How the Economy works

[OlJarhead]

Sorry all I was off working out of town most of last week.

I used Treasury statistics on the debt to point out who spent what.  While that does not account for inflation it does point to the spending habits of Congress (and the administration) of various years.

The latest is out of this world.

The TSA is an abomination and I was very unhappy with it's creation -- we're definitely on the same page

Franklin a socialist?  I think you're rather confused Pox.  It was Franklin who said this most unsocialist of statements:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Today Ben Franklin would abolish ALL programs that 'help' the poor -- EVERY ONE OF THEM.

Doesn't sound like a socialist Pox, but I'm sure modern progressives teach otherwise.

As for the whole Noecon thing, I think most of that was made up to confuse people.  Bush was/is a progressive.  There are however Progressives who lean towards fasism and neo-conism as well as those who lean towards communism/socialism.  They are all birds of a feather however and all of them are not good for the nation.

[Pox Eclipse]

Franklin a socialist?  I think you're rather confused Pox. 

So you are OK with Franklin's position that everything you earn beyond basic necesssities it the property of the public?  He also was not very libertarian in his tax policy:

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

If he wasn't socialist, he certainly was a lefty in favor of big government.

[MikeC]

"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Somehow that quote just didn't pass the sniff test – it was likely missing qualifying context or simply not a real quote at all.

Here is the quote from the letter to Robert Morris:

"All Property indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of publick Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents & all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity & the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual & the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property of the Publick, who by their Laws have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire & live among Savages.—He can have no right to the Benefits of Society who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

The actual quote seems to convey the idea that property which was not privately owned was merely a legal creation held for the benefit of the public at large.  When the "need" arose, such as keeping Franklin occupied in his European entertainments, or paying off debts he contracted without authorization, said public property could be sold to raise funds.

Nowhere in the actual quote do I find that the "Publick" created "superfluous"property as claimed in the ersatz quote; indeed the very notion is absurd.  Nor is the word "Superfluous" found anywhere in the letter. It seems the false quote was made to order for those seeking a soundbite supportive of a particular ideology.

Franklin was whining about not being kept up in the manner in which he wished to be accustomed; not only did he have difficulty in separating his private expenditures from public funds, he was suggesting that merely because he created a debt that the public must pay up, either in taxes or by selling land. 

Obviously he was way off base.  Besides the obvious self serving logical flaws contained within his argument,  nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement laid upon citizens.
I suggest a reading of the Franklin letter to gain a more thorough understanding.

Source:
http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp

[Pox Eclipse]

Franklin was whining about not being kept up in the manner in which he wished to be accustomed; not only did he have difficulty in separating his private expenditures from public funds, he was suggesting that merely because he created a debt that the public must pay up, either in taxes or by selling land. 

Obviously he was way off base.  Besides the obvious self serving logical flaws contained within his argument,  nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement laid upon citizens.

This is why I found it curious that a libertarian like OlJarhead would think Ben had it right. 

[OlJarhead]

Franklin was whining about not being kept up in the manner in which he wished to be accustomed; not only did he have difficulty in separating his private expenditures from public funds, he was suggesting that merely because he created a debt that the public must pay up, either in taxes or by selling land. 

Obviously he was way off base.  Besides the obvious self serving logical flaws contained within his argument,  nowhere in the Constitution is there any requirement laid upon citizens.

This is why I found it curious that a libertarian like OlJarhead would think Ben had it right. 

Pox I'm completely confused here -- just because Ben was self serving doesn't mean he was a socialist (though the two do seem to correlate).  However, the statement on the poor does absolutely show that he was not a socialist -- after all a socialist would have wanted to make it easy on the poor and keep them there rather then making it hard on them or leading them out of it....

So what did I have wrong?

As for being a Libertarian I'm not entirely certain what your point is...as a Libertarian I just think you ought to be able to do whatever it is your heart desires as long as it does not infringe on my rights (Natural or otherwise). 

[Pox Eclipse]

As for being a Libertarian I'm not entirely certain what your point is...as a Libertarian I just think you ought to be able to do whatever it is your heart desires as long as it does not infringe on my rights (Natural or otherwise). 

Do you agree with Franklin's position on taxation? 

[muldoon]

you guys.

there is no right and left.  there is no liberal and conservative.  those are political terms.  there is only crony government.  It applies today as much as it did in the days of Franklin or for that matter the days of the Pharaoh. 

As for what the founding fathers intended, they laid it out right in the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

Thus the thuggery is established. Next come the excuses:

    to pay the Debts

Its debts. Not yours.  TARP was not a new idea.  S&L bailout was not a new idea. 

    ...and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare...

...which it, and it alone shall interpret in its interests.

    of the United States...

"United States" being the government's preciously clever title for itself -- it's not referring to you, you peon who shall be squeezed in perpetuity to cover the Hamilton Aristocracy's bad investments.  Or the investments of any other politician since then for that matter. 

It is what it is, and it's the the the world works.  It specifically is the way the economy works.  It always has been.  How do you think we got railroads in this country?  How do you think Ford financed those cars?  How do you think GE grew to it's size?  How do you think Haliburton is what it is?  How do you think we paid for the internet expansion?  Or the real estate boom.  The fact is that is how the world works, and thus consequently that is how the economy works. 

[OlJarhead]

you guys.

there is no right and left.  there is no liberal and conservative.  those are political terms.  there is only crony government.  It applies today as much as it did in the days of Franklin or for that matter the days of the Pharaoh. 

As for what the founding fathers intended, they laid it out right in the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

Thus the thuggery is established. Next come the excuses:

    to pay the Debts

Its debts. Not yours.  TARP was not a new idea.  S&L bailout was not a new idea. 

    ...and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare...

...which it, and it alone shall interpret in its interests.

    of the United States...

"United States" being the government's preciously clever title for itself -- it's not referring to you, you peon who shall be squeezed in perpetuity to cover the Hamilton Aristocracy's bad investments.  Or the investments of any other politician since then for that matter. 

It is what it is, and it's the the the world works.  It specifically is the way the economy works.  It always has been.  How do you think we got railroads in this country?  How do you think Ford financed those cars?  How do you think GE grew to it's size?  How do you think Haliburton is what it is?  How do you think we paid for the internet expansion?  Or the real estate boom.  The fact is that is how the world works, and thus consequently that is how the economy works. 

Actually the railroads were being built by private money but the Government decided to get involved, government funded railroads were a disaster, as usual, and private money bailed them out in the end....much  much later when a railroad was going bankrupt the government bailed them out and today we have the screwed up and corrupt and losing money 'Amtrak'. 

Bailouts aren't new though, I agree...

[OlJarhead]

As for being a Libertarian I'm not entirely certain what your point is...as a Libertarian I just think you ought to be able to do whatever it is your heart desires as long as it does not infringe on my rights (Natural or otherwise). 

Do you agree with Franklin's position on taxation? 

It would be thought a hard Government that should tax its People one-tenth Part of their Time, to be employed in its Service.

Benjamin Franklin, Preface to Poor Richard Improved, 1758

In truth I cannot find any good reference to Benjamin Franklin on taxes beyond a few snippets here and there so I cannot say I agree or disagree with his tax position.

On one hand he claims that he does not want to use taxes to help the poor and I agree with him there.  On the other hand he seems to think taxes are ok to pay for his exuberance which I do not agree with.

His comment about a government being hard that taxes 1/10th of the peoples time seems to suggest that maybe he doesn't like taxation, on the other he seems to be using that to emphasize that laziness and sloth is the real problem.

He testified against the stamp act so it would seem clear that he didn't support all taxes or just any, but on the other hand he seemed to be saying that it was un-enforceable.

So I can't say either way.

[muldoon]

Goldman Sachs.  big surprise. 

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/totally-busted-truth-about-goldmans.html