The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Schmelzer]

Where is this case?

Lost in the internet. As if I would collect every piece of evidence for obscure things in America.

What don't you get about suborning child pornography?

We have not even talked about this, I had to use the dictionary now to see what it means, so I have certainly never used this word.

No, what you do and have done consistently is simply dismiss without any evidence all facts which disprove your beliefs and assertions.

I dismiss information coming from sources I consider as dubious. You dismiss information from sources you consider as dubious. Full symmetry so far.

The difference is that I have already provided some reasons why I do not believe certain sources. Like http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607 You, instead, have not provided any good reasons why one should nonetheless trust such discredited sources. All one hears from you are claims I take all my information from Russian state owned, without evidence.

 

[joepistole]

Lost in the internet. As if I would collect every piece of evidence for obscure things in America.

So you admit, you have no evidence to support your assertions. That's the first honest thing you have done since our meeting.

We have not even talked about this, I had to use the dictionary now to see what it means, so I have certainly never used this word.

You didn't use the word. You were not accused of using the word. I said you don't seem to understand that trading in or supporting the the commerce of child pornography is suborning child pornography and that's why it is wrong.

I dismiss information coming from sources I consider as dubious. You dismiss information from sources you consider as dubious. Full symmetry so far.

You summarily and without evidence dismiss everything which isn't consistent with your assertions. According to you, only Russian state owned an controlled media sources and a few small web specious publishers are not dubious.

The difference is that I have already provided some reasons why I do not believe certain sources. Like http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315607 You, instead, have not provided any good reasons why one should nonetheless trust such discredited sources. All one hears from you are claims I take all my information from Russian state owned, without evidence.

I don't know what value you think your link to my post creates for you. You haven't provided reasons why you don't believe any source which disproves your assertions other than to say they are NATO propaganda sources.

The bottom line here is you cannot back up your claims with credible evidence. You have absolutely no evidence to support your assertions and you dismiss summarily dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Schmelzer]

So you admit, you have no evidence to support your assertions.

You save every link to abstruse court cases all over the world? Facepalms reading about abstruse American court decisions are part of everyday life in Europe.

By the way, here is a quite similar case: http://newsdaytonabeach.com/port-orange-sex-offender-sentenced-to-825-years-in-prison/

I said you don't seem to understand that trading in or supporting the the commerce of child pornography is suborning child pornography and that's why it is wrong.

Have I said that trading is ok? Trading is something different than owning, not? Then, have Americans any idea about that a penalty should have some correspondence to the harm done? Some idea about tit for tat, or an eye for an eye?

According to you, only Russian state owned an controlled media sources and a few small web specious publishers are not dubious.

I don't know what value you think your link to my post creates for you.

The value for the reader is to see how I have answered your challenge in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870
There was a long list of typical NATO propaganda sources: NYTimes, CNN, NBC, Daily Mail, almost all of them who have given information about that MH17 related video. They all have given a clearly distorted information about it. Evidence for distortion was given - a transcript of the video, published by some Australian source.

All they have lied about the video, all in essentially the same way, hiding the most interesting point of the video, namely what the guys on the ground have thought at that moment. And this was, of course, not the first time, I have already seen similar examples before.

 

[joepistole]

You save every link to abstruse court cases all over the world? Facepalms reading about abstruse American court decisions are part of everyday life in Europe.

By the way, here is a quite similar case: http://newsdaytonabeach.com/port-orange-sex-offender-sentenced-to-825-years-in-prison/

Using your reference, the guy was sentenced to over 800 years in prison, but it wasn't for just having child porn. He was sentences for 55 crimes. And he committed those crimes while on parole for previous crimes. The guy is a habitual criminal. So it wasn't similar and it doesn't prove your assertion.

Have I said that trading is ok? Trading is something different than owning, not? Then, have Americans any idea about that a penalty should have some correspondence to the harm done? Some idea about tit for tat, or an eye for an eye?

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding this concept of suborning. As has been previously and repeatedly pointed out to you children were used and abused in the creation of child porn. People exchanging it, trading it, is creating a demand for the material. In the West, we believe no child should be abused. That's why child pornography is illegal in the West.

The value for the reader is to see how I have answered your challenge in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870
There was a long list of typical NATO propaganda sources: NYTimes, CNN, NBC, Daily Mail, almost all of them who have given information about that MH17 related video. They all have given a clearly distorted information about it. Evidence for distortion was given - a transcript of the video, published by some Australian source.

All they have lied about the video, all in essentially the same way, hiding the most interesting point of the video, namely what the guys on the ground have thought at that moment. And this was, of course, not the first time, I have already seen similar examples before.

Except they don't. Your references don't disprove or discredit their journalism nor do they prove those sources are in anyway linked to NATO.

 

[Schmelzer]

Using your reference, the guy was sentenced to over 800 years in prison, but it wasn't for just having child porn. He was sentences for 55 crimes. And he committed those crimes while on parole for previous crimes. The guy is a habitual criminal. So it wasn't similar and it doesn't prove your assertion.

"55 counts of possessing child pornography". That one gets the maximal allowed sentences not for doing "just" this, is natural, maximum sentences are for the worst cases which do not fit into more serious paragraphs. For doing "just" this one uses something close to the minimal penalty.

As has been previously and repeatedly pointed out to you children were used and abused in the creation of child porn. People exchanging it, trading it, is creating a demand for the material.

Again, the question was not about trading, but about possession. Or distribution for free. And, indeed, no, I don't understand how free distribution creates a demand. At least the music and film industry seems to think that free distribution videos destroys the demand and endangers the whole industry.

Except they don't. Your references don't disprove or discredit their journalism nor do they prove those sources are in anyway linked to NATO.

First, if you really think that what I have found in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870 does not discredit these sources, you have really low quality criteria.

Then, to distribute NATO propaganda it is not necessary to have a link to NATO. You can distribute NATO propaganda for other reasons too, in particular for the reason that you have become a victim of NATO lies.

Moreover, if many sources distort a truth which is easily accessible to all of them in the same way, this is of course not a proof of such a link (to find such a proof would be a hard case even for police investigators), but it is already good evidence. More important, it is all we really need. Because it makes no difference why somebody distributes lies - because he is paid by the CIA or a victim of some CIA disinformation operation. What matters is that he distributes lies.

 

[joepistole]

"55 counts of possessing child pornography". That one gets the maximal allowed sentences not for doing "just" this, is natural, maximum sentences are for the worst cases which do not fit into more serious paragraphs. For doing "just" this one uses something close to the minimal penalty.

The unfortunate fact is you were wrong. As previously pointed out to you, the 800+ plus year sentence was not for just possessing child porn. It was for 55 different crimes, and it wasn't the first time. The offender had a history of child abuse. He was a career criminal. So, yet again, your "evidence" doesn't support your assertion.

Again, the question was not about trading, but about possession. Or distribution for free. And, indeed, no, I don't understand how free distribution creates a demand. At least the music and film industry seems to think that free distribution videos destroys the demand and endangers the whole industry.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you don't understand or want to understand how trading in child pornography promotes child abuse and suborns child abuse. You don't seem to be able to understand those children used to create the child pornography were abused in order to create it.

The film industry doesn't think that free distribution destroys demand. The film industry knows that if its products are distributed for free, it will not earn any money its illegally distributed films.

First, if you really think that what I have found in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870 does not discredit these sources, you have really low quality criteria.

Then, to distribute NATO propaganda it is not necessary to have a link to NATO. You can distribute NATO propaganda for other reasons too, in particular for the reason that you have become a victim of NATO lies.

Moreover, if many sources distort a truth which is easily accessible to all of them in the same way, this is of course not a proof of such a link (to find such a proof would be a hard case even for police investigators), but it is already good evidence. More important, it is all we really need. Because it makes no difference why somebody distributes lies - because he is paid by the CIA or a victim of some CIA disinformation operation. What matters is that he distributes lies.

Again, you have not proven any of the sources you like to summarily dismiss, which is everything other than Russian state owned and controlled media and a few specious web sites, is wrong or controlled by NATO as you have repeatedly alleged.

You say you are a scientist. But no scientist would do what you have done. Scientists look for consistency and independent validations. They don't use just one source or one study as you do. Studies must be repeated and independently validated. That's not what you have done and continue to do. You just blindly accept whatever the Russian state tells you. You cannot prove any of the sources you have dismissed as NATO propaganda are false, much less any NATO connection.

 

[Michael]

 

[Michael]

AHHHHHHH hahahahaha............

 

[joepistole]

Except that's probably one of the most stupid and misleading charts I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty stupid and misleading charts. Keynesian economics adheres to the old laws of supply and demand. It asserts that in times of slack demand government can and should become the buyer of last resort and in doing so create economic demand. That increased demand "stimulates" the economy causing economic growth. Government purchasing during periods of slack demand also benefits the taxpayer because during such times, goods and services can be purchased at lower prices.

Keynesians believe savings are necessary, but saving money during periods of slack demand does nothing to create economic growth. And producing goods and services during periods for which there is no demand for those goods is frankly stupid. That's why its not done. I guess someone needs to tell you so called Austrians.

Who builds production no one will buy? Demand creates production, not savings.

 

[Schmelzer]

Demand creates production, not savings.

But the government cannot create demand. It can take away demand form others (taxation) or print money, which takes away demand via inflation. So all it does is to distort the demand. Of course, the government likes very much to distort it - to pay those who support it.

 

[joepistole]

But the government cannot create demand.

Oh, and why is that? When the government decides to build a road, it buys labor, gravel, asphalt or concrete, equipment, that's creating demand. Every time the government buys something, it creates demand just as if a private individual purchased those goods and services. There is nothing magical about government purchases. The laws of economics are not suspended just because the government purchases goods and services.

It can take away demand form others (taxation) or print money, which takes away demand via inflation. So all it does is to distort the demand. Of course, the government likes very much to distort it - to pay those who support it.

Well this gets back to the basic naivety of folks. There is nothing magical about economics or government. Demand is demand no matter who creates it, and stuffing money in mattresses or building inventory no one wants doesn't create demand as you Libertarians believe. If what you state were true, very time someone spends money they are taking away demand because they received the money used for that purchase from someone else. Economic activity is measured by how much people consume, not by how much they save.

And what do you mean by distort? And why is that bad? Please do be specific.

Government, like private industry, produces good and services. Taxation is how government pays for those goods and services. It's no different than private enterprise in that respect. Private enterprise produces goods and services and receives money for those goods and services in the form of sales which is equivalent to taxation.

Further, inflation isn't caused by too little demand as you have asserted. It is caused by too much demand. Inflation doesn't reduce demand as you have asserted. The reason the US Federal Reserve recently raised rates was to prevent too much demand and future inflation.

The unfortunate fact for you is spending is spending and it matters little who is spending money. Spending money creates demand. Stuffing money into mattresses doesn't.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, and why is that? When the government decides to build a road, it buys labor, gravel, asphalt or concrete, equipment, that's creating demand.

Yes. But it also destroys demand, of those who have been taxed.

And what do you mean by distort? And why is that bad? Please do be specific.

Once the government can spend only what it taxes, and does not create anything, the demand is a different one. Those who have been taxed would have demanded something different. For example, during the Great Depression the government has paid for destroying crops. Because they somehow believed that high prices would be good. Those taxed would have spend them for eating something made of these crops. Why such a distortion is bad is not that difficult to answer, it shifts society, with sufficiently large certainty, away from the Pareto optimum.

Government, like private industry, produces good and services.

Yes, but one can split, at least conceptually, normal firms simply owned by the state, artificial monopolies, where people are forced to pay higher prices, and the remaining part, which is simply robbery.

Taxation is how government pays for those goods and services. It's no different than private enterprise in that respect.

No. This is cheap statist propaganda.

Further, inflation isn't caused by too little demand as you have asserted. It is caused by too much demand.

Inflation is caused by printing money. It is a simple way for the government to tax the population. The tax is proportional to the money owned.

The unfortunate fact for you is spending is spending and it matters little who is spending money. Spending money creates demand. Stuffing money into mattresses doesn't.

Stuffing money into mattresses is a harmless private hobby, which does no harm at all. Because on a free market it does not matter if there is less money looking for something to buy. In this case, prices decrease, and it becomes cheaper to produce something.

 

[joepistole]

Yes. But it also destroys demand, of those who have been taxed.

Oh, and how exactly does it "destroy demand"? Please be specific, and as previously pointed out, inflation does not diminish demand as you had previously asserted.

Once the government can spend only what it taxes, and does not create anything, the demand is a different one. Those who have been taxed would have demanded something different. For example, during the Great Depression the government has paid for destroying crops. Because they somehow believed that high prices would be good. Those taxed would have spend them for eating something made of these crops. Why such a distortion is bad is not that difficult to answer, it shifts society, with sufficiently large certainty, away from the Pareto optimum.

Actually, the policy of subsidizing agriculture began after WWI, well before the Great Depression and the particular program of crop destruction you reference occurred after the Great Depression. It was later ruled unconstitutional and dismantled. The US experimented with a number of policies during the Great Recession. The Great Depression was a great economic laboratory and gave rise to what is now referred to as Keynesian economics. Some policies failed, some succeeded. The belief was that if farmers made more money, they would spend more money, thereby boosting economic demand. And the theory is strong, but the buyers of agricultural products need to have the money to buy those products. If consumers don't have the money, then the whole thing falls apart.

What is a market distortion in your view and why is it bad? Please be specific. The US agricultural product supports have been very successful, though they are sometimes abused. The reason the US and other countries provide agricultural supports is because agriculture is a critical strategic asset and as such deserves protection as demonstrated by WWII.

Yes, but one can split, at least conceptually, normal firms simply owned by the state, artificial monopolies, where people are forced to pay higher prices, and the remaining part, which is simply robbery.

I don't get your point. The fact is there is nothing magical, nothing different between a government buyer or a private industry buyer of goods and services. The economic effects are identical. Monopolies are an entirely different subject. In most countries some monopolies are allowed to exist because they are the best way to deliver goods and services. But when they are allowed to exist, they are generally well regulated in order to prevent "simply robbery" (e.g. utilities). Monopolies are the natural result of unrestricted capitalism and that's why with a few exceptions they are illegal in all advanced economies.

No. This is cheap statist propaganda.

LOL...ok then just how does government pay for the goods and services it produces if not through taxation? I have noticed a trend with you comrade, everything you dislike is "cheap propaganda". Fact and reason are not "cheap statist propaganda" comrade.

Inflation is caused by printing money. It is a simple way for the government to tax the population. The tax is proportional to the money owned.

No, it isn't. If that were the case, there should raging inflation in the US given the massive increase in US money supply brought about by the Great Recession. But there is no inflation in the US. The US inflation rate is zero. Inflation is as my college professor once said can be defined as too much money chasing too few goods and services. So just printing money doesn't cause inflation, a demand component is vital to inflation and that doesn't exist. That's why the US was able to greatly expand its money supply without causing inflation. That's why a few years ago when the US was printing money, fools who believed as you do, were out buying gold at 1,900+ an ounce and now gold is selling for around 1,000 dollars per ounce. You are not alone, most people do not understand inflation and that's unfortunate. Because they wind up doing a lot of foolish things.

Stuffing money into mattresses is a harmless private hobby, which does no harm at all. Because on a free market it does not matter if there is less money looking for something to buy. In this case, prices decrease, and it becomes cheaper to produce something.

Well it's not immediately harmless if it doesn't burn up or someone doesn't steal if from you. But if people don't spend money, there is less money in the economy and less economic demand. Less demand translates to less money in circulation and less money to save. It's called the paradox of thrift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

http://www.investopedia.com/exam-gu...omics/gross-domestic-product.asp?header_alt=a

So if everyone stuffs their mattresses with money as you have suggested, it is a bad thing. Because the saver will eventually earn less money. It's that recession thingy.

 

[Schmelzer]

double

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, and how exactly does it "destroy demand"?

By taking away (via taxation) the ability to create such demand from other people.

inflation does not diminish demand as you had previously asserted.

Inflation gives higher prices, which reduced demand.

Some policies failed, some succeeded.

Some failed in too obvious ways, some failed in less obvious ways. They all succeeded only in giving politicians more power.

The belief was that if farmers made more money, they would spend more money, thereby boosting economic demand. And the theory is strong, but the buyers of agricultural products need to have the money to buy those products. If consumers don't have the money, then the whole thing falls apart.

The theory is not at all strong, but the usual Keynesian BS.

What is a market distortion in your view and why is it bad? Please be specific.

For example, if you can get cheap credits by bribing politicians, this distorts the market. Because instead of investing money into creating better products, money will be spend into bribing politicians, for example, via campaign donations or so.

I don't get your point. The fact is there is nothing magical, nothing different between a government buyer or a private industry buyer of goods and services.

For those who sell things there is no difference. If they sell to one who has honestly made his money or to a thief - no difference, they pay. The difference is on the other side. If one gets away with stealing, people will steal instead of working. Or become politicians instead of working.

In most countries some monopolies are allowed to exist because they are the best way to deliver goods and services. But when they are allowed to exist, they are generally well regulated in order to prevent "simply robbery" (e.g. utilities). Monopolies are the natural result of unrestricted capitalism and that's why with a few exceptions they are illegal in all advanced economies.

No, monopolies are almost always the result of government regulation. First of all the monopolies which simply would not exist without government prohibitions: copyright and patents. Then, by all the bureaucracy which increases the costs of having a firm - given that big firms need the same bureaucracy than small ones, the costs per piece of production are higher for small firms. For a big firm having 20 lawyers who know all the relevant regulations is not a problem, for a small firm impossible. Then, the big firms write the regulations via their lobbies.

In fact, the free market does not lead to monopolies. It gives, in new domains, leaders, which are simply better inventing new things and get a big market share. But once everything is established, and the leader is not defended by patents, the competitors learn by copying from the leaders and the advantage of the leaders goes down.

LOL...ok then just how does government pay for the goods and services it produces if not through taxation?

By offering their services for a price.

If that were the case, there should raging inflation in the US given the massive increase in US money supply brought about by the Great Recession. But there is no inflation in the US. The US inflation rate is zero.

Of course it depends on who gets the printed money. If you give it to the superrich, there will be no increase in demand of bread and water. So, the prices for bread and water may not rise. The prices rise first for what the superrich want to buy. Firms, immovables, luxury.

So if everyone stuffs their mattresses with money as you have suggested, it is a bad thing. Because the saver will eventually earn less money. It's that recession thingy.

Nobody suggests that it is a good idea to stuff mattresses with money. The usual way people save is to invest. And this creates demand in investment goods.

 

[joepistole]

By taking away (via taxation) the ability to create such demand from other people.

I SAID HOW EXACTLY. Just saying as you have done is that taxation is detrimental to the economy as you have done, doesn't make it so. How does taxation take anything out of the economy that purchasing from any other source doesn't? The government delivers goods and services and is paid with taxes and fees from those for which it serves. Private industry delivers goods and services and is paid by those it those it serves. There is nothing magical about government.

Inflation gives higher prices, which reduced demand.

As has been previously pointed out to you, inflation is the result of too much demand. That's the driving force behind inflation. If prices were reduced there would be no inflation, would there? Deflation is the result of too little demand. I know you find these concepts difficult, but that doesn't change reality.

Some failed in too obvious ways, some failed in less obvious ways. They all succeeded only in giving politicians more power.

Well that's strange coming from you, you are the guy who likes Russian dictatorship where all power is vested in one man.

The theory is not at all strong, but the usual Keynesian BS.

Well in the civilized world Keynesian economics isn't bullshit and is backed up with centuries of evidence....evidence you like to ignore.

For those who sell things there is no difference. If they sell to one who has honestly made his money or to a thief - no difference, they pay. The difference is on the other side. If one gets away with stealing, people will steal instead of working. Or become politicians instead of working.

None of that is relevant to economics. You were asked to define what is a market distortion in your view and why is it bad. You have not answered that question.
First, Keynesian economics has absolutely nothing to do with politics or corruption. And has been repeatedly explained to you, governments, good governments, not the kind of governments to which you have become accustomed in Mother Russia, produce goods and services for its citizens and receive tax revenues to pay for those goods and services. The US as a case in point, the US government provides all the basics, roads, services for the poor, defense, etc. but it also invests in businesses and basic research. We are communicating via the internet which is a US government invention.

No, monopolies are almost always the result of government regulation. First of all the monopolies which simply would not exist without government prohibitions: copyright and patents. Then, by all the bureaucracy which increases the costs of having a firm - given that big firms need the same bureaucracy than small ones, the costs per piece of production are higher for small firms. For a big firm having 20 lawyers who know all the relevant regulations is not a problem, for a small firm impossible. Then, the big firms write the regulations via their lobbies.

Oh, then how do you explain all the monopolies which existed prior and resulted in the banning of monopolies? The reason all developed economies now ban monopolies, with a few exceptions, is because they were first created and proliferated during a period in which monopolies were legal. The American Revolution came about in part because of a particular monopoly. The fact is like your other assertions, this assertion too just does not stand up in light of the facts.

Perhaps you can give an example of a modern monopoly created by the state (not Russia or any of its affiliates) in which the state has created a monopoly (utilities exempted). The fact is in the developed world monopolies are illegal because they form naturally in unregulated markets.

In fact, the free market does not lead to monopolies. It gives, in new domains, leaders, which are simply better inventing new things and get a big market share. But once everything is established, and the leader is not defended by patents, the competitors learn by copying from the leaders and the advantage of the leaders goes down.

Well were is the evidence to support that "fact"? You have none. And how do you explain the rise of the 19th century robber barons? The fact is once again, your beliefs are just not consistent with reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/corporate-monopolies/development_rrmon.html

By offering their services for a price.

And that price is called taxation. Taxation is how government funds the production and delivery of goods and services to its citizens which makes taxation no different from a private producer of goods and services in that regard.

Of course it depends on who gets the printed money. If you give it to the superrich, there will be no increase in demand of bread and water. So, the prices for bread and water may not rise. The prices rise first for what the superrich want to buy. Firms, immovables, luxury.

You are either missing the point again or deliberately obfuscating. The issue was the fact you asserted inflation was solely the function of money supply (i.e. printing money). And as has been pointed out to you, it isn't. The point is you were once again wrong. You don't understand inflation. And it doesn't matter who gets the money as previously pointed out to you, the issue is aggregate demand. To keep it simple for you, inflation is the result of excessive demand. Deflation is the result of not enough demand. That has nothing to do with stuffing pillows or mattresses or the super rich or bread and water. It's simply a function of demand.

Nobody suggests that it is a good idea to stuff mattresses with money. The usual way people save is to invest. And this creates demand in investment goods.

Oh, so you don't remember writing, " Stuffing money into mattresses is a harmless private hobby, which does no harm at all. Because on a free market it does not matter if there is less money looking for something to buy. In this case, prices decrease, and it becomes cheaper to produce something.", just a few posts ago?

And what goods would they invest in? If there is no or little demand for goods and services there is little demand for investment. As has been previously pointed out to you, if there is no or little demand for goods and services businesses will not produce them because its a sure road to bankruptcy.

 

[Schmelzer]

How does taxation take anything out of the economy that purchasing from any other source doesn't?

Directly not. Simply like robbery. What the owner would have owned, is after this owned by the robber.

Indirectly a lot. Some people, instead of creating useful things, become robbers. Some harm is done to the things robbed. A lot of value is lost - you rob my computer, you use the computer, but my data, if of no value for you to blackmail me, will be simply thrown away, lost, even if I would value them a lot. I try to prevent this by security measures, which are costly. So, robbery creates a lot of harm. Similarly taxation, which is nothing but a form of organized robbery.

Well in the civilized world Keynesian economics isn't bullshit and is backed up with centuries of evidence....evidence you like to ignore.

Keynesian economics is the economics of corporatism, of fascism. The economics of a free society is more close to the Austrian. Ok, an oversimplification, there are valuable economists of a free society which are not Austrians, like David D. Friedman. I do not ignore Keynesianism, I reject it as false.

First, Keynesian economics has absolutely nothing to do with politics or corruption.

Yes. It completely ignores it and presents the government as a nice guy, with universal knowledge and good intentions. Instead, a reasonable economic theory would have to consider, if it does not completely reject the state, the economic laws which define how the state works. There is a whole domain, public choice theory, about this.

Oh, then how do you explain all the monopolies which existed prior and resulted in the banning of monopolies? The reason all developed economies now ban monopolies, with a few exceptions, is because they were first created and proliferated during a period in which monopolies were legal. The American Revolution came about in part because of a particular monopoly.

No, banning "monopolies" is a nice method to get campaign contributions from such "monopolies" in exchange for leaving them alone.

Perhaps you can give an example of a modern monopoly created by the state (not Russia or any of its affiliates) in which the state has created a monopoly (utilities exempted).

Go into a patent office, ask for some patent, find out who owns it, and you have a modern monopolist created by the state.

And how do you explain the rise of the 19th century robber barons?

Most of them by state subsidies. Some of them were simply good in their job. And, therefore, hated by those who were not that good.

BTW, it is well-known that the Austrian and the Keynesian position about what means inflation is different. I prefer the Austrian one, as more reasonable. Feel free to follow you beloved Nazi Keynes, I couldn't care less, but stop claiming that I do not understand inflation if I do not use the Keynesian nonsense.

Oh, so you don't remember writing, " Stuffing money into mattresses is a harmless private hobby, which does no harm at all.

Why? You don't understand the difference between something being a harmless private hobby and being a good idea?

And what goods would they invest in?

In goods which, in their own opinion, provide the best way to secure their own future, and that of their family. One buys simply a house, to live there, another one a greater house, so that he can also rent a room, some invests into some firm, which can be managed by their children later. Depends.

If there is no or little demand for goods and services there is little demand for investment.

If there is not sufficient demand, prices fall, after this there is sufficient demand. Not a problem in a free market. It is a problem in a market where the superrich have got a lot of printed money to build fabrics to create an artificial boom. Because in this case, the investments will not pay. Many of them go simply bankrupt. Big problem. (For the rich, and for the taxpayer who pays for the "too rich to fail").

Keynesians seem unable to understand that general demand is nonsense. There is more demand for X and less demand for Y. The market corrects the price relation.

 

[joepistole]

Directly not. Simply like robbery. What the owner would have owned, is after this owned by the robber.

Indirectly a lot. Some people, instead of creating useful things, become robbers. Some harm is done to the things robbed. A lot of value is lost - you rob my computer, you use the computer, but my data, if of no value for you to blackmail me, will be simply thrown away, lost, even if I would value them a lot. I try to prevent this by security measures, which are costly. So, robbery creates a lot of harm. Similarly taxation, which is nothing but a form of organized robbery.

That was your usual round of Libertarian demagoguery, but you didn't answer the question. You were asked, "How does taxation take anything out of the economy that purchasing from any other source doesn't?"

Keynesian economics is the economics of corporatism, of fascism. The economics of a free society is more close to the Austrian. Ok, an oversimplification, there are valuable economists of a free society which are not Austrians, like David D. Friedman. I do not ignore Keynesianism, I reject it as false.

And that's why most well informed and educated folks would view you as a kook. All you have done is dump more demagoguery. That old Keynesian economics you reject, just pulled the world out of the Great Recession and prevented another Great Depression. It's very obvious you have no knowledge of economics. But by God, you won't let your ignorance in the way of your ideology.

Yes. It completely ignores it and presents the government as a nice guy, with universal knowledge and good intentions. Instead, a reasonable economic theory would have to consider, if it does not completely reject the state, the economic laws which define how the state works. There is a whole domain, public choice theory, about this.

No it doesn't. It doesn't represent the government as a "nice guy" nor does it even hint government has "universal knoweldge" - whatever the hell that is nor does it say anything about government intentions. As has previously been explained to you, Keynesian economic says during periods of slack demand, government should prop up slack demand by purchasing goods and service. Because doing so prevents the economy from slumping into recession or depression and the government is able to purchase needed goods and services and discounted prices - something we witnessed in the US during the recent Great Recession.

No, banning "monopolies" is a nice method to get campaign contributions from such "monopolies" in exchange for leaving them alone.

The West isn't Mother Russia comrade. If free market capitalism doesn't create monopolies as you have asserted, then how do you explain all the monopolies which preceded anti-monopoly laws and government regulation was nil?

Go into a patent office, ask for some patent, find out who owns it, and you have a modern monopolist created by the state.

A patent isn't a monopoly. It is a right for exclusive use of a technology or product for a period of time. It doesn't prevent someone from inventing another mouse trap. Patents were created to incent innovation. That isn't a monopoly. I'll repeat the question for you, "Perhaps you can give an example of a modern monopoly created by the state (not Russia or any of its affiliates) in which the state has created a monopoly (utilities exempted).".

Most of them by state subsidies. Some of them were simply good in their job. And, therefore, hated by those who were not that good.

A couple of things, there were no subsidies in the 19th centuries. Laissez-faire was policy at the time. The fact that they did existed disproves your assertion that monopolies are created by government and not by private industry.

BTW, it is well-known that the Austrian and the Keynesian position about what means inflation is different. I prefer the Austrian one, as more reasonable. Feel free to follow you beloved Nazi Keynes, I couldn't care less, but stop claiming that I do not understand inflation if I do not use the Keynesian nonsense.

Oh, then who knows this and what is different about the Austrian definition of inflation? I don't think you know much about Austrians either. Do you know they reject empiricism? That's funny coming from a guy you claims to be a scientist. I guess that explains you wacky posts in the science forums.

Additionally, Keynes wasn't a Nazi. It's funny, everyone and any fact you dislike becomes either a Nazi, fascist, or NATO propaganda. You definitely have an affinity for fiction and demagogic rants.

Why? You don't understand the difference between something being a harmless private hobby and being a good idea?

You lied, that's the point.

In goods which, in their own opinion, provide the best way to secure their own future, and that of their family. One buys simply a house, to live there, another one a greater house, so that he can also rent a room, some invests into some firm, which can be managed by their children later. Depends.

If there is not sufficient demand, prices fall, after this there is sufficient demand. Not a problem in a free market. It is a problem in a market where the superrich have got a lot of printed money to build fabrics to create an artificial boom. Because in this case, the investments will not pay. Many of them go simply bankrupt. Big problem. (For the rich, and for the taxpayer who pays for the "too rich to fail").

Keynesians seem unable to understand that general demand is nonsense. There is more demand for X and less demand for Y. The market corrects the price relation.

Well you are being more than a little disingenuous here, either than or you are denser than a lead weight. The question was, "And what goods would they invest in? If there is no or little demand for goods and services there is little demand for investment. As has been previously pointed out to you, if there is no or little demand for goods and services businesses will not produce them because its a sure road to bankruptcy."

The reason an economy enters a recession is because businesses and consumers are not purchasing goods and services. I guess you didn't read or understand the paradox of thrift. It really isn't that complicated.

 

[Schmelzer]

That was your usual round of Libertarian demagoguery, but you didn't answer the question. You were asked, "How does taxation take anything out of the economy that purchasing from any other source doesn't?"

If you cannot translate simple analogies, its your fault. Taxation requires resources. You have a lot of bureaucracy for taxation - all of this is lost. Some people invent methods to avoid taxation - they are more expansive than what one would do in a world without taxation.

That old Keynesian economics you reject, just pulled the world out of the Great Recession and prevented another Great Depression.

No. It made the Great Depression really Great.

No it doesn't. It doesn't represent the government as a "nice guy" nor does it even hint government has "universal knoweldge" - whatever the hell that is nor does it say anything about government intentions. As has previously been explained to you, Keynesian economic says during periods of slack demand, government should prop up slack demand by purchasing goods and service.

It simply does not discuss the problems related with government regulation. So one could argue if it would be an appropriate theory if the government is ideal. If the government is not ideal, but a collection of the worst guys among the population (those who prefer to steal instead of creating and working) all those receipts will make things worse.

Essentially, there was only one point where Keynes was correct: A main reason for the high unemployment rate were the unions which prevented a decrease of wages. With printing money, which caused inflation, it was possible to solve this problem, by effectively cutting wages without nominally cutting them. So, printing money was in that particular situation really a way to solve the problem of high unemployment.

A patent isn't a monopoly. It is a right for exclusive use of a technology or product for a period of time.

So it is a monopoly for the use of a technology or product. For a period of time - but a monopoly for a period of time is also a monopoly.

Here a nice book about patents http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

It doesn't prevent someone from inventing another mouse trap. Patents were created to incent innovation. That isn't a monopoly. I'll repeat the question for you, "Perhaps you can give an example of a modern monopoly created by the state (not Russia or any of its affiliates) in which the state has created a monopoly (utilities exempted).".

A couple of things, there were no subsidies in the 19th centuries. Laissez-faire was policy at the time.

That time was more laissez-faire than today but it was full of subsidies. Most of the railways have been supported by subsidies, in particular in form of giving them land for the railways for free.

Oh, then who knows this and what is different about the Austrian definition of inflation?

Of course no one expects you to know this. Learn basic economics. If you want me as a teacher, how much you offer?

I don't think you know much about Austrians either. Do you know they reject empiricism? That's funny coming from a guy you claims to be a scientist.

I'm a Popperian, and Popper's fallibilism is very different from empiricism. But it is also very different from the Austrian position. So I disagree with above camps of economic theory in these questions.

Additionally, Keynes wasn't a Nazi.

His economic theory was essentially that of the Nazis. https://www.vse.cz/aop/25?lang=en He was not a supporter of Nazis politically, but in their economic theory.

The reason an economy enters a recession is because businesses and consumers are not purchasing goods and services. I guess you didn't read or understand the paradox of thrift. It really isn't that complicated.

It is simply irrelevant. Because a large amount of what are "savings" for common sense are investments, thus, create demand for investment goods. So, this "paradox" is nicely formulated but misleading.

 

[joepistole]

If you cannot translate simple analogies, its your fault. Taxation requires resources. You have a lot of bureaucracy for taxation - all of this is lost. Some people invent methods to avoid taxation - they are more expansive than what one would do in a world without taxation.

LOL...well if could give an analogy rather than ideological rants you might have a point. An ideological rant isn't an analogy. You were asked to answer a very simple question. I'll repeat it once again for your edification, "How does taxation take anything out of the economy that purchasing from any other source doesn't?" People invent ways to avoid paying bills in private industry as well. That's why we have debt collectors. Paying bills requires resources too. Private companies have bureaucracies to bill and collect bills.

No. It made the Great Depression really Great.

Well here is the deal, you can't make silly proclamations and not back them up and expect anyone to believe them as you are so fond of doing comrade. You need to buff up on your history. The Great Depression occurred and ended before Keynes advanced published his theories. But hey, you not one to let facts or reason get in the way of your ideological beliefs.

It simply does not discuss the problems related with government regulation. So one could argue if it would be an appropriate theory if the government is ideal. If the government is not ideal, but a collection of the worst guys among the population (those who prefer to steal instead of creating and working) all those receipts will make things worse.

I guess you are that dense. The fact is you created a straw man and you are following up with a nonsensical rant. First, the world is not Mother Russia. So government isn't filled with the worst guys in the population. And outside of Mother Russia, in the Western world, government workers don't steal.

Essentially, there was only one point where Keynes was correct: A main reason for the high unemployment rate were the unions which prevented a decrease of wages. With printing money, which caused inflation, it was possible to solve this problem, by effectively cutting wages without nominally cutting them. So, printing money was in that particular situation really a way to solve the problem of high unemployment.

The fact is Keynes has been proven largely correct. That is why most Keynesian economics have become mainstream and widely used for almost a century. As has been explained to you, if your belief that simply printing money caused inflation, the US would be drowning in inflation. But that isn't the case. So this is just another case of your ignorance and your refusal to acknowledge fact and reason.

So it is a monopoly for the use of a technology or product. For a period of time - but a monopoly for a period of time is also a monopoly.

Here a nice book about patents http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

It doesn't prevent someone from inventing another mouse trap. Patents were created to incent innovation. That isn't a monopoly. I'll repeat the question for you, "Perhaps you can give an example of a modern monopoly created by the state (not Russia or any of its affiliates) in which the state has created a monopoly (utilities exempted).".

A couple of things, you have plagiarized me. I wrote, As, I previously explained, It doesn't prevent someone from inventing another mouse trap. Patents were created to incent innovation. That isn't a monopoly. I'll repeat the question for you, "Perhaps you can give an example of a modern monopoly created by the state (not Russia or any of its affiliates) in which the state has created a monopoly (utilities exempted)."

So please answer the question. Patents incent new technologies and new products. It isn't a monopoly for the reasons previously given. Patents drive innovation and change.

That time was more laissez-faire than today but it was full of subsidies. Most of the railways have been supported by subsidies, in particular in form of giving them land for the railways for free.

Except that isn't exactly true. The fact is laissez-faire was the dominant fiscal policy of the 19th century. The US government did in fact give away a lot of land during the late 19th century because it had a lot of land which had little value. It gave land to immigrants. It gave land to anyone and everyone in order to develop the land. So the fact some railroads received land grants doesn't prove your case. Giving away land didn't create monopolies.

And it doesn't explain way the other monopolies like John D. Rockefeller, the first monopolist.

Of course no one expects you to know this. Learn basic economics. If you want me as a teacher, how much you offer?

LOL....I explained to you why your inflationary proclamations were wrong. And you stated you don't accept the normal and accepted definition of inflation, that you accept the Austrian definition of inflation. I asked you to explain what your special definition of inflation is and you have responded with your usual round of obfuscation.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, it takes more than just printing money, as you have repeatedly asserted, to cause inflation. And the US was given to you as a case in point which clearly demonstrates your error.

Only another ignorant fool would want you as a "teacher". You know absolutely nothing about economics and more importantly you have no desire or ability to learn.

I'm a Popperian, and Popper's fallibilism is very different from empiricism. But it is also very different from the Austrian position. So I disagree with above camps of economic theory in these questions.

Yeah, I've noticed. You have no need or desire for little things like data and logic. That fact is very evident in your posts.

His economic theory was essentially that of the Nazis. https://www.vse.cz/aop/25?lang=en He was not a supporter of Nazis politically, but in their economic theory.

Did Keynes advocate slave labor? No, he did not. You're pulling shit out of your derriere again. You are invoking an ad hominem attack on a dead man by associating him with Nazism. Keynes had nothing to do with Nazism. I kind of find this funny in a sad sort of way. You want to smear Keynes because you cannot debunk his work, and yet you justify and celebrate Putin's repetition of Hitler's militarism and fascism (e.g. invading and annexing the lands of neighboring states).

It is simply irrelevant. Because a large amount of what are "savings" for common sense are investments, thus, create demand for investment goods. So, this "paradox" is nicely formulated but misleading.

Ok, you don't understand the paradox of thrift. I guess we will have to add that to large and growing list of things you don't understand and are incapable of understanding.