Okay? Keynes also argued that we should avoid inflation. Also, this really doesn't have much to do with big government...-PC-Taishar wrote:Let me release a few tidbits from HIS writings:
1.By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him? He's not saying this should be done.2.Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
And eventually we even went off the gold standard. (What does this have to do with anything?)3.A sentiment of trust in the legal money of the state is so deeply implanted in the citizens of all countries that they cannot but believe that some day this money must recover a part at least of its former value.... They do not apprehend that the real wealth, which this money might have stood for has been dissipated once and for all. This sentiment is supported by the various legal regulations with which the governments endeavor to control internal prices, and so to preserve some purchasing power for their legal tender....
Price fixing and protectionism are bad. I think we are all in agreement?4.The effect on foreign trade of price-regulation and profiteer-hunting as cures for inflation is even worse. Whatever may be the case at home, the currency must soon reach its real level abroad, with the result that prices inside and outside the country lose their normal adjustment. The price of imported commodities, when converted at the current rate of exchange, is far in excess of the local price, so that many essential goods will not be imported at all by private agency, and must be provided by the government, which, in re-selling the goods below cost price, plunges thereby a little further into insolvency...
In all fairness, these quotes on monetary policy have little to nothing to do with the expansion of government (either social safety nets in the case of democrats or defense spending for republicans).Now in all fairness the last couple republican presidents have also followed the rule of government expansion so it's not just the liberals we have to worry about.
This really isn't a double tax. It gets taxed as income once (what they pay in federal tax is deducted from state tax). The other taxes only happen if it becomes someone else's income. Or you could think of this as a transfer tax, like sales tax.zel wrote:I hate how the same money can get taxed repeatedly, it's so retarded.
Keynes is talking about inflation. You are arguing about whether public spending should be 30 or 40% of GDP. You two are talking about two very different things. Show me where Keynes says the same negative consequences about public spending as he does for inflation.-PC-Taishar wrote:1. It has everything to do with the expansion of government. Since they have NO IDEA how to balance a budget (SS, Welfare, Medicaid/care, USPS, all programs operating at a loss). The larger the government gets the more the US citizens pay to support the bureaucracy. Government is inefficient. Period. You can't argue it. Don't try.
The deficit has increased because of the massive tax cuts and lost revenue from the recession. Obama has the lowest increase in spending increase in 60 years. I shit you not: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/2.I am agreeing with him. This isn't a right or a left thing. Both seek to expand government. Progressives just do it more quickly (DOUBLED THE DEFICIT IN 3.% yrs ANYONE).
Inflation is a pretty big incentive against printing money.3.Going off the gold standard opened the flood gates for a debt based monetary system. There is no incentive against printing money hence it is done with aplomb by our government (right and left)
Providing subsidies to make health insurance affordable isn't price fixing. Price fixing is setting a price floor or ceiling to control prices. ACA clearly isn't protectionism, either.[/quote]4.Agreed. However, this is exactly what the left is shooting for with the Affordable Care Act.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests