text:
The key fallacy embedded in Keynesian economics is the idea that government spending adds to an economy's health. In reality, the opposite is true. So let's bury that equation baloney and get back to work. FULL ARTICLE by Patrick Barron
C + I + G = Baloney
{ 111 comments }
- June 29, 2010 at 6:58 am
This is such nonsense. Malinvestment by government is what you're describing, which is what the government is currently doing by spending on wars, but sensible investment by government is the reason you have roads. When libertarians build a road I'll be happy to drive on it.
"Governments forcing Central Banks to keep interest rates low"
Actually, the Fed is an independent bankster owned organization. If anything, it's the Fed and its member banks that force the government to act, but they set their own policies on interest rates. Either we manage our own society through democratic self-government, or we'll end up being ruled by others, that's been true through all of history. I, for one, do not want to be ruled by a 'market.'
- June 29, 2010 at 8:50 am
You want free market roads? Open up a history book… The Fed is a government organization. The head is appointed by the president.The market does not rule. It is just a place where people come together to do business.In democracy you are ruled by others. 51% control.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:39 am
I hate to say this but "retardo" fits you well. And no, there is no such thing as "sensible" gov't spending it.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:48 am
Remove the shackles (regulation, taxation, destruction of property rights) and see what happens. We would have roads.
- June 29, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Whenever you hear someone use the word "bankster,"or put the word market in quotations, you know they're an idiot.
- June 29, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Government's building roads is not an investment — it's spending. Now, it may well be spending that many of us approve of, and it may well provide a benefit to society but it's spending nonetheless. Don't fall for the silly notion, popularized first during the Clinton administration, that government "invests" our money.
It doesn't.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:24 pm
You do not want to be ruled by a market? So you would rather be ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats, power hungry politicians, and an organization that robs you blind every day through the hidden tax of inflation? The market is freedom. It is at its core the freedom of association and the freedom to exchange labor, money, goods, and services without fear of government coercion. It is The freedom to succeed for those who exercise frugality, discipline, and possess a drive to improve themselves for economic gain which leads to productivity gains throughout all society. Freedom is also the freedom to fail for those who make poor decisions whether it is the individual or a corporation.Yes a market will influence your decisions both short and long term, but you miss one thing. The market is always in existence. The market in the presence of government coercion may become distorted, but there is still a market. It is the government that makes this market so unpredictable and volatile. Look no further than the two worst economic disasters have taken place in the era of government intervention.
- June 29, 2010 at 7:47 am
Patrick, you are confusing an accounting identity they teach in econ 101 with Keynesian theory – and your confusion demonstrates your ignorance of what Keynesianism really is.
There are good Austrian critiques out there of Keynesianism that understand what Keynes and Keynesians were actually saying. They don't always convince me, but they are solid critiques. This is not one of them.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:03 am
His argument is centered around the fact that GNP does not necessarily measure national wealth. While this is true (or do you disagree with it?) it does not take aim at the central ideas of Keynesianism. I'll actually agree with you. I am stunned.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:37 am
I agree it doesn't measure national wealth. Who claims it does?
- June 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I don't know that they "claim" it does, but considering aside from preventing inflation one of the purposes of the Fed is to keep the GDP growing it seems obvious they believe it is such a measure.
- June 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm
No, they believe it is a measure of national income…
- June 29, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Josh, it's not GNI it's GNP, just going by that I'd say they think it measures production, not income.
- June 29, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I agree it doesn't measure national wealth. Who claims it does?
But plenty of people do pretend that it measures national wealth creation. Else why not include business-to-business spending? That would put consumer spending into proper perspective, but the wealth-creation crowd insists it would be double-counting.
GNP/GDP is a lousy proxy for, well, anything actually.
- June 29, 2010 at 7:58 am
The roads argument is so tired. I suppose if there was no government we'd all just starve to death on our own plots of land, unable to move about – just like all of our neighbors. So stupid.
How do you differentiate between sensible investment by government and malinvestment? If the government does such a good job at building roads, what is it that makes them not so good at national defense and war fighting? If they are so good and investing in and building roads, why not cars, computers, and agriculture? There is no middle ground here. They are just as bad at roads and everything else they do, as they would be if they decided to completely take over the internet or software industry. There's nothing magical about roads, it's just the way people have always known it to be done and some can't imagine another way that it could happen.
- June 29, 2010 at 8:03 am
"I suppose if there was no government we'd all just starve to death on our own plots of land, unable to move about – just like all of our neighbors. So stupid."
Why do so many libertarians jump on this extremist version of any argument? It's always this ham-fisted reductio ad absurdum that never quite works. The argument isn't that there will be no roads. The argument is that there will be sub-optimal under- (or over-) investment due to distorted incentives.
- June 29, 2010 at 8:09 am
" The argument isn't that there will be no roads. The argument is that there will be sub-optimal under- (or over-) investment due to distorted incentives."
Fair point, but it's clearly NOT the point the original poster (david retardo) was making.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:01 am
True, but it's probably more emphatic statement than deep analysis. It's a rough, broad-swipe response to a rough, broad-swipe initial post. I'm not sure we should be acting like either is a solid analytic argument. And that's my point to Mike – don't pretend that's the actual argument.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:10 am
I will address the argument that the private economy will make a sub-optimal investment in roads. It appears that Mr. Kuehn wants to say that government provision of roads will come closer to the optimal investment level.
First, is the optimum denominated in terms of money (real or nominal, it matters not at this point) or in terms of mileage (quantity)? This matters because, with anyone who has any knowledge of how a department of public works actually operates, one knows that the price per mile of road provided by a DPW is higher than the price per mile of road provided by a private company, given similar quality and constitution of road.
Therefore, if it is denominated in mileage, one must consider why the private economy would be led to a suboptimal provision of the good, relative to the government. This appears to be a knowledge problem. In other words, who knows better how much mileage is required? The answer is clearly the local provider. This makes sense, since either cities or counties build local roads, then states, and then only the feds provide the interstate system. I don't think the issue is going to come from the quantity provision side, then.
The other way to denominate the investment is in dollar terms. How does the private provision of roads operate? Two ways: either toll roads whereby the users pay at entry/exit points, or fee-based roads, whereby a periodic fee is paid to the road provider for continued use. Fee-based roads are exposed to free-rider problems such that fees may be set higher to account for use by people who do not pay the periodic fee. When a private road provider sets up to build a road, then, the provider will make calculations based on expected revenue and expenses, discounted to the present, and net of initial investment. If there is some economic value, the road will be built. If not – no road. Thus, for an individual firm, it seems that unless they make consistent mistakes the non-optimal investment problem is likely to be minimized.
How about from the road users' perspective? Will there be too much road or not enough? If people find there is not enough road currently available, will they not pay fees for more roads to be built? Or seek other modes of transportation? This latter gets into the public provision of mass transit, which is a related issue and goes by many of the same principles as roads. Clearly if one is paying for road usage then one will moderate usage according to the subjective value. If I have to pay five dollars to use the highway every time I go to work, do I not have great incentive to car pool in order to minimize payments?
Due to the price-induced equilibrating forces, I do not see how sub-optimal investment in roads can be persistent.
On the other hand, public provision of roads does not operate according to an economic profit scale. It operates on a political profit scale. Legislatures allocate budgets for DPWs every fiscal year. It is in the interest of politicians to overinvest in roads in politically sensitive precincts, and underinvestment in non-sensitive precincts in order to maximize the chances of re-election. The underinvestment is required because raising taxes too quickly, overall, is a political killer. Thus, the budget must be followed, more or less.
Second, DPW-built roads always end up costing much more than privately provided roads because of public unions which mandate high wages and fixed-hour work days. Overtime, then, is paid, which is very costly. Union workers have an incentive to shirk and draw out the length of time it takes to build a road since they can gain higher income in this fashion. Note that this will also be true of private firms if they have unionized labor. So, total investment in roads, in dollar terms per mile built, will likely be higher if they are provided by the public. The total miles built is likely to be misallocated across precincts. One cannot say for sure if too many or too few total miles will be built.
By the way, for anyone who wants to look into the academic research on such issues, this is commonly known as "the lighthouse fallacy." Or – private provision of public goods. It's a very worthwhile area of research.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:43 am
It appears that Mr. Kuehn wants to say that government provision of roads will come closer to the optimal investment level.
Well, it could. I don't think I ever said that it will.
Therefore, if it is denominated in mileage, one must consider why the private economy would be led to a suboptimal provision of the good, relative to the government. This appears to be a knowledge problem. In other words, who knows better how much mileage is required?
No, it's not a knowledge problem – it's an incentive problem (as Hoppe would describe it, a Misesian property problem rather than a Hayekian knowledge problem). The question isn't whether the market is better able to use information regarding roads – the question is whether the market, which responds to the prospect of private benefit, is able to adequately provide roads, which offer a great deal of social benefit. This problem stands no matter what metric you use.
Due to the price-induced equilibrating forces, I do not see how sub-optimal investment in roads can be persistent.
I don't think I would be able to see either if I only thought of it as a knowledge problem.
On the other hand, public provision of roads does not operate according to an economic profit scale. It operates on a political profit scale.
This is (one reason) why I never said that government will provide the optimal amount of roads (or anything else).
- June 29, 2010 at 10:49 am
Thanks for your reply. I believe I can clear up one issue.
I see only a quantity-denominated sub-optimal investment as a knowledge problem. In other words, absent price signals, how are we to know what the correct amount of roads to provide really is? Thus, using a money-denominated investment changes it from a knowledge problem into an incentive problem.
My impression was that you were arguing that the government would provide roads in preferable fashion to the private market. If that is a misrepresentation of your position, then my apologies, since this is what a I set out to refute.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:12 am
…the question is whether the market, which responds to the prospect of private benefit, is able to adequately provide roads, which offer a great deal of social benefit.
And what is the "social benefit" of roads which is not encapsulated in private benefits?
- June 29, 2010 at 9:58 am
I don't know which is more boneheaded, the OP's argument that there would be no roads or your argument that someone knows the right amount and type of investment needed for roads. At least his error springs from a lack of imagination, which is understandable, rather than shoddy analysis.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:32 am
Mike, don't you know that when someone talks about the optimal level of something, in the way Daniel has, he means "the level I desire"?
- June 29, 2010 at 10:45 am
???? You either don't understand the argument or you do and you're being disingenuous in representing it. I'm guessing it's the latter. What is the point of that, really? Why don't you just disagree with me – why do you have to falsely impute things?
- June 29, 2010 at 11:09 am
All right, then, Daniel, please define "optimal," as you have used it, in some objective way.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:44 am
I never said someone knows the right amount and type of investment needed – you should probably reread my comment before accusing people of being "boneheaded". Let's try and keep this civil.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:49 am
Perhaps you can clarify what you ARE claiming; you wrote:
"The argument is that there will be sub-optimal under- (or over-) investment due to distorted incentives."
Are you simply re-stating what you believe anti-libertarians are actually arguing (in contrast to the reductio ad absurdums you clearly oppose), or is this in fact your position? Honestly, it's not clear (to me at least).
- June 29, 2010 at 8:04 am
*If you use that argument, that is. I think the positive/negative externalities case is a decent argument against the anarchist perspective, but it's certainly not the only one, nor is it slam dunk.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:40 am
It has so many implicit assumptionts it can't even come close to being decent.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:27 am
Indeed; a cursory glance through this website would explain why we dismiss the idea that coercion is justified by the specter of externalities.
- June 29, 2010 at 8:29 am
The whole thing is a mess. G should be a negative with a multiplier greater than one. It's pretty easy to understand, if it was valuable, someone would be doing it, not government. Other major problems with the whole thing is that it also fails to consider production. What good is consumption and investment if nothing is being produced? Further, it also ignores growth in the money supply. The entire calculation is designed as the easy way out of trying to convince the population everything is good. GNP goes up when government spends more (G), creates malinvestment through inflation (I), and pushes consumption of things that don't exist (C).
One thing that I do take offense to in this article is that nothing in Keynesian economics is theory. Theory requires there to be a hypothesis first, which is then tested to see if the hypothesis is anywhere near reality. Keynesian economics, and other forms that attempt to justify the State (such as the Chicago School), don't operate on theory, or even hypothesis, but on wishful thinking.
The reason economics is viewed as a dismal science is because the most public faces operate on the notion of how they would like the system to work, not how it really behaves. Wouldn't it be great if all we needed to generate prosperity was to have government just spend a ton of money (Keynesian)? Wouldn't it be great if all we had to do is set inflation on autopilot at 3% (Chicago)? These systems claim that there is nothing wrong with how they set things up, it's the rest of us refusing to make it happen.
Sure, Keynesian economics, Chicago School economics, all other forms of economics outside the Austrian approach would work wonderfully if that obstinant creature called reality quit spoiling the soup and changed itself to fit the mold.
Mainstream economics just picks and choses what it wants to show to "prove" its approach, all other data be damned. It shares much with modern climate change "research". There isn't anything remotely scientific about it. Simply coming up with numbers and math equations doesn't move the entire approach out of illegitimacy. Math is a language and all I hear out of the Keynesian camp, Chicago camp, all other statist camps, is the equivelent of the babble that 6 month old babies spew.
All of the government recognized economic fields will always remain a joke since they attempt to force the data into their view of the world. It's the data that dictates reality; we can't dictate reality and expect the data to fall in line.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:02 am
"It's pretty easy to understand, if it was valuable, someone would be doing it, not government."
No. If it's something that has benefits that can be privately realized then someone would be doing it. But there are more benefits to be considered than private benefits.
The government is bad at activities that primarily result in private benefits. It does not follow that to be a good investment something has to have private benefits.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:42 am
It has to follow that the person considers it worth their time and the benefits worth recouping. So yeah, it sort of does follow, and sorry but the government will never be able to measure whether the benefits involved exceed the opportunity costs to the individuals taxed.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:31 am
There is no such thing as a public benefit. Public is just a collection of private individuals. If we benefit the private individual, the "public" is also benefitted by simple proxy. The idea of government benefit usually results in one part of the system being harmed. No one voluntarily harms themselves. If a part of the system is being harmed, the whole system cannot benefit. Because some people do not wish to be harmed, government steps in and harms them on their behalf.
Private benefit is public benefit. The two are inseparable. The current concept of public benefit harms the private benefit, therefore, there is no public benefit.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:34 am
But there are more benefits to be considered than private benefits.
Right, there are "benefits" that you desire but can't achieve without resorting to force.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:47 am
No, some I may not actually desire personally. I'm not talking about that.
You would personally benefit much more from engaging actual arguments, rather than trying to dress-up every non-libertarian as a crony capitalist.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:15 am
No, some [benefits] I may not actually desire personally.
If you do not desire something, then to call it a benefit at all is a contradiction. As elaborated by J. Murray above, there is no such thing as a non-private benefit. You are making a meaningless distinction. The phrase "private benefit" is redundant.
Of course, this is all explained in detail in Human Action, for starters…
You would personally benefit much more from engaging actual arguments…
I am trying to nail down your vague (and possibly meaningless) terms. Your unintentionally ironic meta-commentary isn't helping anyone.
- June 29, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Daniel, are you saying you don't agree with the idea of using government force to achieve these public goals?
I understand you think this is ok (probably that it's a necessary evil), but no one called you a "crony capitalist." The argument we'd make in that regard is that even if you don't like crony capitalism your views lead to it by virtue of providing the government that power. I don't think it's possible to argue against that, unless you believe you can make a government full of angels who don't care about themselves.
- June 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Even if the government was full of selfless angels, it would still fail. There's still the problem of diffuse information. No matter how benevolent the state, it can't effectively run anything since it lacks the information to do so. And by the nature of it being a state, it can never tap into the pricing information or other information since it can continue its existence wholely independently of worry about bankruptcy or being underpriced.
- June 29, 2010 at 7:24 pm
I'd agree with your view point in general (talking about government running everything) but I think Daniel's argument was about government just using it' s force to create a road system or other things of that nature.
I think a private system can do this best, so I don't think government needs to do it, but I wouldn't say that government can't possibly do it in a reasonably effective way (because at least in most cases I've seen they aren't utterly horrible).
I'm sure you may argue that we are paying more than we should be or should have more and better roads than what we have for this cost. I'm not disagreeing with that.
- June 30, 2010 at 8:07 am
You'd have to define what utterly horrible means. When there is nothing to compare to, then it's hard to see if it's bad or not. I would consider the construction system to be utterly horrible. Government construction typically blocks off lanes miles before and after the actual construction zone, keeps the area blocked off even when no workers are present, and make disgustingly little progress. This sort of thing would never be tolerated on a priately run road as it would severely cut into revenue. Government doesn't care how long the highway is out of commission becuase the department of transportation of the State isn't threatened by the lack of activity. All we can do is just put up and shut up. A private entity would have to minimize the delays due to repair and expansion becuase the lost revenue of people finding alternate routes would bankrupt them.
- June 30, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Fair enough, I suppose I can't argue with the huge delays in road construction with seemingly no progress made in some cases. It doesn't happen all the time, but even the Soviet Union managed to survive several decades before collapsing under it's own weight.
- June 29, 2010 at 8:59 am
Patrick, where do you propose the private sector finds the money to fund investments if the government does not spend it first? It's simple accounting that if the government sector is in surplus, then the private sector must be in deficit. Therefore, the government must spend in order for the private sector to save.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:43 am
Ugh, what? So how did saving occur before government "surpluses"?
- June 29, 2010 at 10:36 am
I'm an accountant and your entire claim is bogus. There is only one pot of resources that can be ultimately drawn from. Available resources are finite. If government spends the resources, those are resources that cannot be used by the private sector. Think of it in terms of percentages:
100% Resources = % Government used + % Private sector used + % In Reserve (saved)
If the government portion increases, it HAS TO come out of either the private sector portion or the reserve portion. There is no way around it. Resources just don't magically appear out of nowhere.
We can grow the usable portion, but only at the expense of taking it from the reserve as reserve could be either amount saved intentionally or amount undiscovered. Government "savings" can only be dumped back into the reserve pile, after first being confiscated from the private pile and its use disallowed.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:03 am
"In reality, the opposite is true: government spending subtracts from an economy's health."
So the interstate system made everyone worse off? So the space program made everyone worse off? I call anti-statist religious fervor on this one.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:54 am
"So the space program made everyone worse off?"
Uh, yes.
And with a free market, an emergent, organic interstate system of roads would have arisen far before the government made one.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:56 am
The issue is that we have created these ever-growing monsters that may not be able to be sustained. The shuttle program and NASA may already be on its way out. Look at this more long term. Not to mention that we didn't choose where the roads were built…
- June 29, 2010 at 10:04 am
Who knows if it made everyone worse off? My guess is yes, but it most certainly made the people who count worse off. You know, the people who created the resources that were then taken and used by someone else for some other, less desirable, purpose. They were made demonstrably worse off. Normally, we recognize that as theft and don't have a big debate about it.
- June 30, 2010 at 9:00 am
I actually agree with the bunch of you about the future of the space business, given the way things are going, if not with the past. However, I think you're pushing things more than a little to call it theft. You live in a democracy, which means you get to choose the leaders, which means you make choices and choose the system that you want.
If you don't like the system, change it or start your own. You can call democracy tyranny of the majority if you want, but you certainly can't call it theft any more than you can call condo fees theft. Sure, some of the money might not go where you want, but if you really don't like it, you can elect different board members or move out. If they take their condo fees and waste it on extra security guards and the such, do you really call it theft? You chose to live there, and you agreed to abide by the contract. Likewise, by choosing to reside in the country of your choice, you agree to abide by their contracts. That can be called waste but it cannot be called theft.
Likewise in the world, we still have international anarchy and a free market of nations on a global scale. If you truly don't like where your money is going, then vote for a different system or move to a different country that uses their "condo fees" in a different manner. The only real change will come if enough people either vote to change the system or if enough people move to a different country that economically outperforms the old. Given the past voting history of people, I don't place too many bets on the former.
- June 29, 2010 at 10:43 am
Yes, the space program has made us worse off. The entire program wouldn't have even existed if it weren't for the government's long standing policy to mock Robert Goddard was lifted. Further, most of the benefits that NASA has claimed for itself over the decades were developed PRIOR TO the existence of the agency. Some of the famous inventions that NASA has lain claim to at one point or another (or claimed to have a major role in the improvement thereof) that were invented years before, decades before, or completely independent of NASA was formed are:
Wireless data transfer
Integrated circuitry
Silicon based processing
Radiation shielding
Heat shielding
And this is just the tip of the iceburg. NASA hasn't provided a single whit of benefit to mankind. Not one. Astronomy, aeronotics, everything used by NASA was first developed outside of NASA by private parties, many of which weren't even involved with the agency at all. NASA can vanish tomorrow and not only would the space industry NOT fail, it would succeed like never before.
Just like the age of colonial exploration before it, space travel won't start to truly find its way into our daily use until government gets out of the business.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:24 am
Well it made some people much better off. The heart of the matter is that some people were made better off by being robbers while others were made worse off by being robbed. While it may be possible for the robber to provide benefits to mankind with his spoils, it is nonsense to try and weigh that benefit against the costs to mankind. Benefits are either maximized or not – there are no values to add or subtract and there is no scale. The ONLY way that maximization of benefits to society even makes sense, is if benefits are maximized by every individual in his/her own subjective opinion. Which occurs by allowing each individual to choose what they prefer.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:49 am
The only party benefited was the military which has dreamt for years on how to use space as a weapon
- June 29, 2010 at 11:06 am
It should be pointed out that even if the Space Program had somehow made "everyone" better-off (whatever that means), we know a priori that it couldn't do as much good as allowing people to use their resources as they choose.
The argument about whether specific instances of theft have positive effects (as in another example, when proponents of freedom criticize the quality of health care in Canada) is dangerous, since there's no theoretical reason to bar the possibility of stolen property being put to good use (though it seems this somehow rarely happens). The indisputable fact available from perhaps an hour's reading of basic economic reasoning is that government spending can never do as much good as voluntary actions.
There's also the small issue of the morality of theft itself…
- June 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm
So the interstate system made everyone worse off?
Yes, a private road system would be much preferable.
So the space program made everyone worse off?
It drained resources from the private sector…and for what? Landing on the moon is an impressive engineering feat, but what did it actually accomplish?
- June 29, 2010 at 10:39 am
David is pretty funny – he must be about 12. If government is the reason we have roads what is the reason we have cars? If you want to try some of those libertarian roads go to Disney World, about 40 square miles worth. Also how are you ruled by a market? It takes coercion to be forced to do anything, government has that power, not the market where you are free to buy or not buy. Try not buying government products, push it far enough and you will be shot.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:54 am
[State] Roads are, to a government, primarily a strategic asset, since it allows for the rapid transportation of armed forces, and secondarily, a subsidy to automakers and their lobbies
- June 29, 2010 at 11:55 am
I believe that David may be a troll.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:56 am
I know nothing about economics. Here is the issue I wish to bring to attention: loyalty. Individuals living on a landmass which is labeled as a nation-state feel loyalty to that label and landmass. This loyalty is very powerful. It is meaningful for many. For some, it is the most meaningful value in their lives and it guides their life decisions. I believe many large-scale projects would not be possible without having a surplus of loyalty/patriotism support initial savings, decisions, and expenditures.
Perhaps I am interpreting these things from an ignorant perspective but I can't understand why none of these economic discussions mention the importance of loyalty and patriotism in government large-scale projects. I guess its because patriotism is for ignoramuses.
- June 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Well, you seem to be conflating patriotism and nationalism in your post, but provided you are talking about a love for a land and it's people/culture/scenery/etc. I think that is an integral component of how humans act.
You don't need a state to have patriotism or to work together with your fellow community. You'll do that naturally through mutually beneficial exchange, and you'll probably not even know what all of the goods you produce or service accomplish.
- June 29, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Well, you seem to be making a strict delineation between patriotism and nationalism. Is it remotely as clear as all that?
As for "stateless patriotism," can you offer some historical examples…
- June 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Why do I need to show something historically when it's easy enough to just to point to individuals? I don't have any kind of pride in the "United States" right now, but I like the land/culture/etc. I have an interest in not only promoting my own welfare but in promoting the welfare of those I care about, even if they aren't within my own family.
I'm just not for using a government to steal from other people in order to accomplish that. I think a lot of the people here probably feel the same way.
- June 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm
This is getting complicated.
I guess an important question is: "Is a nation-state's government an important aspect of its culture." Meaning, when people say they love America, or support America, or feel loyalty to America, do they mean an American culture which may be separate and above its government, do they mean an American culture which is intimately tied to the government, or do they mean the American government as the essential characteristic of the nation-state? I believe most people, when they say they love America, they are saying they love its present government despite all its flaws (and that others should feel the same). I could be wrong.
I realize governments change and can be changed but I am interested in a purely descriptive definition.
I am not particularly proud of America either but "liking the land/culture/etc…" sets your sympathies at a far lower degree than 99% of the human race who feel "love," "loyalty," "undying respect," for their "motherlands" in other words, adjectives of a much more passionate tenor…
- June 29, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I seem to recall someone who had a passionate tenor for his Fatherland. One problem was that he wanted his Fatherland to be everyone else's Fatherland, too.
In terms of your comment about certain sympathies being at "a far lower degree" than love of the American government: how do you measure that? Can you say with objective certainty that one man's love of the color blue is greater than another's love for green? It's the same thing as judging whether Bill's love of America (the federal government) is greater than Steve's love of America (the culture and people).
Your important question, "Is a nation-state's government an important aspect of its culture," assumes that the culture is part of the "nation-state." As if the people, their values, actions, traditions, etc. are at least owned in some fashion by the government. What I personally love about America is the people, the scenery, the history of liberty. I cannot see how adding into that the idea that I should love a coercive government would… improve the measure of my passion.
Love, however, is tempered by the faults of its object. Love is a verb, not a noun. It is not the red, white, and blue a person bleeds. It is not unshakable loyalty to the state. Love is acting on behalf of your community and fellows. Attempting to shake the sinuous grip of Leviathan from oneself and ones neighbors is an act of love. (Leviathan is a descriptive metaphor for the state.)
Since loyalty is the subject, I'd ask you this: is it better to be loyal to your own family, or to to the local criminal gang?
- June 29, 2010 at 7:43 pm
In my personal history I've had various different opinions about patriotism as I used to conflate it with nationalism myself. It was only recently that I saw this differently, and I feel much better about it than I did before.
The discovery of libertarianism is really what opened up my view of nationalism and patriotism as distinct ideas, and I could never see it differently now. I'm not a committed anarchist yet, but if I end up believing in the state at all it will only ever be as a "necessary evil" that should be treated with suspicion at all times.
- June 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm
In answer to the first, 'david retardo' ("When libertarians build a road I'll be happy to drive on it.") and others who have engaged the question of private roads: perhaps you are all already aware but, if not: There have been any number of private roads built already, for centuries, in the United States (and elsewhere). Some parts of the US are looking into the idea again as well, such as New Jersey (New Jersey Turnpike).
Private Highways in America, 1792-1916 has some relevant data, as does an article at openmarket.org titled "The Private Provision of Surface Transportation Infrastructure in the United States", among many others.
- June 29, 2010 at 12:32 pm
This makes me want to see a long term graph of :
I.e. Nominal GDP minus 2 time nominal G (since G is already in there once), as reported in ounces of gold, instead of funny money. Just for kicks.
- June 29, 2010 at 1:03 pm
The basic equation C + I + G = GNP is not the problem. There is a flow to this that is sometimes overlooked. GNP or National Income originates from production, which comes from capital and labor. It is the successful exchange of production at some price that generates money income, which we measure as GNP or income. Consumption and investment can be looked at as either what we spend money income on or how we allocate production: at a simple level on consumption goods or investment goods (means of production).
At a simple level, consumption and investment are the only two options, whether the allocation is made by the private individual or government. And yes, governments do invest: roads, bridges, schools, sewer & water systems, education, lots of things. So, C + I + G = GNP is ok, it is just that GNP comes from capital and labor, that creates the means for C + I + G. Without production, there is no consumption or investment or government spending. Investment creates the means for future production and future income. Without investment, future GNP will fall.
From what I see, our primary economic problem is that we are allocating too much of our income toward consumption and not enough toward investment. Over the long haul, this will lower our standard of living. The problem with government spending today is that most, the vast majority, is not investment spending but rather consumption oriented: social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, wars, etc. This is the nature of government: the politicians want to show how they provide. But by orienting our economy so much toward consumption, we are doing substantial harm to our and our childrens prosperity.
One last point, there are things which we will likely continue to invest in collectively, such as roads. However, it would behoove us to keep the vast majority of investment in the private sector. Knowledge is widely distributed in society. Right now government has control over far more of the nation's income than it has the knowledge/competence to allocate. Five percent of the workforce is unlikely to have any more than 5% of the nation's knowledge. If they are allocating 25% of the nation's resources, they are destined to do a bad job.
- June 29, 2010 at 4:47 pm
"By viewing the GNP equation, one can easily see why Keynesian economists, who control the levers of government, believe that it is possible to "stimulate" the economy with government money."
No, there's more to it. C + I + G = GNP is just a definition. The question is whether raising G can also raise GNP. According to you, it can't:
"Government spending must come out of the private economy."
But that's what the whole debate is about. Keynesians believe that market failures can sometimes be resolved by facilitating cooperation through the government. That means raising G can also raise GNP in some circumstances.
"As harsh as the idea may seem, unemployment insurance payments actually slow down labor redeployment and must be stopped."
I'm not convinced unemployment insurance always slows labor redeployment. Even if it does, it does not follow that unemployment insurance payments must be stopped. Consider something you wrote earlier:
"Unemployment is high, which, according to Austrian theory, is to be expected."
exactly. Regardless of who is to blame, and I think you blame the government, there is going to be some unemployment. Then you have to answer some questions:
1. Can unemployment insurance prevent enough suffering to be worth it, even if there is less wealth to go around?
2. Can unemployment reach a level sufficient to make order impossible to maintain? That is, will unemployment reach such high levels that there will be riots on the streets, making it impossible for the government to enforce contracts and protect property?
I think an answer to those questions is a necessary part of an argument that unemployment insurance payments must be stopped.
- June 29, 2010 at 5:40 pm
The problem you have to consider is that unemployment isn't a single concept. You have to distinguish voluntary vs involuntary unemployment.
Involuntary unemployment is entirely a government problem. It is partially caused by forced unemployment insurance which is paid primarily by operational businesses based on current employment levels. As such, it specifically damages the ability of the more healthy businesses to actually hire more individuals as the more they hire, the greater the "premium" (tax) becomes. In effect, the company is now forced to "hire" someone that provides no work in return and the more the company does, the more effective the employee and better run the company is, the larger number of people it is now expected to support that are not employed with them. This system creates strong disincentives to employ additional bodies as it is a double hit on the company – existing resources are being diverted away from capital expansion and the additional employee will only increase the rate of capital drain into the pockets of the unproductive.
It also creates additional incentive for employers to drop marginal employees as the insurance costs are part of the cost of employment. Unemployment insurance does tip the balance between a beneficial employee and a harmful one, driving additional bodies into the system, which puts yet more pressure on the more successful businesses and moves marginally successful business into the marginally unsuccessful category.
Involuntary unemployment is also caused by other factors. Taxation, minimum wages, union protectionism, required benefits, maximum work-week law, overtime legislation, etc. Involuntary unemployment is any effect caused by government that blocks a mutually agreed pact between employee and employer because it failed to fit into the draconian rule-set dictated by the governing body. This sort of behavior does not protect the employee, as they're usually claimed to, as superior working conditions and salary is something that must be built up over time and over generations through proper savings, capital improvement, and strong property rights. This is why even after sinking multiple trillions into African countries they're poorer than when we started the effort, the proper steps weren't taken and our government leaders had the hubris that they could actually solve the problem using easy steps.
Voluntary unemployment is what Austrian economics recognizes. This kind of employment is entirely at the choice of the individual. When an individual chooses not to partake in available employment opportunities due to whatever reason – geography, type of employment, salary, any other reason – this individual simply decided to withhold his services for an offer that fits his demands. Such an individual has withdrawn from the employment market by his own volition. As such, it is unnecessary to support this individual with any kind of coercive insurance as he has made the decision that he can survive without a source of income on savings.
Unemployment insurance creates a vicious downward cycle, the more who are on it only accelerates the rate of job losses. And the second scenario, street riots, are only possible in an economy that has State restrictions blocking employment in the first place. There is an infinite amount of work that needs to be done. There will always be a job available for whoever wants one. The only question is if there is a government force keeping that job unfilled by dictating the conditions above a point where it would be reasonably expected to be filled.
Unemployment under any circumstance is unethical and immoral. On one side, its existence is one of the factors creating unemployment. On the other, should all the restrictions blocking employment be removed, only those who chose to be out of work remain and there is no moral or ethical reason to provide them with resources.
Basically, unemployment insurance has no purpose in existence whatsoever. It's effectively immoral and unethical.
- June 30, 2010 at 10:33 am
"Involuntary unemployment is entirely a government problem."
I was pretty careful not to contradict this, since I know Austrians tend to view things in this light. But I do disagree with it, and here's why. When a business goes bankrupt, it must be liquidated and absorbed back into the economy, along with its employees. Those employees will be involuntarily unemployed while they look for work.
I think it's clear that bankruptcy is the result of "malinvestment" and can occur even in a free market. But businesses can be very large. Is there a certain size of company that simply cannot go bankrupt? If a company had 100 divisions across 100 countries, would it be guaranteed never to go bankrupt in a free market economy? Okay, now if a large, complex business can go bankrupt, why can't smaller, tightly interconnected businesses all go broke at the same time and for the same reason? I think that can happen, and in fact I think large chunks of the economy can essentially go bankrupt as a result of large-scale malinvestment. I don't think any of this requires government intervention, although I think political forces will usually work in the favor of policies that will make the malinvestment (and resulting asset bubbles) worse.
The larger and more complicated the business, the more of a pain it is to liquidate it and absorb it back into the economy. (as a general rule) If a huge chunk of the economy goes bankrupt all at once, I think people will be involuntarily unemployed for some time.
- June 30, 2010 at 11:28 am
What you call here "malinvestment" is probably better termed "error," which no Austrian would deny is possible in any economic environment. What Austrians term "malinvestment" is something different.
- June 30, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Ah, maybe I have the terms wrong. I'm just saying that errors lead to involuntary unemployment. I believe errors can require large chunks of the economy to restructure just as they require businesses to restructure. So I think large-scale errors can lead to long-term unemployment regardless of government policy.
- June 30, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Ah, but it isn't involuntary as there is always work to be done. The question that must be asked is are the newly displaced workers refusing to take any job that they can or are they insisting on remaining employed under their chosen profession or at a specified salary? Losing the job itself may be involuntary, but remaining as such is purely voluntary under a free market system.
- June 30, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Josh, I'm not sure your premise is correct here. I think there is the possibility of temporary unemployment (and real wage loss) due to supply shocks, accidents, severe weather, etc. but I don't think large scale business errors would be commonplace.
Why? Because without a "cheap credit" federal reserve system and government subsidies business would have to survive entirely on their own profitability.
As it is now they can run a long period of time with huge losses and debt on their balance sheets. The situation post 2008 is even worse, given that any business that's "too big to fail" or considered too important to the economy has an implicit bailout built into any considerations banks have for loaning money to them.
- June 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm
You are right, but you should follow Beefcakes lead here. Error is a fundamental fact of human life, we are not given perfect knowledge in anything. If enough people make errors, hardship will result, but is that not true of any system? Freedom is most valuable not because it eliminates error, but because no matter what goofy idea sweeps the land, there will always be a number of people who do the opposite, the ones who turn out to have been right, preserve society. A system that regularly rewards those who are right, works better than a system based on distorting the evidence people use to make their decisions. That is what causes mal-investment.
- June 30, 2010 at 10:20 pm
To clarify (and follow up on tralph's point), "malinvestment" suggests something more systematic than error as such; this latter one would expect to be more-or-less randomly spread across the economy. Some entrepreneurs make errors and go bankrupt, others do not, we don't expect any systematic bias (as are revealed during a crisis — the bust stage). The point of ABCT is to highlight the factors that lead to such biases (e.g., central bank machinations). A point not adequately stressed (if at all) by the conventional theory (but see Huelsmann's rendition in his paper on error cycles) is the *recurrence* of these biases. But this recurrence is precisely enabled by the illusion that the subjects of the state labor under (e.g., the illusion that the state is necessary, beneficial, etc.), allowing the state to repeatedly intervene in disastrous ways.
- June 30, 2010 at 10:33 pm
@J Murray: Yes, there is always work to be done. However, people are never instantaneously employed after losing their jobs.
@Matthew Swarignen: You understand exactly what I'm trying to say! You've raised the important issues, I think. Without a central bank, would business errors be large enough to build up over many years and result in unemployment over a long period of time while the economy restructured? I think so, you think no.
- June 30, 2010 at 10:44 pm
"To clarify (and follow up on tralph's point), "malinvestment" suggests something more systematic than error as such; this latter one would expect to be more-or-less randomly spread across the economy."
"Some entrepreneurs make errors and go bankrupt, others do not, we don't expect any systematic bias"
I expect systemic bias.
- June 30, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Beefcake was referring to a bias towards error. If you view the world in general as biased towards error on the part of human decisions, then there is no school of thought that can help you. Economics at its root attempts to understand the systems that result in correct decisions and to avoid those that result in errors.
- July 1, 2010 at 8:08 am
I would simply say, if humanity is in fact biased towards error, it's hard to believe we would have made it as far and for as long as we have.
- July 1, 2010 at 8:10 am
And to say there is no bias towards error is NOT to subscribe to any rubbish like the myth of progress. There can be serious detours along the way, no doubt.
- July 1, 2010 at 10:06 am
"Beefcake was referring to a bias towards error. If you view the world in general as biased towards error on the part of human decisions, then there is no school of thought that can help you."
A school of thought that allowed you to deal with large-scale errors certainly can. (Error is the wrong word. It implies that human beings can forecast correctly but get it wrong. In reality, uncertainty and our finite intelligence make forecasting impossible.) In my opinion, large-scale errors are the result of coordination failures and can only be resolved by cooperation.
"Economics at its root attempts to understand the systems that result in correct decisions and to avoid those that result in errors."
That's not my understanding of economics. And it's not my understanding of reality, regardless of how you define economics.
"I would simply say, if humanity is in fact biased towards error, it's hard to believe we would have made it as far and for as long as we have."
Why? Didn't the Great Depression happen? What about the Panic of 1873? There were other crises going back to Tulip Mania and doubtless before that. Regardless of how you think they happened, they happened, along with wars, plagues, and famine. We're still here, even though we're not perfect! (And "error" in this context comes pretty close to meaning "imperfection.")
- July 1, 2010 at 11:11 am
Thanks for the laugh, I haven't read anything that funny in a long time.
- July 1, 2010 at 11:13 am
@tralphkays: Wow, you need to read some more comedy. May I suggest Douglas Adams?
- July 1, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Josh, since you believe in large errors existing without government incentives I'm curious if you have any examples that you are pointing to?
Certainly businesses affected by replacement technologies can contract due to those technologies. Certainly business can be affected by natural disasters or accidents. But both of these issues can be dealt with by the market system and are going to occur even with government involvement.
I am unaware of a systematic problem inherent in the market system that is entirely uncorrectable without government-style intervention.
- July 1, 2010 at 7:03 pm
"Josh, since you believe in large errors existing without government incentives I'm curious if you have any examples that you are pointing to?"
The only way I can think to show such a thing would be to show some kind of a large-scale market failure in a completely laissez-faire economy. But I'm not enough of a historian to know of any such economies. Do you know of any? Can you point to an economy with less government intervention that is or was more stable? I'm interested, and one of these days I want to read about Scottish free banking. If all we had to do to stabilize the economy was get rid of the Fed, I'd be all for it.
"I am unaware of a systematic problem inherent in the market system that is entirely uncorrectable without government-style intervention."
The question is, is unsustainable growth more likely to occur in an economy that has government interventions like a central bank? To be honest, I don't know. I don't think the answer is obvious. Beyond that, I'm not prepared to defend a position, but it's been fun talking to you guys
- July 2, 2010 at 1:57 am
Keep it up, you are hilarious!
- June 29, 2010 at 8:46 pm
"But that's what the whole debate is about. Keynesians believe that market failures can sometimes be resolved by facilitating cooperation through the government. That means raising G can also raise GNP in some circumstances."
Too bad that is mere belief and nothing more. And who cares about "GNP" anyway? Talk about a useless aggregate.
"I'm not convinced unemployment insurance always slows labor redeployment. Even if it does, it does not follow that unemployment insurance payments must be stopped."
Why must it be started to begin with?
"Then you have to answer some questions:"
Not needed but…
"1. Can unemployment insurance prevent enough suffering to be worth it, even if there is less wealth to go around?"
Hardly even measurable (guess why.)
"2. Can unemployment reach a level sufficient to make order impossible to maintain? That is, will unemployment reach such high levels that there will be riots on the streets, making it impossible for the government to enforce contracts and protect property?"
One would hope so so long as by "government" you mean "state".
I think an answer to those questions is a necessary part of an argument that unemployment insurance payments must be stopped.
- June 30, 2010 at 10:23 am
nice troll
- July 1, 2010 at 11:58 pm
I'm sorry, did you think those pure assertions meritted more than the brief responses I issued? Do tell why…
- July 2, 2010 at 12:00 am
"The only way I can think to show such a thing would be to show some kind of a large-scale market failure in a completely laissez-faire economy. But I'm not enough of a historian to know of any such economies. Do you know of any? Can you point to an economy with less government intervention that is or was more stable? I'm interested, and one of these days I want to read about Scottish free banking. If all we had to do to stabilize the economy was get rid of the Fed, I'd be all for it."
If you're worried about errors, contemplate the effect an agency subject to calculational chaos due to lack of requisite data that arrogates itself a monopoly over certain industries and tries to regulate others (as if it knows better) will have…
- June 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Forced development by ego-driven interventionists does not result in the same type of civilization that comes about through voluntary mutual cooperation. To use roads as an example without broadening your vision to see the kind of civilization that comes about is naive.
- June 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I'm always looking for good classroom examples to explain to my students the absurdity of Y=C+I+G. Any suggestions?
- June 29, 2010 at 10:13 pm
It is like saying:
Health = nutrient intake + vomiting away nutrient intake + neighborhood thug stealing supply of nutrients.
In other words, C and I are inverses and G is always a negative factor.
When in reality health is a balanced diet (not just ice cream "C").
- June 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Nice analogy Bruce. However, in Y=C+I+G , Y can be increased by the government borrowing money and spending it, or just creating money out of thin air through straw man transactions with member banks of the Federal Reserve System. I suppose this would be like the thug buying nutrients with IOU's he has no intention of repaying.
- June 30, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Thanks for the improvement.
- June 30, 2010 at 8:19 pm
The mafia is doing everyone a favor by stealing nutrients. It increases demand for nutrients and creates jobs in nutrient production. Nobody wants to be unemployed when they have all the nutrients they need.
- June 29, 2010 at 11:44 pm
from the article:
"Government programs that do not provide essential security services are especially illogical.
a "property-protector" relying on expropriation is hard to top as far as illogicality goes. i'd say security heads the list.
- June 30, 2010 at 11:28 am
Patrick, you wrote:
>Although many who lost their jobs are not minimum wage workers, a pernicious consequence of raising the minimum wage is that it forces up all wages.
That is not true. Raising the minimum wage forces DOWN the wages of others. The aggregate demand for labor is an independent sum of funds. If employers have to pay some people more, then they have less money with which to pay others, which means their wages will fall.
- June 30, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Wow, put down the Keynesianism while here, shall we? There are no aggregates. It doesn't force wages down, it only displaces the marginally unproductive. If you're generating $100,000 worth of value for a company, you'll be compensated $100,000. Raising the minimum wage doesn't impact the salaries of those above the new level.
- July 2, 2010 at 12:00 am
>Wow, put down the Keynesianism while here, shall we? There are no aggregates.
Settle down. Aggregate analysis is not specific to Keynesian economics. And yes, there ARE aggregates. Aggregate spending, aggregate savings, aggregate wages, etc. Have you not heard of the quantity theory of money?
>It doesn't force wages down, it only displaces the marginally unproductive.
Wrong. It does not only displace the marginally productive. Employers do not strictly abstain from hiring workers whose market rate is just below the minimum wage. In many cases employers hire these workers at the minimum wage, and pay other workers less. They can do this because other companies are also bidding for the same supply of labor, and they too pay submarginal workers at minimum wage, which means they too have less funds available to pay other workers.
This holds true for the entire economy.
>If you're generating $100,000 worth of value for a company, you'll be compensated $100,000.
No, that is not how wage rates are formed. Workers do not "generate" value. Capitalists generate value because they are making the decisions. Wage rates are formed on the basis of supply and demand for the relevant labor type.
>Raising the minimum wage doesn't impact the salaries of those above the new level.
Yes, it does. If employers pay submarginal workers more than their market rate, that is, if they pay them minimum wage, then employers have less money available to pay those workers who make more than minimum wage.
- June 30, 2010 at 7:42 pm
That's right. It reduces the wages of some to 0. If someone is worth less than the minimum wage, they make 0 instead of what they are worth.
- June 30, 2010 at 8:30 pm
If raising the minimum wage causes the low value employees to lose their jobs that can certainly impact the wages or job security of remaining workers. Choices are constantly being made between various combinations of factors in the production of all goods, including the amount of labor and type of labor. For instance, a skilled mason is usually employed along with a lower paid hoddy (assistant to you white collar types) because the combination is far more productive than a mason alone. If the minimum wage exceeds the wages of the hoddy there can be a couple of consequences. The employer could decide to fire the hoddy, the mason is now less productive, and on a free market would earn less as a consequence. The employer might go to the mason and say "it is best to keep the hoddy, but to pay him the legal wage you must take less, however that is still more than I can pay you if he is gone". Minimum wage laws affect the efficiency of labor markets, and less efficient markets produce less wealth for those participating in them.
- June 30, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Mafia spending boosts GDP and reduces unemployment. Protection rackets are necessary to reduce income inequality. Mafia deficits are necessary to generate private savings, since the economy is a zero-sum game. SInce the economy is a zero-sum game, mafia deficits generate private savings. Therefore the mafia deficit should be maximized. Since C + I + M (mafia spending) is to be maximized, the mafia should protect and spend, print, and borrow as much as possible.
- July 1, 2010 at 6:41 am
When G consisted solely of wealth confiscated from producers by the "G", then C + I + G did indeed represent our entire national product–it was when the government began borrowing and worse when it began monetising that debt, to support unsustainable levels of spending, that the model lost all validity…
- July 1, 2010 at 11:52 am
The proper accounting identity is in fact C+I+G=Y, ( with Y denoting Income ) in a closed economy. Append (+X-M) to the left side to cover an open economy. That said, an accounting identity is a tautology and is not helpful as theory.
The first keynesian slleight of hand lies in assuming Y to be equivalent to GDP by definition. It isnt for a number of reasons, th emost obvious being that it does not feature production that remains in the hands of , or is consumed by, the producer himself.
The second Keynesian sleight of hand lies in th emasking of how the G component is funded – those who spend C and invest I must have produced more than C+I if any G at all is to be possible ( assuming no government borrowing) . SO G is in fact T.
But wait, theres more, whhich gives the lie to the identity itself: G in the hands of those paid by government is ITSELF spent and invested (and in turn taxed in their hands but Ill ignore th epotential infinite recursion therefrom here), so some portion of both C and I in any accounting period is double counted as expenditure on th eleft side of th eidentity. This overstates Y by th eamount of G exactly, but it overstates GDP by an even greater margin, to th eextent of the destruction of value inherent in th enegative-sum game of tax ( to wit, the value of G in the hands of its recipients is always smaller than when it was T. Still, ignoring this little subtlety, the proper accounting identity is in fact……
which I htink reflects the central Austrian take on the effect of government quite succinctly.
- July 2, 2010 at 8:57 am
Yes, this is Rothbard's conclusion in America's Great Depression. Thanks.
- July 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I was rereading this piece several times and I think that the "C + I + G = Baloney" is the real classic of our time! In the most brief, concise, but comprehensive way it exposes fraudulent nature of all government "economics" whether it is Keynesian, Marxist or any other type of collectivist propaganda disguised as a "school of thought". It is not suprising that the most horrendous crimes in the history of mankind were committed by people believing in the big G: Keynesians – Hitler and Mussolini, Marxists – Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }
Previous post: The Social Function of Credit-Default Swaps
Next post: The Myth of Monolithic Communism


text:
Report a Deal
Thank you for reporting a deal that has something wrong with it. Please choose the reason you are reporting the deal below.
Reported Deal: Amazon Fire TV 1080p Media Player with Voice Search - $99.00 Shipped
Deals of the Day
GottaDeal Forums
200,000+ Members
1,200,000+ Posts
200,000+ Topics
Join the Community!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Some inmates tell horror stories about healthcare at the women's prison in Vandalia. Some didn't live to tell their tales.
When it comes to ripping people off, John Tiller and the Civil Rights Legal Defense Team just keep going and going
Missouri has been pouring millions into prisons that aren't being used. But stay tuned: If politicians have their way, there will be plenty of inmates to go around.
Lifer Bill Herron knew exactly how to get out of jail -- until 16 years ago, when the Missouri Department of Corrections locked him in solitary
Missouri maintains a spotless record at Bonne Terre facility
Drug courts save lives and save money. That's not good enough for St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch.
In 1963, a group of African-American runaways and truants was sent to a rural reform school. Then the nightmare began.
Banning bestiality could be a tough sell next year in Jefferson City


text:
Weather Links
Humidity 37%
Winds 9.2mph
Sponsored by: Arceneaux Ford
Humidity 37%
Winds 9.2mph
Apr 11, 2012 8:21 AM by AP
LIVINGSTON, La. (AP) - A state judge has sentenced a Holden couple to prison terms following their convictions on cruelty charges such as forcing a child to sleep while shackled to a desk.
Livingston Parish prosecutor Charlotte Herbert tells The Advocate 35-year-old Donald E. Miller III and 34-year-old Lisa Stogner Faber pleaded guilty Tuesday to 13 counts of cruelty to a juvenile.
Judge Zoey Waguespack sentenced Miller to 10 years for each of 12 counts, to be served concurrently, and five years for the remaining count, to be served consecutively, for a total of 15 years.
Faber was sentenced to seven years on each count, each to be served concurrently.
Authorities say the victim now lives with her grandparents out of state.
7 hours ago


text:
In this Instructable, I show you how to make a LCD projector with a LED as the light source. I tried to make videos of everything so it is easier to follow the steps.
Este Instructable esta en versión en Español
See more cool projects on my blog.
After making my first LED projector that you can see here , I had lots of questions and people interested in the projector. Some of them went ahead and did something similar like mcastles.
I felt sorry that I could not give more details of the making of the projector. Also the MP4 player that I used is not longer available so many people could not find an MP4 with composite input like mine. I decided to make another one, so you could actually SEE how to do it.
This type of projector is very energy efficient. It only consumes about 41W. A normal projector with metal halide lamp will consume about 260W plus a DVD player which can consume between 20w and 45W for a total of about 300w. That is a saving of a lot of money by the end of the year. Although the quality and brightness of a conventional projector will be better, you'll have to pay the price, and the environment as well.
Another good feature of this projector is that the LED should last about 10000 hours of use wile a conventional projector lamp lasts about 2000 hours.
Lets see the result of making this projector.
is this working well with a vga/composite converter? And how is the quality compared to other projectors?
I have a very old camera panasonic m7 and running, I wonder if I can use the front where the lenses are. Has manual adjustment of focus and altomatico. If she will will work by sending light with good quality in my projection.
has anyone tried to use amoled screen and any success ????
Thank you soooooo much for your tutorial :D It's been fantastic! I've almost almost almost finished with it - I literally need to wait for one lot of glue to dry and glue something else then I'm done. That's it, poof! Earlier you said "send me a video of your finished product" so I will tomorrow. Cause glue drying... eh. But seriously I can't thank you enough for providing me with weekends of fun :D
first to say great job!! On the projector and instructions as well. But...i am stuck :) and hope you could help me out a little. I am confused regarding fresnel lenses. Where to put them? 1st image shows one lens before and one after the LCD but you put them together and put them before LCD(before would be LED side, and after lens side). And how close should fresnel be to LCD?all the way, or?Thx ;)
Oh thanks..now it makes sense. I will skip keystonning for now...I just want to make it work first :) and the image will be in the same level as the projector so i want to make it as simple as possible. Thanks again for all the help!!!
btw. i got my eye on ATX power supply as well. :). i am in great need of one of those. Great job again!
My lens flips the image and I have no Idea why? Is that normal?
Do the mirrors have to be cut to a certain size? Like if I have my 10" panel will I need a 10" mirror?
I'm gonna try this with my 10" 1366x768 monitor and 50W LED but do you need one of those massive lenses or can you just use an OHP lens?
That's cool, please share some photos once you have ir working.
You can use an OHP lens. Just make sure it is a triplet lens.
Well at the moment I have the lcd sitting on the OHP and it seems to work ok but it's a bit dark. I'm also already using the LED. So I'm thinking it should work - thanks for all your help :)
I'm going to make my own with a 7" 1280x800 LCD , that must be a challenge ! Thanks for your sharing !
how much did anyone pay for the stuff
Cool I like this instructable very inspiring
I hope you can find something suitable.
I want to know if this lens will create a decent size projection and throw range.
if not, can you please post a reply with some sort of specific lens to look for or give me advice, Thanks!
What is the size of your LCD?
Excellent work and congratulations! your project has made me to pick up my old physics books :D
I am planning to do make one for myself, please can you help me with some queries when you are free?
1. Do we really need fresnel lens (say it is a single piece), if yes, do I need to place in front of the LCD?
2. If I go with a LCD controller kit with HDMI input port, can I have my iphone/laptop connected so it takes input from these sources?
3. May be a stupid question, are zoom lens & projector lens same?
Many thanks.
I don't think you can use an OLED display unfortunately.
The best thing will be to buy the LED driver.
help plzzzzz
Is there any way that I can connect cable, which is number 1 on the picture (sorry I dont know English name of that cable), whit some circuit (bcs I dont have original circuit of that TFT)? And if it would be possible, I need to connect this projector to my computer for playing movies, so i need TV out, or VGA/DVI output. Once more, sorry for my bad English :)


text:
With stunning mountains and the most enlightened access laws in the world, Scotland is a unique and special place for adventurous pursuits such as hill walking, climbing and ski touring.
So, whether youre an elite climber, just learning the ropes at a climbing wall, or getting into hill walking and wanting to learn about safety, the MCofS is here to help you get even more from your chosen mountain activity in this great country.
Scotlands mountains, hills and crags: Exhilarating, Inspiring, Magical.
Have a look around our site to see what we have to offer. Join us now through our half-price membership deal - and enjoy our wide range of money-saving membership benefits.
Thursday 27th November 2014
Time for the Scottish Government to live up to its own policies and promises by protecting the wild lands of the Highlands
Wednesday 26th November 2014
Advice to walkers and climbers in the event of accident
Wednesday 26th November 2014
Important advice for fell runners in Scotlands winter mountains
Tuesday 25th November 2014
Balbeggie man takes two prizes in MCofS Mountain Writing Competition
Wednesday 19th November 2014
Report from debut event leading to February championships
Wednesday 19th November 2014
Perth Grammar School opens doors to the public on Monday evenings
Tuesday 18th November 2014
Joint safety initiative from St John Scotland and Mountaineering Council of Scotland
Monday 10th November 2014
Free leaflet helps people avoid avalanches in the mountains
Friday 7th November 2014
Fanous Skye bothy is replaced by new building
Thursday 6th November 2014
Plans for countryside legend Tom Weirs statue move forward
Wednesday 5th November 2014
Scottish Mixed Masters at Ice Factor in Kinlochleven raises cash for MRT
Tuesday 4th November 2014
Kenton Cool giving three illustrated lectures in Scotland


text: Hi guys, tis the Beaux. I spent this week over at the NW expressway store doing inventory. I found out that one of the managers who moved into this district this fall is a weaver and is skilled in natural dyes. She would like to get a drop spindle to learn how to spin. Does anyone have a spare one she could use? This lady is a darling and would be a VERY good person to "get on our side". And no I dont know where I'm going yet. The district manager "has a spot for me" , but refuses to even HINT as to where it might be. The general consensus is that it would have to be out of the metro, but again, no one knows. As Hancocks is one giant rumor mill, I can understand her decision to stay quiet... Doesnt mean I LIKE it! As for time frame, mid to late Feb. is begining to firm up as when I'll be getting a store. I hope everyone is doing well? I'm working a mere 45- 50 hours a week now. Life is good. Talk to everyone later! beaux --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/namron-ansteorra.org/attachments/20040107/ac44b89f/attachment.html


text:
News Release
White House Forced to Cap Oil Reserve; Should Embolden Congress to Push for More To Drop Energy Prices
Consumer Watchdog Calls for Sales from Reserve, Warning to Refineries, Swift Action on Oil Trading Curbs
Santa Monica, CA -- The Energy Department's announcement that it will cap taxpayer-funded additions to the federal Strategic Oil Reserve is a small first step, and a late one, said Consumer Watchdog. Even so, it is a symbolic move that could drop gasoline prices by several cents this summer.
President Bush, in an abrupt about-face, was forced to act by Congressional votes to cap purchases for the reserve, and by oil prices that leaped today above $127 a barrel.
Even with this first step, motorists nationwide are likely headed toward $4.00 a gallon gasoline nationwide this summer, said Consumer Watchdog. If refineries continue on a path of cutting back production to increase gasoline prices, any effect from capping the reserve would be canceled out at the pump.
"Both parties in Congress were forced to hear drivers' anger at both unaffordable pump prices and the 'oil tax' that consumers are paying on everything from groceries to air travel," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Now Congress has forced the White House to listen, too. Capping the reserve will signal at least awareness of the magnitude of the economic problems caused by oil and fuel prices."
It will also save taxpayers at least $90 million over six months, given the program's $187 million budget for this year, said Consumer Watchdog. The actual savings would probably be much larger, given that the budget was decided long before the rise to even $100 a barrel oil.
The effectiveness of this first belated move will depend on whether government keeps pushing to get speculative markets under control and prevent refinery profits from eating up any savings from lower oil prices, said Consumer Watchdog.
"At a minimum, the White House should also state its willingness to "loan" some of the reserve into the market as it did after Hurricane Katrina, which effectively dampened oil prices," said Dugan. "Congress and the White House must also put newly enacted regulation of speculative trading on a fast track, and hire the financial cops to detect manipulation."
- 30 -
Consumer Watchdog is California's leading non-profit and non-partisan consumer policy advocacy group.
For more information visit us on the web at: www.ConsumerWatchdog.org and www.oilwatchdog.org
Action Alert
10/9/2014News Storydefended Michael Peevey, the embattled president of the California Public Utilities Commission. The commission, which regulates... More >
1/28/2013Blog PostCalifornia's oil and gas industry regulators are about to write final state regulations on the controversial practice of... More >
1/31/2013Blog PostThe news reports were on the gee-whiz side this week as state job safety regulators announced nearly $1 million in fines--the... More >
2/13/2013Blog PostIt was a relief to hear more than a passing reference to climate change in President Obama's State of the Union Speech... More >
1/13/2013News ReleaseConsumer Watchdog Admonishes Toxics Regulators Who Ignored The Law To Approve Permit for New Waste Facility in IrwindaleSANTA MONICA, CA – Consumer Watchdog today called on the Department of Toxic Substances Control to reverse its grant of a... More >


text:
Departures, arrivals and everything else you need to know before your trip.
You'll find the services Swedavia offers here.
World-leading within airport development with many different professions.
Start air cargo routes to Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö.
Reach out to millions of travellers across Sweden.
Swedavia has premises for offices, shops and restaurants from north to south.
Swedavia helps to reduce climate impact.
The airport's total supplier for telecom and computer services.
Airports are communication hubs and attractive commercial centres.