cafe hayek: just fix it
cafe hayek: just fix it
cafe hayek
where orders emerge
enter your email address to receive new cafe hayek posts in your inbox:delivered by feedburner
subscribe to cafe hayek's feed
email don boudreaux
email russ roberts
links
invisibleheart.com
george mason department of economics
econtalk
econtalk
to subscribe in itunes, click this button
or drag this icon into your itunes podcasts playlist
feedburner (one-click audio subscriptions via yahoo and more.)
xml (full econtalk text)
blogroll
agoraphilia
becker-posner
coyote blog
division of labour
econlog
greg mankiw's blog
kids prefer cheese
knowledge problem
marginal revolution
market correction
the agitator
the fly bottle
categories
agriculture
antitrust
archaeological economics
balance of payments
books
cafe conversation
charity
competition
complexity and emergence
cooperation
crime
cuba
current affairs
data
economics
education
energy
environment
everyday life
family
fda
film
food and drink
foreign aid
games
health
history
hunger
immigration
inequality
innovation
law
less than meets the eye
markets in everything
media
movies
music
myths and fallacies
nanny state
podcast
politics
prices
property rights
reality is not optional
regulation
religion
risk and safety
science
seen and unseen
social responsibility of business
social security
sports
standard of living
taxes
technology
terrorism
the economy
the future
the hollow middle
the profit motive
trade
travel
video
wal-mart
war
web/tech
weblogs
work
« progress |
main
| if this is monopoly in action, bring it on»
don boudreaux
october 26, 2007
just fix it
don boudreaux
here's a letter that i sent today to the new york times:there's widespread
agreement that the alternative minimum tax - because it is not indexed
to inflation - is mistakenly raising the taxes of millions of americans
("house democrats propose tax overhaul," october 25). happily, there's
also widespread agreement that this mistake should be corrected.so,
given that the current operation of the amt is a mistake, why do rep.
charles rangel and so many others talk of the need to "pay for" fixing
the amt? a merchant who mistakenly overcharges customers is obliged to
refund the money and stop overcharging, period. this obligation kicks
in whether or not the merchant devises some way of replacing the
revenue that he loses by correcting his mistake.
sincerely,donald j. boudreaux
posted by don boudreaux in taxes | permalink
trackback
trackback url for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/22782140
listed below are links to weblogs that reference just fix it:
comments
nice letter, don.
makes waaaaay too much sense for congress to actually understand it, though.
posted by: methinks | oct 26, 2007 10:22:45 am
don,
you obviously don't get that your earnings belong entirely to the government, except for what congress thinks is reasonable for you to keep. get your head in the game, man!
posted by: m. hodak | oct 26, 2007 10:30:21 am
excellent letter, but i think you meant amt not atm. congress may think of taxpayers as an atm, though. perhpas you were being ironic.
posted by: anon | oct 26, 2007 10:54:09 am
excellent, don. but i'm afraid your statement of what should be obvious will fall mostly on deaf ears.
posted by: darren | oct 26, 2007 10:58:59 am
according to cato (and anyone else who doesn't get their news from rush limbaugh) george bush, alleged conservative, has been on a wild spending spree, both in current programs and in future committments.
since we the people did not put a stop to this, and since many alleged conservatives were cheering this spending spree, someone has to eventually provide enough cash flow to pay the bills.
so the libertarians can holler all they want to, the conservatives can whine, but the credit card has a very high balance, and we get the bill.
posted by: save_the_rustbelt | oct 26, 2007 12:36:41 pm
i don't know many conservatives who "cheered bush's spending spree"; can darren point to them? and since bush's tax cuts, which conservatives do cheer, have generated a huge increase in tax receipts, darren should take comfort; the "credit card" has a small (by historic standards) balance, which is shrinking rapidly, and we hardly need new tax sources to replace revenues foregone when the lamentable amt is "fixed."
posted by: mft | oct 26, 2007 12:52:39 pm
the difference between merchants and the government is that if the government can't find any good way to "pay for" reduced revenues, going out of business isn't an option. our government's currently popular alternative of "add more to the 9 trillion dollar debt" is something that taxpayers, dollar holders, and/or bond holders are going to inevitably pay for some day, and it's irresponsible to criticize congressmen like rengel for realizing what a bad thing that is.
posted by: roystgnr | oct 26, 2007 1:44:42 pm
in fairness, mft, that comment was save_the_rustbelt's not darren's.
rustbelt,
if the spending spree (of which this libertarian republican did not approve) was too expensive, then we need to give the items back, not pick people's pockets to pay for them. just cut the programs, that way, we needn't pay for them at all. i'll even give you a couple of ideas to start.
corporate welfare - the examples are too numerous to list. and payments in kind to welfare recipients. pay them in cash and cut huge layers of government waste.
posted by: methinks | oct 26, 2007 1:50:47 pm
"the difference between merchants and the government is that if the government can't find any good way to "pay for" reduced revenues, going out of business isn't an option."
i beg to differ :)
posted by: darren | oct 26, 2007 3:21:22 pm
...the "credit card" has a small (by historic standards) balance, which is shrinking rapidly, ..
posted by: mft
you actually believe that? no some one has to pay for this war and i'd argue the bill goes directly to those who have voted in this administration and so prospered off the war and all this administrations corporate welfare.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 26, 2007 3:36:35 pm
i beg to differ :)
posted by: darren
hulll hullh huh huh..i'm so funny i want my govenment to go out of business. you're ridiculous.
the problem is that's just what the neocons want. they want to break the govenment bank just to prove it doesn't work while in the process feeding off your's and mine tax dollars.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 26, 2007 3:40:29 pm
muirgeo,
"no some one has to pay for this war and i'd argue the bill goes directly to those who have voted in this administration and so prospered off the war and all this administrations corporate welfare."
i suppose you also think that i shouldn't have to pay for various government programs/policies that i don't agree with because i didn't vote for the people who started them?
i agree with that philosophy... except we can just let people spend their money how they wish and skip the government part altogether.
posted by: syphax | oct 26, 2007 3:53:35 pm
save_the_rustbelt: "since many alleged conservatives were cheering this spending spree"
i don't know of any conservatives who reside outside the beltway who cheered the spending spree. the many conservatives i talked to in texas were furious with bush and with the republicans in congress.
have you read any conservative writers the past 6 years, rusty? the writers at national review and at the wall street journal and at heritage foundatin and at cato have certainly not been cheering.
posted by: john dewey | oct 26, 2007 4:38:36 pm
muirgeo --
your link appears to be broken.
the balance, in real terms, actually is falling. basically, the effect of inflation on the debt is growing faster than the debt itself. in 200 years, when everybody makes a billion dollars a year, a several hundred trillion national debt will be paltry.
check out optimist123.com for more detail.
posted by: chris | oct 26, 2007 4:48:59 pm
...muirgeo...optimist...
posted by: shawn | oct 26, 2007 5:19:17 pm
the yardstick to measure national indebtedness (and future ability to repay) is deficit as % gdp. that measure is currently very historically low, about 1.9% gdp in 2006:
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
it ranks about 39th since 1929.
modern liberals prefer to use total debt as % gdp, which looks much worse. the reason this is not really a valid comparison is that we don’t have to repay debt all at once, nor do we know the size of future economies or obligations.
a major economic problem of the liberal argument is that it relies on static scoring, and mr. rangle’s boondoggle “revenue neutrality” i.e. we need to maintain tax revenue or reduce spending. guess which part of that equation liberals (and g.w. bush) have never practiced?
economically and empirically, muirgeo is wrong.
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 26, 2007 8:08:19 pm
who knows. i have a lingering suspicion like muirgeo's. namely, conservatives are like libertarians and want government out but since they believe they can't politely reduce tax rates and snuff out programs because there's too many lefties who'll jump up and down, they instead want to bankrupt the system (as well give fancy subsidies to themselves and their business buddies in the meantime) and start from scratch thinking that the current system's too far gone to be reformed. likewise they could run the system aground and say to lefties "see told you the large government, welfare state wouldn't work" thereby nearly assuring small governments in the future, perhaps?
either that, or conservatives come from the business world with it's "dog-eat-dog" as opposed to liberals who comes from other places with their preferred notion of "so-ju". for the conservative business owners type they might reckon that in business you do what you have to do and if it's wrong you'll get kicked out by your competitors such that when they're in the political sphere they do whatever they think is worth doing and since they're still in office, they must be doing something right.
posted by: gil | oct 26, 2007 11:30:22 pm
the yardstick to measure national indebtedness (and future ability to repay) is deficit as % gdp.
posted by: mesa econoguy
that's funny! i think debt to gdp is a better measure of national indebtedness. while deficit to gdp is a good way to measure the deficit. you been watching fox news again hey?
remind me to never lend you any money.
the main point on the amt is to realize that the republican, caterers to the rich, didn't address the problem after 6 years while the democratic congress is fixing it.
judge politicians by what they do not what others say they do.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 27, 2007 12:05:55 am
that's a good point gil. the republicans can't say what they really want to do and get elected. they have to lie, mislead and use wedge issues. the democratic party at least are saying they wants to tax the rich and put forth a national health plan. that's really all i need to know about the two parties. when you have to lie about your intentions to get elected to the degree the republicans do it's obvious they have a bankrupt ideology. and again their actions speak clearly of their intentions.
as i always say why would you want some one who doesn't think government can work to run it. like reagan's ridiculous remark, "the nine most terrifying words in the english language are: 'i'm from the government and i'm here to help.'"
posted by: muirgeo | oct 27, 2007 12:18:32 am
actually, muirgeo, i’m an economist by training, and you’re obviously not.
professor roberts was one of my teachers.
you wouldn’t have passed his class.
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 27, 2007 1:17:24 am
[very funny if muirgeo is in fact prfs. boudreaux/roberts]
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 27, 2007 1:29:20 am
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/26/
bush-is-a-big-spender
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/26/
bush-really-is-a-big-spender
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 27, 2007 2:41:23 am
muirgeo: "as i always say why would you want some one who doesn't think government can work to run it."
there is a fallacy of assumption here of course, which is easy to prove: if you don't believe the government can remake iraq into a western style democracy (e.g. you don't think "government can work" in that context) i think you would rather have someone like muirgeo running it than someone like george bush. the reason of course is to prevent the inefficient expenditure of resources on a goal that cannot be attained.
the same reasoning applies pretty clearly with respect to social security and a host of other broken entitlement systems. the only difference is your starting point: do you start out thinking it will work or not? if you think it will work you want a true believer to ensure it gets done, if you don't you want a skeptic to limit the damage.
muirgeo's problem is not so much a lack of intelligence as a complete lack of respect for those who don't agree with his/her position, and what appears to be an absolute refusal to honestly consider anything that doesn't fit neatly into his/her world-view. he/she is perhaps the most perfect example of a hypocrisy i see frequently: the supposedly enlightened liberal, calling for open-mindedness, compassion, and understanding, while possessing none of those traits themselves.
posted by: nick | oct 27, 2007 6:55:42 am
please visit
www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com
you will see photos of who and where bin laden and his networks are….
urgent…please help…. i cannot from here….. i am blocked all around
forward this information to the fbi.
posted by: gabriel christou | oct 27, 2007 8:15:07 am
(ignoring the post trying to get people to go to a clearly infected website).
muirgeo --
the debt-to-gdp number is falling as well. like i said before, check out optimist123.com.
posted by: chris | oct 27, 2007 8:39:02 am
there is a fallacy of assumption here of course, which is easy to prove: if you don't believe the government can remake iraq into a western style democracy (e.g. you don't think "government can work" in that context)...nick
what's the fallacy? proper planning in iraq could have massively changed the outcome. if i were in charge i'm sure the outcome would have been much better. not because i'm so smart but because i would have surrounded myself with the best experts who would have made the right decisions obvious. but indeed i am smarter and a more decent person then george bush...ain't saying much. our president is a great example of the workings of a society run on priviledge. the guy'd a been a dead gang banger if born in the ghetto. the difference between having a boob who sees government only as something to make his friends rich and some one like truman and george c marshall is clearly evident in the outcomes of those who think government can work and the jerks who see it as one more selfish opportunity. of course with bush i can't tell if he's an opportunist or just a complete nincompoop.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 27, 2007 10:04:06 am
don, we _get_ it. you write letters to the editor like rain man counts toothpicks. (sheesh).
posted by: mrc | oct 27, 2007 10:06:07 am
the debt-to-gdp number is falling as well. like i said before, check out optimist123.com.
posted by: chris
no chris it's not going down. skeptical optimist has been proved wrong so many times. just look at his history. he's a little heavy on the optimism and light on the skepticism.
the debt to gdp ratio is at an all time high ever since reagan and bush have been in charge. (excluding the ww2 years.
why the heck do people like you sit and make excuses for these guys like bush who has spent more then 3 trillion dollars we don't have and most of it on things that don't help our country...like infrastructure.
also go try and find the yearly debt history on the us treasury site. it stops at 1999. these guys are disgusting and criminal.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 27, 2007 10:27:58 am
"the debt-to-gdp number is falling as well."
where by "falling" you mean "growing from around 30% to around 60% since 1980"... unless you were only looking at the brief decline in clinton's second term?
i'm not clear on why we want to maintain federal debt at all, except as a mechanism for regressive wealth transfer. we tax people based on their income, then give hundreds of billions of those dollars each year as interest payments to people based on their investments? that's wealth redistribution on a scale to rival big government entitlement programs, but without even the pretense of a "helping poor people" excuse.
posted by: roystgnr | oct 27, 2007 11:47:56 am
muirgeo, um, what part of “we don’t have to pay it all back at once,” 1.9% gdp, and “you’re the problem” don’t you understand?
yer not too bright, is ya?
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 27, 2007 12:10:32 pm
muirgeo says:
"the main point on the amt is to realize that the republican, caterers to the rich, didn't address the problem after 6 years while the democratic congress is fixing it."
beware of those bearing gifts...
posted by: grzeis | oct 27, 2007 1:35:43 pm
roystqnr --
by "falling," i mean localized falling, i.e. quarter-over-quarter basis. the ratio at the end of 1q07 was about 65.3%; at the end of 2q07, it was about 64.4%.
muirgeo --
the above calculation came from data from the treasury department (for debt) and bea (for gdp). whether that site has been wrong before or not, it's correct on this point.
oh, and debt history *is* at the treasury department's website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/np/bpdlogin?application=np
posted by: chris | oct 27, 2007 5:55:04 pm
if rangel wants to "pay for" correcting the amt by reducing spending, that's ok with me.
posted by: gil | oct 27, 2007 6:16:44 pm
muirgeo couldn't answer what he meant by 'rising income disparity', he contradicts himself constantly, and calls anyone who disagrees with him selfish and stupid. this person (muirgeo) claims to be smarter than the president.
for the sake of argument, i'll accept that premise because it illustrates another reason why i don't want the government deciding when or if i need to see a doctor: if even muirgeo is smarter than the average politician, why in the world would we want politicians deciding our critical health care issues?
posted by: brotio | oct 27, 2007 7:05:28 pm
muirduck,
got news for you seetiekums, the president only spends what is authorized by congress.
oh, there is a little slush fund for the president to use, but not trillions, just some spare change.
"why the heck do people like you sit and make excuses for these guys like bush who has spent more then 3 trillion dollars we don't have and most of it on things that don't help our country...like infrastructure."
your beloved fellow socialist church goers in congress authorized the president to spend what he has spent.....tsk tsk on them!
and tsk tsk on you for ignoring that fact or not knowing that fact.
but, hey, reason, rational, intelligence, education, and objectivity is not expected from such as you have proven yourself to be.
from you we expect, and we get, the steady drumroll of the socialist scripture.......hail hail karl!!
i think it was winston churchill that said, "if at 14 and a girl, you are not a socialist...you have no heart; but, if you're at least 15 or older than and you aren't a captialist then you have no brain."
oh, i may have misquoted sir winston a little there, but it fits you so well.
posted by: vidyohs | oct 27, 2007 8:34:02 pm
aw what! another gil!?
p.s. i thought winston churchill was a liberal with socialist leanings and hardly someone to quote if you're a conservative or libertarian.
posted by: gil | oct 27, 2007 11:22:19 pm
"... i thought winston churchill..."
if the quote fits? fdr had some impressive quotes about the war, and i won't hesitate to use them if they help make my point, even though he was a socialist. i imagine most presidents have had a praiseworthy quote or two; except for jimmy carter, who was too busy playing monica lewinsky to the assahola khomeini's clinton to have anything useful to say.
posted by: brotio | oct 28, 2007 2:26:15 am
john dewey:
"conservative" house members, including my own (oxley, now jordan and camp) have never stood up to bush on anything with the exception of immigration.
the only way to bring spending under control is to end the disaster in iraq, and apparently conservatives have followed the neocons so far down the path that this will not happen anytime soon.
shutting dwon blackwater would help a tiny bit, but bush won't cross the devos family, they own his butt like so many others.
i read just about the entire torrent of conservative and neocon writing nearly everyday, and the national review and etc. are only in favor of some selective domestic spending restraint, hardly a principled position.
good news though, by 2009 our troops in iraq may have the right kind of armor. bush is an incompetent and a liar.
posted by: save_the_rustbelt | oct 28, 2007 10:49:18 am
gil,
regardless of what winston was in fact, i do know that he championed free trade when he was virtually a stands alone in your parliment.
and, the actual quote is: "if at twenty you aren't a liberal, then you have no heart; but, if at forty you aren't a conservative, you have no brain."
so, call him what you will, the quote fits muirduck and yourself exactly as i stated above, though i will admit you haven't come across as a 14 year old girl yet, only a twenty year old liberal dolt. stick with it, you may develop a brain by forty....or maybe not....noam chomsky, ted kennedy, pelosi, reid, billary, et al. haven't yet.
posted by: vidyohs | oct 28, 2007 11:38:28 am
"i mean localized falling, i.e. quarter-over-quarter basis. the ratio at the end of 1q07 was about 65.3%; at the end of 2q07, it was about 64.4%."
there's a reason why people don't take local finite differenced derivatives of noisy data: because the error terms blow up. as you bring your data points closer together you end up dividing a finite error by zero. it's also not good, when there is a periodic (e.g. seasonal) quality to smooth data, to try and take a finite difference over a fraction of a single period and extrapolate from that the long-term trend.
it's possible that the decline over 3 months from q1 to q2 2007 was a new trend, but i wouldn't bet on it. it would contradict the trend from q2 2006 to q2 2007, as well as the trends for 2005-2006, etc. going back several years. you can see the long-term trend here:
http://zfacts.com/metapage/lib/national-debt-gdp-l.gif
also: "you don't have to pay it back all at once" is how credit card companies lure people into massive debt at ridiculously high interest rates. just because you can still afford the minimum balance due doesn't mean you're in good financial shape.
posted by: roystgnr | oct 28, 2007 11:50:01 am
oops, must have been another churchill then . . .
but still, oh gee, well, that's charming, vidyohs, is it a blessing or a curse to be a libertarian? knowing the proper way of living and behaving yet watching the rest of the world do differently?
posted by: gil | oct 28, 2007 12:00:06 pm
i want to be very clear about this, because not only is this a massive misperception in the media, it is a widespread myth in the general public, too, as practiced by several posters on this thread.
our major economic problems will be caused by entitlement spending, not by things like infrastructure failure or the war in iraq.
the big 3 programs that will cause the most harm are social security, medicare, and medicaid. by 2040, it is estimated that these 3 programs alone will consume nearly 30% gdp. that’s putting us on the road to “robust” economic growth that tops out at 2% per year.
if you wish to start a discussion about the fiscal responsibility of this country, you need to examine these programs, and probably eliminate them. while it is certainly true that wars and military actions do add significant operating costs, military functions are constitutionally proscribed, while most entitlement programs are not.
muirgeo, your criticism of bush is especially disingenuous because you’re effectively denigrating him for doing something you wholeheartedly endorse, when it’s done by “your people.” you also willfully turn a blind eye to the root cause of this situation: actions of your very own party/political philosophy. that is the textbook definition of partisanship, and is neither useful analysis nor effective criticism. it also makes you look & sound incredibly stupid on an economics blog.
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 28, 2007 1:12:56 pm
but still, oh gee, well, that's charming, vidyohs, is it a blessing or a curse to be a libertarian?
posted by: gil
apparently its a blessing as he seems completely happy with himself and the bubble that contains him. libertarianism is even easier when you have government provided health care and a government pension all the rest of us have to pay........not that i don't think its worth it but just that the hypocrisy reeks from afar.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 28, 2007 1:38:55 pm
mesa, so wrong on so many fronts...where to start. first is a war constitutional if not declared by congress?
"our major economic problems will be caused by entitlement spending, not by things like infrastructure failure or the war in iraq.
the big 3 programs that will cause the most harm are social security, medicare, and medicaid."
mesa economy
the problem will be solved not by eliminating the existing programs. that will not happen. the problem currently is that the existing health care system is a hybrid mutant mixture of the worst aspects of poor public policy and capitalistic/corprotistic failures.
the good news is the democratic party is set to fix this problem. the future of are country and prosperity does indeed revolve around this issue. ( social security is just not an issue as it can be fixed with by simply dropping the rate to 3% or 4% and loosing the cap, among multiple other fixes).
our success or failure in the next 10 years will be determined by how successful we are at developing a health care system that minimizes public bureaucracy and maximizes free market aspects. i'd argue the biggest threat to our success comes not from bureaucrats and politicians but from the monied interest of the worthless for profit health care plans and their lobbyist.
the danger comes from the sway of ideologues on either side that might result in yet another hybrid monster. people like yourself, mesa, would do best to realize this change will happen and rather then preventing it come up with solutions that make it work.
the biggest danger to libertarians and conservative is that successful passage of a working program will be the nail in the coffin for the dead laizze faire ideology that says government can't work for the better of its people and society as a whole.
actually, that's what the whole schipp battle is all about. when people understand its success it will be the foot in the door to pass comprehensive universal coverage.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 28, 2007 3:17:11 pm
most of that is factually incorrect, and economically nonsensical. i don’t have time to dissect it – that would take weeks.
muirgeo, you have created the behemoth (with help from some republican friends), and now you can’t stop it, and you want to repeat this mistake with “universal” healthcare.
unbelievably stupid.
posted by: mesa econoguy | oct 28, 2007 4:13:18 pm
rustbelt: "the only way to bring spending under control is to end the disaster in iraq, and apparently conservatives have followed the neocons so far down the path that this will not happen anytime soon."
right. obviously the majority of the nation and their elected representatives believe we can exit iraq next year. that's why hillary clinton, john edwards, and barack obama can confidently assert they'll get us out of iraq by the end of 2009. oh, wait. they said maybe by 2013, didn't they?
congress has to approve whatever the president and the pentagon spend on iraq. last i read, it was not conservatives in control of congress anymore.
imo, it is not the $100 million we spend fighting in iraq that needs to be reduced. when my parent's generation fought a war overseas, everyone sacrificed back home. everyone supported the war effort. today, 60 years later, we just hear about how the needs of fighting men are causing federal spending to be out of control.
yeah, it's so damned simple to end a war. that's what alan alda tells us on m.a.s.h. reruns, so it must be true.
posted by: john dewey | oct 28, 2007 7:34:09 pm
muirgeo --
if you're referring to iraq, the congress authorized the use of force. the president does not, constitutionally, have the power to declare war. however, he is the commander in chief of the armed forces (art. ii, sec. 2), which confers certain powers upon him.
section 2(c) of the war powers act purports to define when the president may constitutionally use the armed forces without congressional authorization. but, a president may reasonably decide that section 2(c) is too limited an interpretation and exercise his powers as commander-in-chief outside of the war powers act. whether his doing so would be constitutional has not yet been resolved (to my recollection.)
posted by: chris | oct 28, 2007 9:14:42 pm
"working program will be the nail in the coffin for the dead laizze faire ideology that says government can't work for the better of its people and society as a whole."
if i remember right it is the government programs that are most adept at killing people. then again, maybe muirgeo is right, governments can sometimes move very efficiently. talk to any holocaust survivor and they will tell you how everything ran like clockwork--trains in, trains out, gas chambers filled, gas chambers out, ovens filled, ovens out.
for the love of god, this is the 21st century and we know better, should government exist?--yes, of course, since when the hell does libertarian = anarchist.
but should government undertake those things that are best left up to the private sector? well, people a hell of a lot smarter than me say no (smith, von mises, hayek, ect.) those people in government who worked for the betterment of "the people" in britain in the 60s and 70s succeeded in running a prosperous economy into the ground. they impoverished millions. those who work for "the people" in north korea have caused millions to starve, as did those who worked for "the people" in the ukraine (the holodor) and the old soviet union. governments working for the betterment of their people often cause more harm than good, and even the most casual of history students knows better. who received the most marshall funds? the united kingdom. who received the least? west germany (as in zero funds--well less than zero if you count the allied looting). who recovered and who did not? the uk stagnated, while west germany grew rich.
frankly, i'll give the state its amt. keep a third and leave me alone, but don't winge about things being underfunded. you have your third. the tyrant phillip ii only ever asked for a fifth.
posted by: the albatross | oct 29, 2007 1:36:06 am
muirgeo, most of the comments on this page are either from you, or from responders pointing out the serious errors in your analysis.
virtually nothing you write has anything to do with economics, correct or otherwise. you are destroying the comments section on this blog.
posted by: ben | oct 29, 2007 2:12:57 am
. . . for the love of god, this is the 21st century and we know better, should government exist?--yes, of course, since when the hell does libertarian = anarchist . . .
- the albatross
your comment reminds of the standard talk of many a 'minimalist' libertarian, the guvmint is a good-for-nothing entity, killed millions of people, yet for some reason has a few good points that some libbers still think it has a right to exist.
what again were those rights? the defense force? the police force? if guvmints have a notorious record for killin' the last things you'd want to give them is a monopoly of guns and ammo and tanks. why can't the myriad of guvmint 'minimal services' be privatized completely? why not private roads, private defense forces, gold and silver coinage, etc.? after all, aren't free-riders, monopolies, natural monopolies, market failures, etc., terms originating from ne'er-do-well, lefty, marxist, socialist types?
posted by: gil | oct 29, 2007 2:34:15 am
muirgeo said "the republicans can't say what they really want to do and get elected. they have to lie, mislead and use wedge issues. the democratic party at least are saying they wants to tax the rich and put forth a national health plan. that's really all i need to know about the two parties. when you have to lie about your intentions to get elected to the degree the republicans do it's obvious they have a bankrupt ideology."
maybe its the popular ideology of the voters that is bankrupt? wanting more and more handouts and punishing the most productive producers in the economy doesn't sound particularly, er, sound, to me.
posted by: saulohio | oct 29, 2007 6:51:59 am
maybe therefore many a libertarian would agree with the acient roman guy who said "you're not rich until you can raise an army".
posted by: gil | oct 29, 2007 9:18:59 am
while not trying to go on a tangent, i wanted to focus on a particular argument for fixing social security raised by muirgeo. namely, the idea of lifting the cap on social security contributions. i, maybe mistakenly, presume that the cap exists insofar as, in spirit, social security is not intended to be a wealth transfer but a forced savings, and is thus capped since pay-outs are capped. while there are redistributive effects certainly, the more pernicious effect i think is that people, having paid in to the system for so long, would like to get their respective just desserts. i'm not so sure that the same logical reasoning exists for medicare or most other spending, entitlement or otherwise, or at least not as literally.
posted by: aschkan | oct 29, 2007 10:10:19 am
"your comment reminds of the standard talk of many a 'minimalist' libertarian, the guvmint is a good-for-nothing entity, killed millions of people, yet for some reason has a few good points that some libbers still think it has a right to exist."
here is an amazing thought for you, gil.
there is no set format for a government, it is strange but if you look at history governments come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
so yes libertarians can resent the aspects of our current government here in the usa that are proven ruinous and desire those aspects that are beneficial.
tis true that having one does not mean or dictate having the other. intelligent people know and understand that; our only problem is that there are so many unintelligent people who subscribe to the socialist faith that any government is good and the more it steals from the productive and gives to the thumbsuckers "the gooder it are".
lol, we could continue to follow the example of socialist england where the people are so devoid of intellectual challenge you have to seek out an american blog for stimulation. hang around, son, maybe just maybe you'll develop a brain by the time you're forty.
posted by: vidyohs | oct 29, 2007 11:49:56 am
as the dollar has fallen, why have i not heard any stories about how the portion owed to foreigners (which is much lamented by lou dobbs et al) has fallen commesurately.
don't you think that a good story to post along side headlines like "oil reaches all time high," and "gold at highest price in 35 years," would be "national debt falls by $x trillion"?
posted by: steve | oct 29, 2007 12:36:25 pm
once again, muirgeo has provided my laugh-of-the-day.
muirgeo believes that i should be taxed to pay for his health care, but does not believe that he should be taxed to pay for roads since he takes the train, yet muirgeo is calling someone else a hypocrite! lmao!
posted by: brotio | oct 29, 2007 9:47:29 pm
what were you saying vidyohs? you mentioned something about governments = socialists = evil then trailed off about them dang socialist redistributing the wealth from those honest productive from the ne'er-do-well welfare bludgers. i actually asked why can't libertarians go the whole hog and ask why not privatize the functions of the government completely and leave it to market forces to fill up the gaps? you(s) keep complaining how taxes are theft, bureaucrats can't good decisions no matter how their hearts are in the right place, governments don't suffer losses after bad decisions, etc., so why not say governments can't be trusted and let the market correct everything? nope, instead a ho-hum ad hominem attack, "you're a socialist because you don't automatically agree with my version of society and therefore you arguments are bunk".
p.s. yep, muirgeo we're really must be masochists! 8'\
posted by: gil | oct 30, 2007 2:22:56 am
gil,
my pleasure here is indeed far more sadistic then masochistic. although it's not why i participate here but the tortured responses from vidhoys, brotio and ben do bring me a sick pleasure.
posted by: muirgeo | oct 30, 2007 3:02:22 am
post a comment
name:
email address:
url:
remember personal info?
comments:
blogbar
recent posts
legalize organ sales
why we trade
swarm
unhappy development
market tyranny?
a curious inconsistency
did capitalism cause the great depression?
friedman on "greed," markets, and politics
keeping straight the facts about trade
bhagwati on trade
archives
november 2007
october 2007
september 2007
august 2007
july 2007
june 2007
may 2007
april 2007
march 2007
february 2007
books we like
david weinberger: everything is miscellaneous: the power of the new digital disorder
bryan caplan: the myth of the rational voter: why democracies choose bad policies
nassim nicholas taleb: the black swan: the impact of the highly improbable
j.c. bradbury: the baseball economist: the real game exposed
f.a. hayek: the fatal conceit
nassim taleb: fooled by randomness
ben schott: schott's almanac 2007
our books
russell roberts: the choice: a fable of free trade and protection (3rd edition)
russell roberts: the invisible heart: an economic romance
Acceuil
suivante
cafe hayek: just fix it Fix for securityd hogging RAM when reauthorizing apps' Keychain ... VCOM: V Communications. Security, Web, OS Management, Partitioning ... What To Fix Gallery 2.2.3 Security Fix Release Gallery The Simple Dollar 31 Days To Fix Your Finances: A Wrapup Dura Fix Aluminum Welding Aluminum Brazing Aluminum Soldering ... Fixit Guide Series - DIY Mac & iPod Repair Pierre Fix-Masseau affiches sur AllPosters.fr Nail Fungus Onychomycosis - Fix My Fungus Oral Fixation Mints / Get Your Fix Fix for COM Surrogate Has Stopped Working Error in Vista :: the ... adaptive path 8 quick ways to fix your search engine Solar shield could be quick fix for global warming - earth - 05 ... Free Registry Fix 3.9 for Windows Video Coldplay - Fix You - coldplay, fix, you, clip ... FIX: Update to enable DirectX Video Acceleration (DXVA) of Windows ... You receive an access violation error and the system may appear to ... GRC CIH Virus Recovery How to Fix CGI - majordojo serious fix 4.1 Why Blog Post Frequency Does Not Matter Anymore Marketing Profs ... FOSSwire Fix a Frozen System with the Magic SysRq Keys Windows Vista Team Blog : Partners helping fix Vista Software ... Objet Publicitaire : Magnet Magic fix - ALB01.com Indonesia's three divas fix the nation's finances International ... Rob Galbraith DPI: EOS-1D Mark III sub-mirror fix announced in USA ... KompoZer - Easy web authoring Mr. Fix It (2006) XML.com: Using XSLT to Fix Swing [Profil de fix] OverBlog - Le blog des blogs DriverAgent.com Fix Your Driver Problems Instantly with Driver Agent Federal 'fix' knocks ca.gov for a loop NetworkWorld.com Community macosxhints.com - Twenty steps to help diagnose and fix system issues ca-fix program description. Fix your Expos keys - WOW Insider IndieHIG Blog Archive Fix the Leopard Folders (FTLF or FTFLF) Blogger Buzz: A Layout Solution MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix Powder Plus Foundation The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles The Daily Fix - WSJ.com The Art of Colin Fix Berkshire Computer Repairs And Servicing - 1-Fix Computer Services OpenBSD 3.4 errata Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon EOS-1D Mark III autofocus fix may be two ... The Hotfix - Vista SP1, XP SP3, IE8, Home Server, and more! - Home Tricia Fix Originals. Florida born fashion designer Opinion Fix public education Seattle Times Newspaper Can Architects Fix Constructions Busted Budgets? News ... Macrovision: Updating the Macrovision SECDRV.SYS Driver Apple Releases Fix For iMacs That Freeze Up -- Apple ... PINBALL: Pinball Repair Guides. Collector buys pinball, arcade ... How to Fix a Scratched CD - wikiHow Fix290 Simple "ntldr is missing" fix with boot floppy, CD-R, or USB flash [Profil de Fix] OverBlog - Le blog des blogs We Can Fix That with Data A race to fix a 30-year-old 'solution' csmonitor.com Eye Fix Photos: Photo Restoration and Retouching FIX dfinition FIX The new urgency to fix online privacy Perspectives CNET News.com