The Government Does Not Create Wealth?

That is the belief and if done properly, it works. When the private sector cuts back due to recession/depression, the government should step up but only temporarily. Politicians believe it because it works.
It works for politicians because they've been provided a convenient economic theory saying the best thing they could do is spend other people's money. What a coincidence, a readiness to spend other people's money is their primary characteristic.

And why does the private sector cutback during an economic downturn? Because it makes sense in their best judgment.

Why would it be a good thing for 537 elected officials to do something nationally that the other 300,00,000 have deemed non-sensical in their own lives? Answer, because it's easy. In politics, it's always easier to do the wrong thing if doing the right thing is hard especially when not doing the right thing is what got you trouble in the first place.

But the government stepping in to support the economy and keeping things afloat until the private sector rights itself. You can't fight long term debt and deficits before you address unemployment.
Temporary? Since 2006, government spending has gone up almost a trillion dollars, the deficit plan says they're aiming to cut only $250 billion a year of the next ten years. And my personal belief is that they'll find a way out that too.

And that doesn't even get into WHY people are unemployed or college graduates can't find jobs, which means it will never get addressed.
 
By definition, that makes them subjective.
I don't believe anyone is entitled to anything. If people want certain rights, they need to fight for them because the people in power (and there will always be "people in power" whatever system you talk about) will not cede those rights out of the goodness of their hearts.
Once again, people not giving a shit doesn't make reality subjective.

People didn't give a shit how their mortgage worked, but that didn't affect its terms when the balloon payment came due.

Bankers didn't give a shit what kind of mortgages made up a mortgage-backed bond, but that didn't change the reality when they inevitably went bad.

People don't give a shit what they're rights are or what a right is, but that doesn't mean you aren't entitled to speak, have freedom of movement, save your money, and not be killed by your government or your neighbor.
 
It works for politicians because they've been provided a convenient economic theory saying the best thing they could do is spend other people's money. What a coincidence, a readiness to spend other people's money is their primary characteristic.

Frankly, that's part of their job. Part of governing is deciding how to spend tax money and, hopefully, get the best return for the public investment.

And why does the private sector cutback during an economic downturn? Because it makes sense in their best judgment.

Why would it be a good thing for 537 elected officials to do something nationally that the other 300,00,000 have deemed non-sensical in their own lives? Answer, because it's easy. In politics, it's always easier to do the wrong thing if doing the right thing is hard especially when not doing the right thing is what got you trouble in the first place.

This bolded part here makes the rest of your post untrue.
You know how people really save money long term? They spend money. They buy more gas efficient cars, more energy efficient appliances and insulation. We make the upfront investment for long term savings. That's Keynesian.

Temporary? Since 2006, government spending has gone up almost a trillion dollars, the deficit plan says they're aiming to cut only $250 billion a year of the next ten years. And my personal belief is that they'll find a way out that too.

And that doesn't even get into WHY people are unemployed or college graduates can't find jobs, which means it will never get addressed.
Going by that math, we'd be even in 4 yrs, so what's the problem? With unemployment still high, it's better to invest now and be austere down the road when you can afford it.



Once again, people not giving a shit doesn't make reality subjective.

People didn't give a shit how their mortgage worked, but that didn't affect its terms when the balloon payment came due.

Bankers didn't give a shit what kind of mortgages made up a mortgage-backed bond, but that didn't change the reality when they inevitably went bad.

People don't give a shit what they're rights are or what a right is, but that doesn't mean you aren't entitled to speak, have freedom of movement, save your money, and not be killed by your government or your neighbor.

You don't have those rights if you don't live in a nation where they're recognized and codified. An individual's rights are determined in large part by where they're born and where they live.
A man can stand up in China and declare whatver rights he feels he has but if they're not recognized by the state, they're not real. No entitlement exists.
 
Frankly, that's part of their job. Part of governing is deciding how to spend tax money and, hopefully, get the best return for the public investment.
I agree it is part of their job to spend other people's money if it's of the extent to execute the proper functions of government but not to pick their favorite earmarks with the logic that it makes us all richer. Just let people keep their money in the first place if it's magically supposed to come back to me anyway.

This bolded part here makes the rest of your post untrue.
You know how people really save money long term? They spend money. They buy more gas efficient cars, more energy efficient appliances and insulation. We make the upfront investment for long term savings. That's Keynesian.
How is the government the upfront method?

The upfront investment method is the individual who makes the capital income or labor income to save it, then it goes through the capital market's allocation process. The government deciding investments is the end-around method that only reflects a lobbyist's priority, not the taxpayer's. Also, people can save money by buying a gas efficient car or they could save money by not buying the car at all until the car is gas efficient. Sales people and market research is effective enough to facilitate that exchange. Government isn't needed for that.

Going by that math, we'd be even in 4 yrs, so what's the problem? With unemployment still high, it's better to invest now and be austere down the road when you can afford it.
The trick is it's $2.5 trillion off spending projections. The CBO recently predicted close to $47 trillion over ten years and the plan will bring it down to $44 trillion at best.

Before 2006, 10 years of spending would have been closer to $30-35 trillion (still too fucking much). Their "deficit/debt" plan keeps a 50% increase in spending from pre-recession levels. I thought the extra spending were wars and emergency stimulus and bailouts? Wars are done and the rest was supposed to be temporary, as you say.

$2.5 trillion reduction from $15 trillion increase is not even 20%. They've institutionalized the other 80%, then complain about a 2% sequester. It's sickening how wasteful they are.

You don't have those rights if you don't live in a nation where they're recognized and codified. An individual's rights are determined in large part by where they're born and where they live.
A man can stand up in China and declare whatver rights he feels he has but if they're not recognized by the state, they're not real. No entitlement exists.
A human is born with the ability to speak no matter where they live and it's human nature to develop language and speak. The right to use speech isn't subjective to be taken away? The fact that it has to be taken away is further proof of it's existence as a right you are born with. It's not granted. That applies to all rights.
 
My good friends, The Govt can't create wealth, they can only confiscate it through income taxes, interest, inflation or flat-out coercion.

“under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation”
- Alan Greenspan

Dishonest money breeds a dishonest society
 
My good friends, The Govt can't create wealth, they can only confiscate it through income taxes, interest, inflation or flat-out coercion.

- Alan Greenspan

Dishonest money breeds a dishonest society

One of you heros no doubt!


:lol::lol:

source: The Gaurdian


Who to blame for the Great Recession? So many big names are in the frame

Fred Goodwin lost his knighthood but the global financial crisis was not all his fault – and the list of those who erred is long


GREENSPAN--KING-007.jpg
Alan Greenspan, left, and Mervyn King confer at a meeting at the IMF's headquarters in Washington in 2005. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP



In 2000 it was the $164bn (£103bn) AOL takeover of Time Warner in America. In 2007 it was the-then Sir Fred Goodwin's £49bn acquisition of ABN Amro that signalled that the markets had peaked and were about to crumble.

Every financial crisis has its totemic moment; a decision that even at the time seems to defy logic and in retrospect is seen as an act of gross stupidity. Yet it takes more than one individual banker, no matter how powerful, to make a crisis and when the historians come to chronicle the Great Recession of 2008-09 the list of guilty men and women will include more than one former knight of the realm.

Here, then, is a (far from exhaustive) list of those who might be considered most culpable – who caused, exacerbated or failed to prevent the worst downturn in the global economy since the 1930s.

Alan Greenspan


Laughably given an honorary knighthood in 2002 for his "contribution to global economic stability", Greenspan's responsibility for the crash cannot be underestimated.

A fanatical believer in the self-righting qualities of financial markets, he was the bubble king who allowed the dotcom boom of the late 1990s to get out of hand and then, when plummeting share prices pushed the economy into recession, started the whole process off again, this time in the housing market.

As chairman of the Federal Reserve, he cut interest rates and left them at rock-bottom levels for two years.

Cheap borrowing costs encouraged Americans to load up on debt to buy homes, even when they had no savings, no income and no job prospects.

These so-called sub-prime borrowers were the cannon fodder for the biggest boom-bust in US history. The housing collapse brought the global economy to its knees.

Sir Mervyn King


Britain was mini-me to the US in the days of grand illusion before the crash, having its debt-fuelled party where growth was concentrated in the speculative sectors of housing and finance.

King became Bank of England governor in 2003, and while he has subsequently been one of the most pro-active central bankers with a refreshingly robust approach to the banks, the case against him is that he failed to "lean against the wind" during the economic upswing, leaving interest rates too low, and then waited too long when the economy was nosediving into its most severe postwar recession before cutting bank rate.

Under the government's tripartite system of regulation, the Old Lady was supposed to ensure developments in the City did not pose a systemic risk to the economy. It failed in that task.

Gordon Brown


We have abolished Tory boom and bust, Brown said repeatedly in his 10 years as chancellor of the exchequer. He hadn't.

His last big speech before becoming prime minister, made at the Mansion House in June 2007 just as the financial crisis was about to break, praised the bankers for their remarkable achievements and predicted "the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London". It wasn't.

Brown presided over the loss of a million manufacturing jobs and an ever-widening trade deficit while cosying up to the City. He used to quip that there were two types of chancellors: those who failed and those who got out in time. He got that one right.

Bill Clinton


One Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, put a cage round Wall Street after its excesses in the 20s led to the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. Another Democrat, Bill Clinton, gave Wall Street the cage keys.

After a fierce lobbying campaign, Clinton agreed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between investment and retail banks. The move heralded the coming of superbanks, huge behemoths that took in retail deposits and used them to take highly-leveraged punts in the markets.

To make matters worse, Clinton beefed up Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force lenders to take a more relaxed approach to disadvantaged borrowers. Liberalised banks plus millions of new sub-prime customers equalled one big problem.

Eugene Fama


The economics profession failed to cover itself in glory in the run-up to 2007. Not only did economists fail to spot that financial institutions were loading themselves up with vast quantities of toxic sub-prime debt, most of them thought it was theoretically impossible for a crisis to happen.

In large part, responsibility for that lies with Fama, a Chicago University economics professor who in the 70s came up with the efficient markets hypothesis (EMH), which stated that financial markets price assets at their true worth based on all the publicly available information, encouraging the belief that the best thing to do was to pile in when prices were rising. Bubble-think, in other words.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher


Just as many trends in modern popular music can be traced back to the Beatles, so politics was shaped by the activities of Reagan and Thatcher, the Lennon and McCartney of deregulation, market forces and trickle-down economics.

The changes pushed through in the US and the UK in the 80s removed constraints on bankers, made finance more important at the expense of manufacturing and reduced union power, making it harder for employees to secure as big a share of the national economic cake as they had in previous decades.

The flipside of rising corporate profits and higher rewards for the top 1% of earners was stagnating wages for ordinary Americans and Britons, and a higher propensity to get into debt.

Hank Paulson


The US treasury secretary in 2008, Paulson was the Sir Anthony Eden of the financial crisis. He had all the necessary credentials a Republican president would consider necessary for the job – chief executive of Goldman Sachs with an MBA from Harvard. He was considered the brightest and best of his generation. Like Eden over Suez, he was faced with a monumental challenge. And he blew it.

Paulson's big mistake was to put Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into conservatorship, wiping out the stakes of those who had invested $20bn in the two government-backed mortgage lenders over the previous 12 months.

Unsurprisingly, there was no great rush among private investors to rescue Lehman Brothers when it ran into trouble the following week, and when the US treasury allowed the investment bank to go bust every financial institution in the world was seen as at risk.

Fred the Shred destroyed a bank; Paulson triggered the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Kathleen Corbet


No rogues' gallery of the crisis would be complete without a representative of the credit rating agencies. These were the bodies that took fees from the banks while giving the top AAA rating to collateralised debt obligations, the hugely complex financial instruments that bundled together the toxic sub-prime mortgages with the sound home loans.

Corbet was CEO of Standard & Poor's, the biggest of the rating agencies, and she left her post in a "long-planned" move in August 2007 just as the financial markets were shutting down.

The justification for the top-notch ratings was that the poor-quality loans would be lost in the mix, but when the crisis broke the reality was more like a food scare, in which supermarkets know there are a few dodgy ready-made meals on their shelves but must bin the lot as they are not sure which ones they are.

Phil Gramm


"Some people look at sub-prime lending and see evil," said this senator in a debate on Capitol Hill in 2001. "I look at sub-prime lending and I see the American dream in action."

Gramm, who thinks Wall Street a "holy place", was the main cheerleader in Congress for financial deregulation, putting pressure on the Clinton administration to ease restrictions – not that it needed much persuading.

The fact that he had been the biggest recipient of campaign fund donations from commercial banks and in the top five for donations from Wall Street from 1989 to 2002 was, of course, entirely coincidental.

The bankers


Was it Fred Goodwin at RBS or Adam Applegarth at Northern Rock – the first UK high street bank to suffer a full-scale run on its branches since the 1860s? Was it Dick Fuld, the man in charge at Lehman Brothers when it went belly-up? Jimmy Cayne, who spent the first month of the crisis playing bridge rather than running Bear Stearns?

Or Stan O'Neal, whose attempts to rid Merrill Lynch of its fuddy-duddy image saddled the bank with $8bn of bad debts?

How about Andy Hornby, the whizzkid running HBOS? Or perhaps the man chosen by Gordon Brown to be HBOS's white knight – Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Lloyds?

Choose any one from a very long list
 
Last edited:
The only role of the Federal Government, as it was originally created, was for the national defense of the people. There is nothing that the government does that private industry cannot do better. In private industry the lazy sluggard government employees would have two options...actually work and be productive or get fired. I would be my life savings, which is not much, that if most of the federal workers were forced to work at the same standards and pace of private industry they would all be fired for lack of productivity, constant complaining and whining.

Anyone who believes government is a necessity has a vested interest in keeping it...they receive tax payer funded welfare, housing, cell phones, retirement, health care.

Anything services the government provides can be done more efficiently by private industry. There would be no unions involved to hamper productivity.
 
The only role of the Federal Government, as it was originally created, was for the national defense of the people. There is nothing that the government does that private industry cannot do better. In private industry the lazy sluggard government employees would have two options...actually work and be productive or get fired. I would be my life savings, which is not much, that if most of the federal workers were forced to work at the same standards and pace of private industry they would all be fired for lack of productivity, constant complaining and whining.

Anyone who believes government is a necessity has a vested interest in keeping it...they receive tax payer funded welfare, housing, cell phones, retirement, health care.

Anything services the government provides can be done more efficiently by private industry. There would be no unions involved to hamper productivity.


You couldn't get a federal government job. Most require college degrees.
 
The only role of the Federal Government, as it was originally created, was for the national defense of the people. There is nothing that the government does that private industry cannot do better. In private industry the lazy sluggard government employees would have two options...actually work and be productive or get fired. I would be my life savings, which is not much, that if most of the federal workers were forced to work at the same standards and pace of private industry they would all be fired for lack of productivity, constant complaining and whining.

Anyone who believes government is a necessity has a vested interest in keeping it...they receive tax payer funded welfare, housing, cell phones, retirement, health care.

Anything services the government provides can be done more efficiently by private industry. There would be no unions involved to hamper productivity.

I'm starting to think you're a troll. You pop up, post some meaningless rhetoric that's been proven false many,many times over and then you never come back.
 
Nuff said!

Apr 08, 2013 02:34 PM EDT

Inspired By Trees, Researchers Use Standing Nanowires To Develop Super-efficient Solar Cells

By James A. Foley


A new design in solar cell technology is 12 times as efficient as traditional solar cells while also using significantly less material

A new concept in solar technology is poised to make a huge impact on the affordability of solar energy by blending cutting-edge techniques in nanoengineering with a design as old as the trees.

To come up with a working solar panel that uses 10,000 times less material than traditional models without sacrificing efficiency professor Anna Fontcuberta, of the Swiss technology institute école polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, looked up, to the trees themselves.

"Trees know exactly how to increase their exposition to the sun by elevating themselves and spreading branches all around to maximize their surface," she said in a video highlighting her design.

Fontcuberta and her team turned the standard solar cell design on its head by developing a nanowire solar cell that mimics the light absorption properties of trees standing in a forest, making it possible for the solar cells to capture much more energy from the sun than previously thought possible. The enhanced light absorption is shown to be due to a light-concentrating property harnessed by standing nanowires like trees.

Though only in prototype state, Fontcuberta's nanowire cell can capture light more efficiently than traditional solar panels. The efficiency is due to the nanowire's unexpected ability to act as a sort of solar funnel. The system was shown to have 33 percent efficiency, while a traditional solar panel has a 20 percent efficiency.

Remarkably, Fontcuberta's design uses 1,000 times less material than current designs.

Fontcuberta says a family that needs 40 kilograms of material, specifically gallium arsenide, to meet their solar energy needs, would require only 40 grams with the new design. Less material equals lower production cost, which could potentially mean that previously unaffordable solar energy projects may have a way to come into reality.

A full report of the research is available at Nature Photonics.

link: http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...g-nanowires-develop-super-efficient-solar.htm


Is this a government funded research lab? Looks like the government is creating wealth again!:dance:
 
What is wealth?

As I define wealth, it is natural resources, labor (manual), and technology (equipment and know how).

What is the government?

The government is a political arrangement, backed by violent force, used by the rulers (those in charge of this political arrangement) to coerce the rest of the population to do what they want.

What does wealth allow you to do?

It allows you to survive, to learn, and to maintain and improve your lifestyle.

How does the government survive?

It appropriates (or steals) the wealth from the rest of the population for use and disposal by the rulers of the government.

Does the government create wealth?

It cannot create wealth, because before a government can exist, the wealth must already exist for the government to survive. Once a government is in existence, it simply uses the threat of violence (or violence itself) to take the wealth from everyone else for its own use and disposal.

Therefore, government cannot, never has, and never will create wealth.

All government does is reallocate wealth for political advantage and to disrupt the natural distribution of wealth.

Then again, I do not believe anyone creates wealth other than the people involved in either exploiting the resource, developing a technology, creating a product, or having the skill to design, build, maintain, or repair it.

Governments and corporations do not create wealth... the individual does.
 
Last edited:
As usual, each time you post you change the subject.




Duh!

Who is the government and corporations? Individuals!:smh:

That is not true all.

I was sitting in court, and the judge (doing a civil motion hearing) say himself, that a corporations is nothing but a legal fiction.

Corporations and governments are LEGAL FICTIONS!

What is a fiction?

something invented by the imagination

Corporations and governments are figments of the imagination. They are not real.

Yet, you are trying to give credit to something that is, by definition, not real.

That shows how bizarre the thinking has gotten in this country.

It is one thing to believe in a supreme being. But, to impose man-made myths, as if they are real, shows how deluded this country is.

People are real. Wealth is real.

Governments and corporations are not!

How can something fictional, create something real? Obviously, it can not.
 
That is not true all.

I was sitting in court, and the judge (doing a civil motion hearing) say himself, that a corporations is nothing but a legal fiction.

Corporations and governments are LEGAL FICTIONS!

What is a fiction?

something invented by the imagination

Corporations and governments are figments of the imagination. They are not real.

Yet, you are trying to give credit to something that is, by definition, not real.

That shows how bizarre the thinking has gotten in this country.

It is one thing to believe in a supreme being. But, to impose man-made myths, as if they are real, shows how deluded this country is.

People are real. Wealth is real.

Governments and corporations are not!

How can something fictional, create something real? Obviously, it can not.

Classic Cruise!:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:



It's fascinating how someone who is using a tool of anarchy (the web), cannot see how government is the problem, not the solution.

You have heard of epinions.com, Consumer Reports, Amazon reviews, in fact, this very forum.

All are examples of anarchy in action.

An authority, creates a website outlining mining issues, dangers, suggestions, recommendations, and techniques.

Miners, when they leave the mine, could just use a laptop with wireless to post comments on conditions, production, dangers, safety techniques, and concerns.

They could be updated by blogs, tweets, facebook blasts, email, or software alerts.

Of course, this is simple, painless, effective, and competitive.

The problem is the government-lovers will find some excuse why it can't work.

Or, they will create some fantasy why the government can't allow people to have that power and must FORCE us to pay taxes, regulation, supervision, and a HUGE bureaucracy for something that doesn't work.
 
Nuff said!




Is this a government funded research lab? Looks like the government is creating wealth again!:dance:

And where is the government getting the money to run this lab, if it is government run ?

Also, how much liberty do the people of that nation have ?
 
You care about the definition of liberty in this thread, but mocked Cruise for trying to define wealth in a thread called The Government Does Not Create Wealth?

Not only that, Trollone accuses Cruise of changing the subject.
As usual, each time you post you change the subject.


I'll wait for the 'drive by' post attack but I'll continue to await his response on how the Govt creates wealth
 
So no one will dare give their definition of liberty.

Noted.
I definitely have defined liberty in the past. And I view it as likely that Lamarr and Cruise have as well.

I doubt you've offered anything beyond the "liberty without justice" phrase you got from the Daily Kos.
 
This is what politicians and their supporters love to do.

Ask the wrong question to an insignificant problem and then mandate an unnecessary solution to get the rest of the population to act against its own interests.

Politicians and bureaucrats are great at giving answers that don't answer, solutions that don't solve and wars that don't win. (All apologies to Fred Hampton)

If the government created wealth... why would it need taxes?
 
One in the same!


:lol::dance:

As usual, you duck issues and exchange and stick to sophistry and hyperbole. That is why your belief system relies so heavily on demonizing the successful. That is why "progressive" economics is still adhered to, even though it has been shown to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
 
Do you want to go ahead and define liberty now, so you'll know how much they've shit on it a few months from now in the name of security?

Now I know where your frindge thinking brain comes from:


source: Think Progress

Alex Jones conspiracy floated at presser

Earlier today, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones suggested that the bombing was a “false flag” to undermine civil liberties. A reporter from InfoWars asked law enforcement officials if they agree. Via @Travis Waldron:

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3FBBM9_saoA" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4iPoJQKPRFk?list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Now I know where your frindge thinking brain comes from:


source: Think Progress

Alex Jones conspiracy floated at presser

Earlier today, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones suggested that the bombing was a “false flag” to undermine civil liberties. A reporter from InfoWars asked law enforcement officials if they agree. Via @Travis Waldron:
I called it a false flag?

I thought you were proud of the philosophy to never let a tragedy go waste.
 
I called it a false flag?

I thought you were proud of the philosophy to never let a tragedy go waste.

Do you want to go ahead and define liberty now, so you'll know how much they've shit on it a few months from now in the name of security?


Your hypocrisy is so much a part of you that you have long since forgotten to connect what you say and what you think.
 
Your hypocrisy is so much a part of you that you have long since forgotten to connect what you say and what you think.
Haven't I brought up, multiple times, how you're too use to speaking to the choir?

Explain how what you put in bold implies that the event was staged by the government.

Use your words thoughtone.
 
Haven't I brought up, multiple times, how you're too use to speaking to the choir?

Explain how what you put in bold implies that the event was staged by the government.

Use your words thoughtone.

You posted it, you implied it. Those are your words.
 
Back
Top