Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

FreedomLover — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:31:47 -0000

John V:

What's the point in all this anyways. Just canvas any neighborhood and ask people about the budget deficit. They'll say "sure it's bad", but then ask them about their favorite entitlement program, and it's "yeah we absolutely have to have it". Most people are complete idiots who can't reason their way out of a paper bag. That I know pretty much from everyday observations.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Chris — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:06:46 -0000

Vidyohs --

I think your facts are wrong on executive orders -- they date back to the 1700s. Executive orders are how the President exercises the executive power to make sure that the laws are enforced and are circumscribed by the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.

The Congress in FDR's time certainly gave the President a lot of power, but that was largely by creating a number of agencies inside the executive branch and by delegating regulatory authority to those agencies.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

TechnoProgressive — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:43:16 -0000

What is at issue here is that the government, both primary parties of it, are following Keynesian economics. They believe that if they spend enough money, it will revive the economy.

Consider the following summarized from a speech given at Mesa community college by economist Dr. Dwight Lee: Friedman, according to Dr. Lee, was said to have undermined Keynesian economics. Lee holds that Friedman certainly never intended this. In fact when he was 41, he even stated that he himself was a Keynesian economist. Over the years following this statement though, his position changed based on his research. It was not that he set out to destroy Keynesian economics, it just didn't match the results of his research. Keyne assumed that an increase in income meant an increase in savings. Stagnation Theory then says that the market is then bound to crash, because spending can't keep up as some of the money is saved. Friedman made an important distinction in researching this on the difference between transitory income (windfalls, etc) vs permanent income. Keyne had originally recommended deficit spending to cover the gap caused by stagnation theory. Keyne recommended that this liberal Fiscal policy in deficit would be greatly impacted based on the Keynesian multiplier: that as people spend money, it becomes income for someone else, is spent again, repeatedly. Friedman challenged this in the 'radio controversy' by noting that spending increases were offset by inflation.

In light of this it is obvious that their spending is based on 50 year outdated economic theory, if it is thought through at all.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

John V — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:02:08 -0000

FreedomLover,

Your response to me above seems to imply that you think I play favorites with the budget or that I shilling for liberals.

You'd be wrong on both counts.

My disgust for the entire budget should be self-evident. Don't assume I secretly want more entitlement spending simply because it didn't spell it out in post above.

A a libertarian...not a libertarian-leaning Republican or a libertarian-leaning Democrat. Just a plain ol' libertarian.

Thus, I gleefully pull no punches toward anyone. Everyone is fair game. No remorse.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

FreedomLover — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:18:10 -0000

Python:

I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you! *whistles*

NEOCON!!!!

NEOCON!!!!

NEOCON!!!!

/standard leftist troll

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Grant — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:50:06 -0000

Once you realize that politicians and voters respond to incentives like anyone else, the state of governance in American (or throughout history for that matter) isn't so surprising.

The terrible government we've had lately isn't any more shocking to me than Paris feeding itself without aristocratic planning. Voluntary exchange provides incentives which benefit all parties involved, while power's incentives don't reward behavior which respects the rights and desires of others.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Python — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:58:21 -0000

I've been surprised recently that the people who criticize Bush for expanding the size of government don't mention that their candidate will expand it to levels Bush never even dreamed of.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

FreedomLover — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:32:02 -0000

Ah, mis-spelling troll be gone.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Emmanuel — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:11:31 -0000

Guys the real problem is inherent to a big nation as America. US can only be compared to the Roman Empire, therefore if compared with the Roman history some insight can be found.

The Romans were vastly superior to any other nation in their time. They never had rivals that could match them.

This situation creates a feeling of superiority that enhances big expansion or unilateral policies. So unilateral they are that the citizens of the Republic are no longer consulted to support major decisions such as war or budgets or cap spendings.

Another reason, Washington becomes the beacon not of freedom but of power. To be more precise: the biggest power ever. And as the Romans their best citizens became currupt to get more power.

Corruptio optimi, pessima.

Therefore much of common sense is lost and policies become erratic and discunctional not to say crazy and insane. Only wise leaders can tame all these powerful lobbies that try to enjoy the might of America.

Clinton enjoyed the end of the cold war. He was summoned by Greenspan to stop the deficit. The pro war guys were far from the power at the time. So no wars and the defense lobby was put aside.

But with G. Bush all a team of ambitious polititians came to power to satisfy their sponsors and their own bank accounts. So guys what do you want? They brought as war and they thought that they would conquer the world. I mean all the world. The warfare was not that easy Rumsfeld was forced to resign, Wolfowitz became a joke in the IMF and Cheney is Dark Vador.

America is tired of the war, but it must pay the bill of the so called war on terror. Infrastructures are old and outdated. Poor American citizens can not be helped by their government.

So guys America is gonna suffer but we will be humble again and the world will love us.

Only one thing: bring to court Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and all the other crooks that came to serve their friends pockets.

These guys started all this big trouble AND THEY MUST ANSWER FOR IT.

WE ARE A REPUBLIC SO ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUAL AND ALL MUST ANSWER FOR THEIR MISBEHAVES!!!

GOOD LUCK AMERICA! WE WILL SURVIVE...somehow!

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Mesa Econoguy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:23:12 -0000

Yes, exactly Sam, and vidyohs, I suspect you have more economic "training" than you let on.

But that's what's cool about economics: you can observe behaviors and develop a framework of rules, and predict future outcomes based on that information.

Physics is much the same.

No modern liberal understands this.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:25:49 -0000

"works" best

The constant strawman.

Libertarians define a free market as one in which actors participate in transactions via voluntary agreement and impose no direct cost on non-participants.

Say that for a 'progressive' and they come up with stuff like:

So you think its OK for corporations to exploit the powerless?

So pollution is OK with you?

etc.

Always with the strawman argument.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:16:39 -0000

Agreed,

and thanks for telling me who dondero is/was. I hadn't run into him.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:50:53 -0000

That's why we think a free market (not free for all) word best, it permits humans to profit through productive activity via trade with others similarly situated.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:43:51 -0000

Even though they are mythical, we give governments life in our agreements and belief.

It is a natural fact that life is self serving first and foremost, it can be no different and remain alive.

As the prime instrument is self srving, all departments, agencies, and/or offices created by any government will also immediately become self serving first and foremost.

Just one of those natural laws that we have to recognize and learn to deal with.

This is not approval per se, just giving recognition to what is.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:11:52 -0000

Discussing the military purely as a budget consideration:

Military contractors know where to feed.

If there's a problem with the military, it's likely because it is run by the government.

Perhaps all military/security intelligence should be placed under military command.

Congress should retain the constitutional prerogative of declaring war.

We should give up on the U.N.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:02:14 -0000

Randy,

I note your points.

Let me just say that it is not the founding father's plan that is the problem.

The problem is the people that exercise the plan.

I think we would agree that under careful consideration the plan has worked well over the years and the limits on the military and the CIC have held to balance that power and its use.

Our current dilemma can be traced to one overpowering fact. Under the FDR administration Congress voted to give the president the power of Executive Orders, the issuance of which can only be over come by a 2/3 majority. An extremely difficult thing to do, and to my sure and certain knowledge has not even been suggested or attempted in the intervening years.

So Executive Orders have the power of law and, unless canceled by a subsequent Order, stand as law until canceled by the President or over come by a 2/3 majority vote in Congress.

As Clinton's Press Secretary, Joe ...., said in the waning days of Clinton's presidency as he issued Executive Order after Executive Order, "Kinda neat, stroke of the pen, law of the land."

Congress gave up its control of the war making process when they created the Executive Order for FDR. Furthermore the truth is to be drawn that they don't want to cancel that Executive Order program because it ultimately gives them excusability, a dodge of responsibility you might say.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:49:14 -0000

Thanks Mesa Econoguy,

As long as I did not distort my position. I certainly believe that contractual performace should be rewarded as per contractual stipulation; but, I do not and would not ever promote or accept "make do" work in order to redistribute wealth or ever to "give" money to people who are just doing nothing more than being alive. You and I agree that the "government" has no money, that money is mine and yours.

I thought I had become careless and laid out something I had no intention of saying. My economics are pure street level, and I thought I had stumbled off into a wrong position, so I defer to you guys who have the education when it gets beyond that.

I apologize for the crudities, but I can't say it won't be repeated under the right provocation from certain obtuse individuals whose postings deserve no respect. Tell if your lady reads my posts and I'll clean them up.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Mesa Econoguy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:36:54 -0000

No worries, sir vidyohs, I was editing liberally (there was extensive other content), and was attempting to steer discussion.

Incidentally, I apologize for pushing the profanity envelope here, as I was (and currently still am) disgusted with many of the regular commenters on this fine blog.

That said, I believe Keynes himself did often employ the term “jerkoff,” pedophile that he was. My friend Ricky Perlstein could possibly shed some light on this, apparently having Jamie Keynes’ number on speed dial.

Perhaps he could also ask the Mont Pelerin Society about the Patriots failed season, too….

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Randy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:31:36 -0000

vidyohs,

"The wrong CIC in the White House is a frightening thing..."

Or the wrong party in power... and considering that the only party we have is the Progressive Idealist party, and given the history of military adventurism and willingness to use the military as a world police force demonstrated by the Progressive Idealist party, and given the fact that nuclear proliferation is inevitable, I think we need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of maintaining a massive military under the control of people whose defining characteristic is an extreme willingness to stick their noses into other people's business.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:18:19 -0000

Sir mesa econoguy,

"Vidyohs is arguing from a Keynesian perspective that “If we have to pay people, might as well have them do stuff.” That’s correct, but from a pure classical liberal economic standpoint, Russ and Don would ask “Why? Why should government pay them at all?”

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Feb 16, 2008 11:04:12 AM"

Oh Wow! If that is the way it came across to you I can tell you that is certainly not what I intended.

I don't know what I said that caused you to think that. Help me out, please.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:13:21 -0000

Brer Gil,

My last was not an answer to your post, sorry.

Do I think that military organization is superior to that of the business world? If that is the question, then I would answer no, I don't necessarily think so though there are definite parallels worth looking at.

Which is exactly what businessmen have been doing in increasing numbers since globalization was seen as inevitable. As a matter of fact many large businesses hold seminars on the required reading of Sun Tzu's Art of War, as well as the doctrines of Atilla.

The parallels are also visible in that a young man's resume that includes military service in a position of leadership is seen as a great plus in the business world, the higher the rank the more power to the resume.

As I said in a previous post on another thread, in general our military learned from the Korean war prison camp experiences to teach and reinforce self responsibility and agressive flexibility in independent operations. I believe the British military does the same and for the same reason, our POWs in Korean prison camps behaved miserably under stress while the Turkish military performed extremely well. Our military looked at what kept the Turks together and unified and improved our training accordingly. Our troops broke in prison camps, the Turks did not; and it was their military discipline that did it. No matter what the Koreans did to try and disrupt the Turk chain of command and make them confused and disorganized, the next senior Turk stepped up and said, "I am in command and we will resist." (I apologize if you find this little tidbit of history boring and unnecessary.)

So I can only tell you that military organization and business organization are not so different and one benefits from learning the techniques of the other.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Mesa Econoguy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:12 -0000

I think what Profs. Boudreaux and Roberts would argue here is that spending by any government body necessarily entails corruptive behavior, and usually results in negative economic consequences.

Vidyohs is arguing from a Keynesian perspective that “If we have to pay people, might as well have them do stuff.” That’s correct, but from a pure classical liberal economic standpoint, Russ and Don would ask “Why? Why should government pay them at all?”

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:00:45 -0000

Brer' Gil,

You may make any argument you wish for any structure of humanity, I'll read your proposals and give them respectful consideration unless, and until, you advance a theory that eliminates individual freedom of choice and action within the constraints of natural law.

At that point I would dismiss your theories as the same old stale tired crap we have today.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

vidyohs — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:56:28 -0000

Going back to Don's post above, the subject of whether the government needs such a bloated budget has been discussed so thoroughly that anything further just consists of beating the dead horse.

We the people let it happen, we insist on no accountability (oh we talk and yak but we don't actually do anything), and we send to Congress and keep people who promise us leisure and privilege and turn out the ones who talk about sacrifice, hard work, and self responsibility.

Of course we have bloated budgets.

To paraphrase an old wise saying:

"Feed a man a fish and he'll look for another tomorrow; then teach him to fish and he'll still see no need to because you have already shown a willingness to feed him a fish."

Man of man! Have we been feeding a lot of people a lot of fish for a long time!

As some one above pointed out it is the social spending that is most excessive. Is that any wonder? Consider this frightening fact, muirduck professes to be employed at some wealth generating activity yet he is fervent in calling for "cradle to grave" security for "the poor" paid for by you and I; and, there are just so many more who demand the same thing and they have never been employed at anything in their entire lives. As scary as muirduck's devout beliefs are, at least he seems to be self supporting. Think of the huge numbers that absolutely refuse to learn to fish because they have taught that the fish come free for them.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Gil — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:50:40 -0000

Pray tell vidyohs, could there be an argument that the military is a superior organisation to even the business world? In the business world you make a wrong move, you lose money - but in the battlefield you make a wrong move you're dead or severely wounded. Who knows maybe a militaristic society is the third way . . .