government exists as an enemy of the economy. Even NASA, which is the best example of what government can accomplish, does more harm than good. For decades it was the only way to get anything into space, and it still exerts a negative impact on space exploration by demanding that all endeavors receive its approval before they can get off the ground. I see no evidence anywhere that the government ever exerts a positive effect on the economy.

Infrastructure, education, research and development, police and the army are all examples of the government adding value to the economy.

No, they are examples of the government providing a service. Since I actually pointed out that government services are not always disastrous, you pointing out other services that are less than disastrous doesn't actually make a new point.

So you're saying infrastructure, education, R&D, police and the military are all disastrous, just less so?

 

[KissMy]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Infrastructure, education, research and development, police and the army are all examples of the government adding value to the economy.

No, they are examples of the government providing a service. Since I actually pointed out that government services are not always disastrous, you pointing out other services that are less than disastrous doesn't actually make a new point.

So you're saying infrastructure, education, R&D, police and the military are all disastrous, just less so?

No, I am saying that infrastructure, education, and R&D are more efficient in the private sector. As for government force, I oppose that on principle, and you cannot show me a positive economic benefit just because the government wants to have a monopoly on force, while I can easily show a negative economic impact from government using force. (Nagasaki and Hiroshima ring a bell?)

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy?" Yes. You can sell and lease assets, you can shed liabilities, you can cut spending, you can focus on more important things than money.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Then, by your accounting, every company operates at a loss because it costs to produce.

The reality of economics and accounting is that the governmemt is simply another company with a mandatory subscription price. It collects revenue, pays for labor and materials, and provides a product. Numerous products.

Honestly, daveman, the more I read your posts, the more I recognize that your concepts of economics, accounting, and government...your common sense, is off in la la land.

You should simply throw out everything you think you know and start over from the correct foundation. This foundation is that economics is about the production and redistribution of goods and services. It is not about money. Money is a social tool that we use to account for the redistribution of goods and services.

The government is merely another entity through which economic activity flows. It's no different in this sense than a household or a corporation, etc.

It is fair to debate the efficacy of government spending, and whether or not it is more or less efficient than other entities. On aggregate, I don't believe it is. However, that doesn't mean everything the government does destroys value.

At its best, the government exists as a drain on the economy. At its worst, the government exists as an enemy of the economy. Even NASA, which is the best example of what government can accomplish, does more harm than good. For decades it was the only way to get anything into space, and it still exerts a negative impact on space exploration by demanding that all endeavors receive its approval before they can get off the ground. I see no evidence anywhere that the government ever exerts a positive effect on the economy.

Want to know why NASA wants to give approval of anything before it can get off the ground?

How good would it look if some private enterprise decided to launch a rocket without tracking it's trajectory and ended up blowing it up over the top of some city or schoolhouse?

I'd be willing to bet you'd ask why they blew up the city or the kids. NASA can help with that, because they can calculate the trajectories as well as give them a safe path for their rockets.

I mean.......................why else do we shoot things into space from places like Florida or Houston? It's so that if something goes wrong, the only people harmed are those on the flight.

Why else do you think that most flights (from the U.S.) are done over open water?

 

[freedombecki]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

You could grow the economy without worrying the 1,000,000+ who cross the border illegally and come here, many of whom join La Raza if you'd cut out the 1,300,000 abortion deaths per annum. That would give America a population unwilling to turn the keys over to another government by voting itself out. La Raza is going for California and Arizona first.

It's just that simple.

When abortions were legalized we were assured the 10,000 women who were getting very bad care at the hands of illegal abortionists would be safe from bad care. That was then. Now, it's just a mockery of the good it intended to do to the 10,000 women whose lives were at risk or who were so ashamed of their own promiscuity they'd resort to risking their lives going to a back alley quack to get rid of their unwanted child. Now people are going for old age without ever growing up and taking responsibility for themselves. Since this kind of lifestyle does not lead to earned prosperity, those whose mothers did not abort find themselves without funds and are making unreasonable demands from those who are responsible, dust themselves off, and get out there and earn a living and save back for emergencies. The only trouble is, Hollywood glorifies criminal and slutty behaviors and has disdain for those who live the good life after a life of hard work and sacrifice so they won't be a burden on society.

Hollywood wants to keep it that way, too. That way, religious boycotts of the trash they teach won't hurt the beautiful people who use their looks for wealth with little thought for consequences they participate in teaching through their craft. Sex with no consequences is a bad practice, and we're starting to see people engaging in criminal acts on the corporate level since one sin is considered no worse than another in such a climate of evil.

/lectio divinia