Good show, John D. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I only have time for a brief reply, 'cause it really took time to read the whole post. Sorry.
1. Glad to see you pulling Keynes out against me. Either you've conceding the value of his P,H, and D, or you're using the oldest lawyer tactic in the world: using one's own sources against them.
But, be careful of how much of Keynes theories on the gold standard you use to apply to Keynes's theories on governmental budgeting - like ozone and climate change they are related, but very distinct, topics. For one, I'd point out, as Keynes would, that *gold* in and of itself was only valuable because of this *percieved value*. All value is percieved. If you don't think that Starbucks coffee is worth
more than the $3.00 price tag, you won't buy it. If you buy it, you have admitted the coffee was worth more to you than the $3, else you would not have traded.
Same is true with gold. Or US currency, Dutch Tulips, and yes green cheese (which comes from the moon, right?)
2. Well, good attack at the Dems. Historical memory stuff: I don't remember it the exact same way. But, to be honest I can only go so far protecting a party I'm not a member of and don't always support, so I'll give up on that one.
3. By concentrating heavily on the government vs. private sector control of the economy, and even breaking it down to billions controlled by each, you have bought into the notion that all that separates us from the "socialist" (I prefer "socialistic capitalist," which is more accurate) nations of Europe is the degree to which the government and private sector mix their monies.
4. The private sector might provide roads, as you stated. But, can you imagine paying at every piece of property where the owner decided to erect a booth? You could hit 10 toll booths by the time you went 2 miles, each owner refusing to let you cross his or her land without paying.
As for police and military services, the only comparrison for what our world would look like if these were privatized is Cyberpunk, where each city is broken into the sectors not by buroughs, but by which corporation owns and protects there. In effect privatization of these services would give rise to a new type of feudalism, taking us back centuries in social development.
Do you really advocate absolute privatization like this??? Is nothing an externality??? If you say there are
no externalities, BTW, you have gone against every economist I've ever read, including Smith.
[edit] I know you chastized me for equating "no" taxes and "no increase in" taxes, and I'm not doing that here. But, you did make an argument that roads and military can be privatized, and I'm simply saying they can't. [end edit]
I'd love to keep debating, but 2 things pull me away at present: (1) time, that old gypsy man, beckons, and (2) we agree on more than we disagree on, and finding the points to nitpick over is exhausting. We certainly agree on no increase in taxes (at present).
Oh, and the baseball announcer bit was excellent. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] I had Meatloaf's "Paradise by the dashboard light" in mind when reading it for some odd reason.
[ 02-05-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]