Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by Jccarlton »

Two words. We're screwed:
https://theartsmechanical.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/the-economic-dysfunction-in-one-video/
I don't know how anybody can say that this anything other than the punt guns blasting the country.

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by choff »

The speaker doesn't understand, the government wants the economy to fail.
CHoff

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by hanelyp »

If the economy fails, who pays for all the goodies being given away?
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

paperburn1
Posts: 2485
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by paperburn1 »

'guaranteed basic income'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magaz ... .html?_r=0

Lets you totally control an economy and its people. This will most likely be the solution to the 4th industrial revolution something that was expounded upon in C.P.grey's video humans need not apply. Add to this and a sudo soporific freely available to the general public( marijuana, heroin or G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate,) and bing, bang, bong, you control the population... to what end I do not know but I personally suspect this new book I found called "To serve Humans" has the answer.

http://io9.com/how-universal-basic-inco ... 1653303459

Another interesting fact about the United States is that a surprisingly large portion of working age adults are not working, primarily because there are too few jobs to go around. This may not be obvious, because the declared unemployment rate in the United States seems low, at consistently less than 10% over a long period of time. The problem is that the official unemployment rate hides the huge number of working-age Americans who are no longer considered a part of the workforce. Currently, only 63% of working-age adults are actually working.
Last edited by paperburn1 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by williatw »

hanelyp wrote:If the economy fails, who pays for all the goodies being given away?
Do these "goodies" you speak of "being given away" include our ever increasing defense budget to honor our eternal if not expanding security obligations that never go away and in fact grow? Let see..we are responsible for our own countries' security as well as: NATO (western Europe /most of Eastern Europe, Turkey etc.), Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Philippines; some think as well: Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, working on including the Ukraine and probably others I forgot to mention. But those are our necessary obligations to preserve world order/peace…say our Conservative friends; their collective cost a mere pittance compared to say Welfare/Food stamps/Medicaid. Though curiously enough SS and Medicare’s cost rarely get emphasized. And of course the other argument they would say compared to the cost if we didn’t do the above, i.e. WWIII; a mere pittance, a bargain in fact. One would think if one actually believed that we would be arm twisting those countries into paying us a stipend for the privilege of our protection rather than us paying them to “allow” us to keep troops etc. there.

paperburn1
Posts: 2485
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by paperburn1 »

This was one solution sent to me
Look. I believe in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Go figure. So, to answer your question on what social programs to cut, cut 'em all.
I do not believe in government picking winners and losers. I do not believe in selective re-distributive policies. I do not believe in Government managing social programs because government is wasteful. I believe in a free market economy, not in social engineering. Government trying to balance our lives by confiscating our money and giving it back to us, if government decides we deserve it, will eventually be the downfall of this country. One, government is giving out more than it is taking. Two, government is playing games trying to figure out how best to re-distribute it to make us do what it wants. Three, government is bloated by the burden of re-distribution. It is wasteful. It is over budget. It will never change. Politics is about who wins and loses, not about what national politics should be about - our national issues - defense, trade, interstate commerce, etc.. The enumerated powers.
So, kill em all. All current social programs, dead. The Constitution says that it is not a federal power anyway.
Cut 'em all. Department of Education - gone. Welfare - gone. Social Security - gone. Medicaid - gone. Housing programs - gone. All of it - gone.
Get the Federal Government back to dealing with Federal issues.
Step Two
End all current income taxes. Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax. All gone.
Don't freak. There is more later. But...
If the Federal Government does only what the Federal Government should do - national stuff - enumerated powers stuff - then the Federal Government can function completely on Corporate Taxes and Trade related taxes alone. Take a look at the numbers. You might be surprised.
Step Three
I don't consider Steps One and Two radical. They are Constitutional. This last one is RADICAL! Here it goes.
New system of social equity.
I am not blind to social issues, but the current systems are not working. They are based on the idea that someone/somewhere can decide what is right and what is wrong for how to take money from one person and give it to another. Politicians are directing where money goes and are doing it to get voting blocks of getters vs givers to vote for them. Politics is a game of figuring out how best to advertise that you are going to re-distribute to get the most votes, capturing the people who feel they will receive while not totally pissing off the people who will give (if they have enough numbers). The best way to do this for a politician is to take too little and give too much. It doesn't work. We need to end this game.
But, is it the re-distribution that is wrong, or the idea that we can decide who to re-distribute to that is wrong. I believe it is the latter. Re-distribution is not necessarily wrong. Especially if you consider the following.
I also believe that a nation succeeds because people at all levels of society contribute. Each person's earnings are decided by their own hard work but also by the contribution of the rest of the nation to their overall prosperity. Rich people have earned the right to their income, but some of that income comes because the nation is strong. It is hard to become successful in a country that is not strong. Everyone helped with your success. So, what you earn is mostly yours, yes, but some of it is everyone else's because of their contribution to giving you the platform for success.
So, if this is true, which I believe it is, then we should have some social program to make sure that nobody is left behind because everybody contributes to success. But, there needs to be some rules for this program.
1) Applies equally to everybody. No winners and losers based on subjective stuff.
2) Minimal government involvement. No politicians or government employees making decisions.
3) Must be simple.
4) Can't go over budget. Can't go under budget. No surplus for government to rape. No shortfall for added dept.
So, here it is, the Social Contract.
A) Enact a new Income Tax. Income is taxed at 30% of gross earnings. No deductions.
B) Income Tax is segregated money, not available for the rest of government.
C) Income from the tax is paid back to every Citizen of the United States eighteen or older in an equal amount (on a credit card).
D) Must be ratified via an Amendment to the Constitution, both enabling this tax and protecting this tax against government theft for other purposes.
This is the way this works. Say the equal amount is 25K.
* If you make 10K a year (poor) then you suddenly make 32K a year, not so very poor.
* If you make 100K a year (middle class) then you make 95K a year, better than you do now with current tax rates.
* If you make a million, you only make 775K, probably an increase in taxes.
* If you are turning college age, suddenly you have 25K of income to go to school on.
* If you are unemployed, you have a minimal standard of living.
* If you are retired, you have a suplimental income.
* etc.
You have to get your own insurance, save for your own retirement (above the min), etc, but no one is 'poor'. Government doesn't do this stuff any more. You have to. But, you have a minimum standard of living, equally distributed based on the social contract with everyone else.
Benefits
* No political dickering. It is what it is.
* Everyone has a minimum standard of living.
* States rights returned. Enumerated powers observed.
* Return to capitalism, if only on a percentage of the money.
* College supported for all.
* Immigration issues helped. Pay in but don't receive benefit.
* Work encouraged, even part time, because every dollar improves your situation without losing benefits.
* Equitably administered with very little administration costs.
* Equally taxed as percentage of income. Equally distributed. No picking of winners and losers.
* National politics can return to national issues.
* During down times, equity of re-distribution is automatically balanced.
Problems
* Everyone would hate the idea! Conservatives because they won't be able to admit it is just a simplification of what is already being done, with associated benefits. Liberals because they will hate not having a say in who should get the money.
* Potential for complete non-contributors increased? I don't think so. We have plenty of these already. Plus, the idea that you don't lose benefits by actually trying to get extra income, even part time, is probably going to decrease the non-contributors.
FINALLY
Obviously, we are in a hole right now. Obviously we have current programs that have current dependents to them. Obviously, we can't just snap our fingers and change to this. We would need to transition. How to transition is the biggest problem.
Because of the problem with transition and because of the negative reaction that the radical plan above would get from EVERYONE, this will never happen.
But, you did ask what I would do. That is it.
regards
EDIT - FYI, the number 25K is probably high. I think the real number is something like 20K if I remember when I went through this before. Also, a poor family with two parents does better than a poor single family. So there is an implied benefit to families as well.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by palladin9479 »

Hmm national defense is the only sticky one there. Currently we're stuck in a situation where we pick the least expensive of two expensive options. First option is to go back to a very small trained standing military with associated smaller capabilities and then have spend a sh!t ton of money to ramp it up when (not if) there is another world wide military situation. The second is to spend a sh!t ton of money to maintain a large, well equipped force that is so capable that nobody wants to create another world wide military situation. The first situation has lower up front costs but also has a lot of hidden costs of ramp up and capability lag. The second has a large maintenance cost, no ramp up or capability lag but also has the side effect of a large force standing around that people think is "unneeded" and thus your always having to find things to keep them busy or risk reverting back to the first situation.

As for total costs, the later is definitely preferable for the long term, WWI and WWII taught us that lesson, as long as the powers that be can be kept away from using this military force in trivial engagements.

So might have to add on a small nation wide "military" tax.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by hanelyp »

paperburn1, you lost me at the corporate tax point. Corporations don't pay taxes, they add the expense to the cost of whatever they sell. The old way of the federal government assessing a bill to the states based on census enumeration worked. (other than not supporting enough wealth transfer for the likes of big government supporters, which in my mind was a feature.)

As for tax rates, 30% total marginal tax rate, adding across all forms of tax at all levels of government, is what I estimate as the futility rate beyond which a higher rate so suppresses the economy as to give less net revenue. Account for the demand on government services and a lesser tax rate is favored. Any deductions or exemptions which we do allow on any tax should not be means tested or based on narrowly defined qualifications. An exemption on the first $X earned would avoid a lot of issues with part time workers needing to file taxes.

One problem with a guaranteed minimum income is the hammock effect, even if the supporting tax structure isn't punitive. A cap on income transfered, defined by the authorizing constitutional amendment, would limit that effect, but not grumbles demanding more. The support not being means tested lessens the effect, but does not eliminate it. Another complication is differing cost of living in different places.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by williatw »

palladin9479 wrote:Hmm national defense is the only sticky one there. Currently we're stuck in a situation where we pick the least expensive of two expensive options. First option is to go back to a very small trained standing military with associated smaller capabilities and then have spend a sh!t ton of money to ramp it up when (not if) there is another world wide military situation. The second is to spend a sh!t ton of money to maintain a large, well equipped force that is so capable that nobody wants to create another world wide military situation. The first situation has lower up front costs but also has a lot of hidden costs of ramp up and capability lag. The second has a large maintenance cost, no ramp up or capability lag but also has the side effect of a large force standing around that people think is "unneeded" and thus your always having to find things to keep them busy or risk reverting back to the first situation.

As for total costs, the later is definitely preferable for the long term, WWI and WWII taught us that lesson, as long as the powers that be can be kept away from using this military force in trivial engagements.

So might have to add on a small nation wide "military" tax.
Don't see how greater US involvement in WWI would have prevented it; we were hardly in a position to stop the German wanna-be empire from ultimately bumping heads against the established superpower of the time Great Britain and it's empire. We would have done better to stay out of it; a more negotiated instead of a one-sided settlement (thanks to our jumping in on the Allies side), no Treaty of Versaille blaming Germany for causing the war; economically ruinous war reparations setting the stage for the Nazi rise a few years later. And our being in the League of Nations wouldn't have stopped WWII either; the league was simply not equipped to be able to deal with a determined aggressor; our lending our voice wouldn't have mattered much.

I would vote for option no. 3: make them pay/provide their on defense:


Arab Nations to Form Military Force to Counter Iran and Islamist Extremists


CAIRO — The Arab states said on Sunday that they had agreed to form a combined military force to counter both Iranian influence and Islamist extremism, a gesture many analysts attributed in large part to their drive for more independence from Washington.

The agreement came as American and other Western diplomats in Lausanne, Switzerland, were racing to beat a self-imposed deadline of Tuesday to reach a deal with Iran that would restrict its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions. In response, Saudi Arabia and other American allies in the region have made clear that they are seeking to bolster independent regional security measures because they see the proposed accord as a betrayal of Washington’s commitment to their security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/world ... paper&_r=0


And if the Arabs can (maybe) do it than Europe definitely can...for how many more decades are we going to be Uncle Sugar/Sucker enough to keep providing the lion's share of Europe defense against Russia? WWII ended 70 yrs ago this year more than enough time for them to rebuild/rearm; don't see why we need to even be in NATO any longer, let alone be its most contributing member.
Last edited by williatw on Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

paperburn1
Posts: 2485
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by paperburn1 »

Interesting thoughts...hmmm
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by palladin9479 »

Don't see how greater US involvement in WWI would have prevented it; we were hardly in a position to stop the German wanna-be empire from ultimately bumping heads against the established superpower of the time Great Britain and it's empire. We would have done better to stay out of it; a more negotiated instead of a one-sided settlement (thanks to our jumping in on the Allies side), no Treaty of Versaille blaming Germany for causing the war; economically ruinous war reparations setting the stage for the Nazi rise a few years later. And our being in the League of Nations wouldn't have stopped WWII either; the league was simply not equipped to be able to deal with a determined aggressor; our lending our voice wouldn't have mattered much.
Your thinking too narrowly. Also realize that I have zero emotional attachment to any of this, I do not allow my subconscious to manipulate me via emotions nor do I allow others to insert emotions into me for their own proposes. This makes me a very uncomfortable person to talk with because most of human communication is emotional and trying to form a sort of covert group contract, I just bluntly state what is objectively true and false and shatter that covert contract.

Wars are typically precipitated by events happening ten to twenty years prior, sometimes more. A large modernized, well trained and equipped US Military force existing in 1900 would of definitely prevented WWI from every happening, same with WWII. Nations don't initiate a war unless they believe stand a very good chance of coming out in a favorable position, this is the purpose of war. By creating such a large deterrent you ensure that no entity large enough to cause world wide harm would actually believe it could come out ahead and thus nobody starts any large wars. Small wars are mostly caused by information asymmetry, the local leaders believe they can come out ahead because the bigger guys either don't care or are too unwilling to intervene, they were under the wrong assumption and a war is started.

In the larger picture, maintaining a large standing military is more cost effective then isolationism.

That being said, I'm of the opinion that the USA shouldn't be a "police man" and instead should only be allying itself with those it feels offer some sort of economic benefit. I believe that we should dissolve NATO, shred all free trade agreements and walk away from the useless entity that is the UN. We then proceed to form our own alliance who's membership is based on those willing to provide some sort of economic or defense benefit to us and who we can remove instantly should they cease providing such. When the sh!t storm starts in Europe, as Russia or some other country decides it wants to form another empire, we let it happen and watch those who previously taunted and ridiculed us burn. Then we go about shaping the world as we see fit, if anyone has a problem with it they can go fend for themselves. If anyone imposes non-tariff trade barriers against goods produced by the USA, hit all their products with a disproportionally large import tax. After the economic shock wears off the USA would definitely be in a far better position.

JoeP
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by JoeP »

paperburn1 wrote:This was one solution sent to me <snipped plan for brevity>
Problems
* Everyone would hate the idea! Conservatives because they won't be able to admit it is just a simplification of what is already being done, with associated benefits. Liberals because they will hate not having a say in who should get the money.
* Potential for complete non-contributors increased? I don't think so. We have plenty of these already. Plus, the idea that you don't lose benefits by actually trying to get extra income, even part time, is probably going to decrease the non-contributors.
FINALLY
Obviously, we are in a hole right now. Obviously we have current programs that have current dependents to them. Obviously, we can't just snap our fingers and change to this. We would need to transition. How to transition is the biggest problem.
Because of the problem with transition and because of the negative reaction that the radical plan above would get from EVERYONE, this will never happen.
But, you did ask what I would do. That is it.
regards
EDIT - FYI, the number 25K is probably high. I think the real number is something like 20K if I remember when I went through this before. Also, a poor family with two parents does better than a poor single family. So there is an implied benefit to families as well.
Hey, this plan has potential. I do think that the "non-contributor" percentage levels are something that would actually be what would destroy these ideas if implemented, however. It is what is destroying the current system.

So, America used to work pretty well until the late 20th century. That it did so was a combination of a culture that valued and expected productive work from able citizens as well as a better adherence to capitalism and a lot of other factors. Can't go back though.

Human nature will prevent a perfect solution, but I agree that all the trends to a top-down managed economy is only going to make things worse for the foreseeable future.

JoeP
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by JoeP »

palladin9479 wrote:That being said, I'm of the opinion that the USA shouldn't be a "police man" and instead should only be allying itself with those it feels offer some sort of economic benefit. I believe that we should dissolve NATO, shred all free trade agreements and walk away from the useless entity that is the UN. We then proceed to form our own alliance who's membership is based on those willing to provide some sort of economic or defense benefit to us and who we can remove instantly should they cease providing such. When the sh!t storm starts in Europe, as Russia or some other country decides it wants to form another empire, we let it happen and watch those who previously taunted and ridiculed us burn. Then we go about shaping the world as we see fit, if anyone has a problem with it they can go fend for themselves. If anyone imposes non-tariff trade barriers against goods produced by the USA, hit all their products with a disproportionally large import tax. After the economic shock wears off the USA would definitely be in a far better position.
I've often had similar opinions of late. Sort of a step-back and be pragmatic approach. Besides, we can't really afford the status quo anyway.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by williatw »

palladin9479 wrote:That being said, I'm of the opinion that the USA shouldn't be a "police man" and instead should only be allying itself with those it feels offer some sort of economic benefit. I believe that we should dissolve NATO, shred all free trade agreements and walk away from the useless entity that is the UN. We then proceed to form our own alliance who's membership is based on those willing to provide some sort of economic or defense benefit to us and who we can remove instantly should they cease providing such. When the sh!t storm starts in Europe, as Russia or some other country decides it wants to form another empire, we let it happen and watch those who previously taunted and ridiculed us burn. Then we go about shaping the world as we see fit, if anyone has a problem with it they can go fend for themselves. If anyone imposes non-tariff trade barriers against goods produced by the USA, hit all their products with a disproportionally large import tax. After the economic shock wears off the USA would definitely be in a far better position.
Would also agree with a large portion of this. Many of our so-called European allies don't hesitate to publically ridicule us or oppose our policies (France) when it suits them to do so; confident that if push comes to shove we are NATO treaty bound to give them blanket support. "Allies" should be those whose interest generally align with ours and who should bring something (economic/military/strategic/etc) to the table; those that don't will only get our aid if it suits us to provide it. They (our allies) frequently treat us that way whether we choose to notice it publically or not. Any treaty we negotiated with Iraq for instance should have been one where they are paying us through the nose for our protection on terms that suit us; likewise to our having to go back in there (or elsewhere), you want our help do it on our terms. If they don't like that they can "negotiate" with their future ISIS masters, and good luck to them on that. If we are truly the only thing standing between the next WWIII then we should make our continued intervention/presence economically & politically sustainable; simply put making them pay for it does this far better than anything else I can think of would.

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: Economic Dysfunction In One Video

Post by palladin9479 »

williatw wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:That being said, I'm of the opinion that the USA shouldn't be a "police man" and instead should only be allying itself with those it feels offer some sort of economic benefit. I believe that we should dissolve NATO, shred all free trade agreements and walk away from the useless entity that is the UN. We then proceed to form our own alliance who's membership is based on those willing to provide some sort of economic or defense benefit to us and who we can remove instantly should they cease providing such. When the sh!t storm starts in Europe, as Russia or some other country decides it wants to form another empire, we let it happen and watch those who previously taunted and ridiculed us burn. Then we go about shaping the world as we see fit, if anyone has a problem with it they can go fend for themselves. If anyone imposes non-tariff trade barriers against goods produced by the USA, hit all their products with a disproportionally large import tax. After the economic shock wears off the USA would definitely be in a far better position.
Would also agree with a large portion of this. Many of our so-called European allies don't hesitate to publically ridicule us or oppose our policies (France) when it suits them to do so; confident that if push comes to shove we are NATO treaty bound to give them blanket support. "Allies" should be those whose interest generally align with ours and who should bring something (economic/military/strategic/etc) to the table; those that don't will only get our aid if it suits us to provide it. They (our allies) frequently treat us that way whether we choose to notice it publically or not. Any treaty we negotiated with Iraq for instance should have been one where they are paying us through the nose for our protection on terms that suit us; likewise to our having to go back in there (or elsewhere), you want our help do it on our terms. If they don't like that they can "negotiate" with their future ISIS masters, and good luck to them on that. If we are truly the only thing standing between the next WWIII then we should make our continued intervention/presence economically & politically sustainable; simply put making them pay for it does this far better than anything else I can think of would.
NATO was primarily established as a counter to the USSR with the aim of preventing them from absorbing and of those countries since it would entail nuclear war with the west. That time has long passed and though there will always be miniature napoleons being made the threat of a large scale world wide nuclear war based on ideology is over with. Hell I'm of the opinion that China and Russia should be the first ones we talk with about mutual economic advantages, they are some of the few countries that could actually offer something to the USA vs places like France, Spain, Italy or one of the many shitty African countries.

Post Reply