It's the State of the Union address tonight.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: 1st It is my money I make it not the Cop, He makes His own money for the job he does it's called a paycheck.

Okay, I'm pulling this from your earlier post to pick on it, but I'll note that all the stuff I'm not quoting was pretty on-point.

But, here's a basic flaw in your statement above: if YOU don't pay taxes, the cop doesn't GET a paycheck. The government has decided that it is in YOUR interest to have police protect you from harm, and seizes some of your money to do that.

If the government did not do that, we would be left only to the protection we could afford ourselves. Or, we'd all be paying private security companies "protection money" for their "services." So, do you suggest we live that way? These "goods" that are socially beneficial are called "externalities" of the market - the free market doesn't tend to produce them on its own.[/QUOTE]TL,
Nowhere have I or any of the other proponents of tax cuts said we should not pay any taxes at all so that the government can't provide certain services. In fact in an answer to one of skywalker's posts I allready covered that missconception.(Edit: it was a similar misconception, page 1) It is not a flaw in my statement, sorry but it is a flaw in you understanding of my statement "Paying taxes" and "It's my money" are not "mutualy exclusive". The government did not decide it was in my interest to take my money to provide for services. I and citizens like me decided that when we elected our represenatives, who then passed the tax laws and then we voted back in during the next election. Or in easy to understand terms we didn't vote them out and vote in new representatives that would have reversed the earlier laws. Which is the whole problem in a nutshell. The Dems won the elections for years and got the laws they could passed, Now the Reps have won and are trying to change the earlier Dem passed laws. That is why the liberal Dems are crying so loud now, well to them I say tough this is the USA and it's winner take all, in two years they'll get the chance again to scrap and see if they win. Until then "too bad so sad", "there can be only one", "if you ain't the lead dog the view doesn't change".

The free market will produce anything on it's own that somebody sees they can make money doing. UA went under because they forgot the basic rule of business you have to bring more money in then you let go out. Period no excuses, your employees hopes dreams and lives depend on your business doing that.

For all the liberals,
Now that all that is over with I'm still waiting on answer to my questions earlier in the thread about why are the Liberal Dems all of a sudden are calling for their own TAX CUTS (although they won't use those words)after years of telling us that the TAX INCREASE of 1993 was the great savior of the economy? Why would tax increases NOT work now after all Bill Clinton inhierited the worst economy in "fifty years" so say the Liberal DEMS. And fixxed it with tax increases. Can anybody say "It's the economy stupid" remember that line of HAPPY horse manure. I sure as "farts" ignite can and I'm just a simple high school "grandulated" country boy.

Come on people bring your best hitter out. "Hale" I'm getting tried of pitching "strikes". I got a great outfield with MagiK, Khazman, Attalus( sorry guys I'm to lazy to double check the spelling ), and a promising up and coming shortstop in Iron Ranger. Come on somebody give my guys a workout.

[ 01-31-2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The systems are without a doubt quite similar. I don't care whether you call the USA "capitalism" and Norway [edit]"socialist"[edit] the only real difference is in the *amount* by which the government mixes its money with the private sector. Call the economic system what you will, but there's no real difference.

Just wanted to say that this was a really great observation you made here TL and i agree with it greatly.

And to add.. John D and Timber.. keep it up.. i am enjoying reading both of your posts extremely! [img]smile.gif[/img] Kudos to the both of you!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: The free market will produce anything on it's own that somebody sees they can make money doing. UA went under because they forgot the basic rule of business you have to bring more money in then you let go out. Period no excuses, your employees hopes dreams and lives depend on your business doing that. For all the liberals, Now that all that is over with I'm still waiting on answer to my questions earlier in the thread about why are the Liberal Dems all of a sudden are calling for their own TAX CUTS (although they won't use those words)after years of telling us that the TAX INCREASE of 1993 was the great savior of the economy? Why would tax increases NOT work now after all Bill Clinton inhierited the worst economy in "fifty years" so say the Liberal DEMS. And fixxed it with tax increases. Can anybody say "It's the economy stupid" remember that line of HAPPY horse manure. Come on people bring your best hitter out. "Hale" I'm getting tried of pitching "strikes". I got a great outfield with MagiK, Khazman, Attalus( sorry guys I'm to lazy to double check the spelling ), and a promising up and coming shortstop in Iron Ranger. Come on somebody give my guys a workout.

Well, Who's on First?

Look, since no dems took up for the damdems ( ) I will. It goes back to the Keynes lesson above. If you didn't perk up then, go read it again.

In time of prosperity, taxes should increase. The government takes in money to make up for money it released into the stream of commerce during times of economic downturn. That was 1993, when a tax increase was totally appropriate. And, much of the money was spent paying off the national deficet, as it should have been, lest we would not have run the country "in the black" for a few years.

Nowadays, when there is economic downturn, it is the time to relax taxes and spend government money - in effort to kick-start the economy. Keynes set it all out, you see. It was perfectly appropriate to spend in '93, perfectly appropriate to cut taxes now. The Dems were dead on. Which is better than the "we only know one song and dance" party can say.

Oh, and to retort to your earlier post, the letters P,h, and D cost a bunch because being edumicated is well worth it. I think Keynes points that out rather implicitly, as a little Harvard bookworm who got the chance to change the economy of a nation and, by the way, had the balls to stand up in COngress and tell them all off before storming out.

Final point. You are right: the free market *will* produce every good that it is profitable to produce. Which is why the military and roads would not exist - they ARE NOT PROFITABLE. The "free rider" syndrome destroys them. People who let the rest of us pay for the tanks are the problem. Which is why some entity needs to collect the money and spend it for the society. See?

If you can't agree on the basic notion of an externality, I don't think our discussion can continue. I need you on step 1 before I can help you to step two.

Sorry, that last remark was just to let you know I've been hitting them outta the park despite what you think.

[ 02-03-2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Just because I'm not sure I beat this horse to death yet, here's something I pulled from the GreedyAssociates boards for lawyers:

"I think Bush has lost a lot of credibility in the fight for fiscal responsibility, and has (incredibly) made Clinton look good by comparison." Agreed. Bragging that you've held domestic discretionary spending to a 4 percent increase is less impressive when it's pointed out that the increases during the Clinton years were even lower. The logic of using tax decreases in part to "starve" government and force it to make the tough choices falters when a Republican administration and congress are each unwilling to complete the equation.

[John D Harris]

Sonny: "It's a great day at the Ballpark Ladies and Gentlemen"
Butch: "You sure can say That again, Sonny"
Sonny: "It's a great day at the Ballpark Ladies and Gentlemen... The sun is shining and there is a slight wind blowing out towards left field."
"It seems the Conserves have their work cut out for them today."
Butch "You can sure say that again Sonny... ah never mind. Well Sonny the Libs have been making inroads of late playing on the short memories of the fans."
Sonny:"Right Butch, but the Conserves have John D. on the mound today and He excels with his 'Memory Knuckle-Ball' pitch. Butch have you ever seen a pitch at can move as much as the Ole Knuckle-Ball and still make it over the plate and in the strike zone?"
Butch: "I afraid not Sonny. His 'Memory Knuckle-Ball' has the ability to take the past show it to you then wizz-it right past you. While you're 'Left' swinging."
Sonny:"Well the Libs have had to call in a ringer, T.L., and we all know his hitting ability, a tactician, very well disaplined player."
Butch:"You can say that again Sonny. John D. will have his work cut out for him this afternoon".
Sonny: "All right folks it seems John D. has gotten his warm-up picthes out of the way, and T.L. is aproaching the batters box. Hey, Butch is T.L. useing his Edumacation bat?"
Butch: "He sure seems to be Sonny"
Sonny: "T.L. takes his pratice swings, Whoa look at that swing. If he makes contact in the game with that swing It's outta here"
Butch: "John D. takes his wind-up and hereeeee's the Pitch"

Originally posted by John D Harris:

For all the liberals,
Now that all that is over with I'm still waiting on answer to my questions earlier in the thread about why are the Liberal Dems all of a sudden are calling for their own TAX CUTS (although they won't use those words)after years of telling us that the TAX INCREASE of 1993 was the great savior of the economy? Why would tax increases NOT work now after all Bill Clinton inhierited the worst economy in "fifty years" so say the Liberal DEMS. And fixxed it with tax increases[/QUOTE]
Butch:"And the Swing... "CRACK"... man did you here that contact made with the ball, Sonny? Sonny where is the BALL I think it's outa here!"

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

In time of prosperity, taxes should increase. The government takes in money to make up for money it released into the stream of commerce during times of economic downturn. That was 1993, when a tax increase was totally appropriate. And, much of the money was spent paying off the national deficet, as it should have been, lest we would not have run the country "in the black" for a few years.

Nowadays, when there is economic downturn, it is the time to relax taxes and spend government money - in effort to kick-start the economy. Keynes set it all out, you see. It was perfectly appropriate to spend in '93, perfectly appropriate to cut taxes now. The Dems were dead on. Which is better than the "we only know one song and dance" party can say. [/QUOTE]
Sonny: " I don't see it either Butch, T.L. had some juice on that swing of his didn't he. Well tuff luck for John D. It seems his pitch was taken DOWNTOWN."
Butch:"WAIT HOLD IT John D. is on the plate Grinning like a 'Sheep Killing Dog' What's that he's got in his glove... It's the BALL can you believe it a linedrive faster then the eye can see rightback at the pitcher and John D. snatched it out of the air without even blinking. Sonny we have to go back to the instant replay too see what has happened here."
Sonny: "Right Butch and here the instant replay is"

Originally posted by John D Harris:

For all the liberals,
Now that all that is over with I'm still waiting on answer to my questions earlier in the thread about why are the Liberal Dems all of a sudden are calling for their own TAX CUTS (although they won't use those words)after years of telling us that the TAX INCREASE of 1993 was the great savior of the economy? Why would tax increases NOT work now after all Bill Clinton inhierited the worst economy in "fifty years" so say the Liberal DEMS.[/QUOTE]
Here comes the Memory Knuckle-Ball a thing of be-uty, The Dems SAID that we were having the worst economy in 50 years no if ands or butts about that. Check out thier next 2 Presidential elections and what they said. Clinton,Carvel, Morris, and Gore.The economy was growing in 1992, and continued to excelerate the growth rate in 1993.
[/QUOTE]And fixxed it with tax increases.[/QUOTE]
Sonny: "Look at that non spin on the 'Memory Knuckle-Ball' and the History it brings up".
The Tax increases of 1993 DID NOT come into effect until 1994, the growth rate of the economy slowed in 1994, After the tax increases and before the Republicans Won control of the U.S. House of Reps. and continued to slow until the new budget came out. A budget that was Started like all budgets through out the entire history of the U.S.A. in the House of Reps. (U.S. Constitution)no exceptions ever! The President can submit a buget but, that don't mean squat in the real world. The only budget that ever gets out of the House of Reps is the one the House passes, weither is looks like the one the President wants or not.

The swing and contact:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

In time of prosperity, taxes should increase. The government takes in money to make up for money it released into the stream of commerce during times of economic downturn. That was 1993, when a tax increase was totally appropriate. And, much of the money was spent paying off the national deficet, as it should have been, lest we would not have run the country "in the black" for a few years.
Nowadays, when there is economic downturn, it is the time to relax taxes and spend government money - in effort to kick-start the economy. Keynes set it all out, you see. It was perfectly appropriate to spend in '93, perfectly appropriate to cut taxes now. The Dems were dead on. Which is better than the "we only know one song and dance" party can say.[/QUOTE]
Butch: "Contact with the ball, but not soild contact, the Ole Knuckle-ball moved It ain't where T.L. thunked it was"

Sonny: "Look at that catch, little effort on John D.'s part, pure econmy of motion"

Now, back to 1993. No president or congress has *ever* done what Keynes advised regarding the "flip side" of his economic model. During Clinton's reign, he and COngress did a LOT to decrease spending, and while I don't think they did enough (remember it was a time of prosperity, and should have tightened their belts), he is actually the first president in decades to have run the country "in the black" for at least a year or two. posted 01-30-2003 10:58 AM by T.L. second post of the 2nd page of this thread.

A Correct and accurate statement about tighting their belts. But "Hale" us country boys learnt that years ago as young'ns bucking bails of hay. It's called a "Hay Barn" used for storing up in times of plenty so it can be distrubuted in the lean times. And we'un didn't need no P H & D to figure that out Now there are some other uses for the Hay Barn but those involve "the Girl down the road" and no need to go into that (don't need PHD for that either)

Tax increases and spending cuts can ONLY be synonymous if the only measure is "The amount of money the goverment has to work with" and that measure is taken that there is only a limited supply of money. In other wrods only the rich have it and the poor can't ever get it that is why we must social engineer our economy by taking more from the rich. Which brings me to those wonderful letters P H & D again, you say they have value. I say they have a perceved value, in others words people thunk there is value in them so they are valued. (I know I'm getting off on what seems like a tangent but bear with me.) They may or maynot have any real value. Henry Ford when asked if he wanted to get a PHD. by a young reporterette (female Reporter) replied by taking the reproter out into the hall of his headquarter biulding and showing her all the doors on either side of the long hall way. "madamn" he said "I have hundreds of PHD's." Value is something that can be molded, changed, shaped into whatever people believe to be of value. Or as your man John Maynard Keynes says

"We leave Saving to the private investor, and we encourage him to place his savings mainly in titles to money. We leave the responsibility for setting Production in motion to the business man, who is mainly influenced by the profits he expected to accrue to himself in terms of money. Those who are not in favor of drastic changes in the existing organization of society believe that these arrangements, being in accord with human nature, have great advantages. But they cannot work properly if the money, which they assume as a stable measuring-rod, is undependable. Unemployment, the precarious life of the worker, the disappointment of expectation, the sudden loss of savings, the excessive windfalls to individuals, the speculator, the profiteer--all proceed, in large measure, from the instability of the standard of value."

"…our desire to hold money as a store of wealth is a barometer of the degree of our distrust of our own calculations and conventions concerning the future…. The possession of actual money lulls our disquietude; and the premium which we require to part with money is the measure of the degree of our disquietude…"

"Unemployment develops, that is to say, because people want the moon: men cannot be employed when the object of desire (i.e., money) is something which cannot be produced and the demand for which cannot readily be choked off. There is no remedy but to persuade the public that green cheese is practically the same thing and to have a green cheese factory (i.e. a central bank) under public control…"

"What is the charm to awaken the sleeping beauty, to scale the mountain of glass without sliding back? If every Treasury were to discover in its vaults a large cache of gold proportioned in size to the scale of its economic life, would that not work the charm? Why should not that cache be devised? We have long printed gold nationally. Why should we not print it internationally? No reason at all, unless our hands are palsied and our wits dull…"

Why would our hands be palsied and our wits dulled? Because at that time money was based on a finite amount of Gold. Keynes wanted to change what was valued from the finite to the infinte(or at least less finite ) Form gold to the full faith of the U.S.A. (remember the money into green cheese) Then put the control of the less finite in the hands of the government. Which works because value is preceved.

Which now brings us The U.S. Government (the holder of the preceved value) and it's budget.The U.S. Governmet's budget is what 1.5-1.6 trillion dollars the U.S. economy is what 5-5.5 trillion dollars That leaves the "Lions Share" of the economy in the hands of the NON government private sector. Most of the economic activity is in the private sector, not the goverment sector. Now given these facts which is better at getting the economy moving more money in the hands of the private sector, or in the hands of the government sector? What did Keynes say about it:
"We leave Saving to the private investor, and we encourage him to place his savings mainly in titles to money. We leave the responsibility for setting Production in motion to the business man, who is mainly influenced by the profits he expected to accrue to himself in terms of money. Those who are not in favor of drastic changes in the existing organization of society believe that these arrangements, being in accord with human nature, have great advantages. But they cannot work properly if the money, which they assume as a stable measuring-rod, is undependable. Unemployment, the precarious life of the worker, the disappointment of expectation, the sudden loss of savings, the excessive windfalls to individuals, the speculator, the profiteer--all proceed, in large measure, from the instability of the standard of value."
Remember we are off the Gold Standard and on the FUll Faith of the U.S.Goverment standard. The keepers of the green cheese, the less finite, the object of his desire. So let the business man be mainly influenced by the profits he expects to accrue.

Sonny: "Wow what a catch John D. just stands there holding the ball patiently waiting for the next batter"

Now on to the fun part

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Final point. You are right: the free market *will* produce every good that it is profitable to produce. Which is why the military and roads would not exist - they ARE NOT PROFITABLE. The "free rider" syndrome destroys them. People who let the rest of us pay for the tanks are the problem. Which is why some entity needs to collect the money and spend it for the society. See? [/QUOTE]
So it's not in the interest of businesses to have a millitary or roads? PoppyCock! It's not int the interests of businesses to have the security a military brings to the nation the businesses operate in? Tell that to Wells Fargo, Brinks or any of the other securty firms. Hey you guys business can't use you and won't use you it's not in their interest to have you around U.S. history Wells Fargo and Brinks were formed because the U.S. army couln't be around all the time to protect the railroads' and banks' money. Oh yea, I almost forgot about Pinkerton. [img]smile.gif[/img]
It's not in the interest of businesses to have roads? a way of getting its goods to the public so they can spend their hard earned green cheese? No it is very much in businesses interests to have those things, as it is ALSO in the businesses interests to have them (roads and millitary) maintained and run by one central enitity. So once again T.L. you've equated "not wanting to pay higher taxes with not wanting to pay any taxes." Please don't make me get out the dictionary to define the words "higher" & "any" I don't thunk you need those P H & D's to tell that they are not synonymous

The Housing bubble if there isn't one there will soon be one. Any time any product becomes easier to purchase, more people will puchase it, the more that purchase, the more that produce it trying to get in on the money. Soon the market will be over saturated, I learned that in 1982 airbrushing T-shirts in Ft.Walton Beach, Florida. In 1978 the year I started airbrushing there were 16-18 airbrushers in a 2 block area,There was an airbrusher bubble we had a over perceved value. By 1982 there were 60+ in the same 2 block area and everybody's piece of the pie was cut.

I guess I could come down a few steps and met you on that second step
Edit: to get the QB thingabobs right no garun-tees as ot if I done it.

[ 02-04-2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Atrayu]

Originally posted by D W Washburn: Topics covered; Hydrogen powered cars- Environment- Produce more energy at home theory-

Hybrid cars are a great step twards cleaning up the air and optimizing our energy supplies. I say good to the President for starting to force the automakers in this direction. I really would hope also that natural gas would be used all over the world for mass transit to start with.

But also, I am not very confident that this administration will be any better twards the environment thow. Already the cases have built in the system, many more then should be. Just don't like it.

That's a long quote john

[Cloudbringer]

Whoa! John, you're scaring me! LOL That's one HUGE post!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Whoa! John, you're scaring me! LOL That's one HUGE post!

Miss Cloudbringer Ma'am,
It scared me too

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[John D Harris]

TL TL TL,
Where do I start? OH yeah, sorry it took so long to get back I've been trying my hand at creating my own NPC and MOD for BGII (WISH ME LUCK [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

1) I'm Honored to even have anything I've done mentioned in the same breath as Meatloaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights". A work of pure Genius, and prehaps the finest epic of the Male/Female interpersonal realtionship every put to song! Though it has been my observation the beauty of the song is lost on most of the fairer sex

2)Of course I pulled out every trick I could thunk of. I was up against a Professional

3)We do agree on more then we disargee on, but what the "Hale" it was fun while it lasted.

[ 02-10-2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]