Role of gov't in the economy.

EOC, this one’s for you.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21573280-reforms-state-and-local-level-point-way-improving-national-business

I’m well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it’ll do enormous damage.
Each side has half the solution.
Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it’s means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse.
The Tea Party has this much right.
Yes, for the near term, we’re going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes.
The left has this much right.
What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they’re going to have to do both.
They could learn something from Clinton’s playbook. “Slick Willie” may have been a piece of work, but it’s interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face.
But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?

I'm well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it'll do enormous damage. Each side has half the solution. Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it's means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren's great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse. The Tea Party has this much right. Yes, for the near term, we're going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes. The left has this much right. What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they're going to have to do both. ---True, but we have a stalemate, one side won't make any more cuts to programs, one side won't raise taxes and refuses to cut defense spending. So where do we go from here? They could learn something from Clinton's playbook. "Slick Willie" may have been a piece of work, but it's interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face. --Bush made sure he took care of THAT! No surpluses for him! .... But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?
I'm well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it'll do enormous damage. Each side has half the solution. Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it's means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren's great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse. The Tea Party has this much right. Yes, for the near term, we're going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes. The left has this much right. What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they're going to have to do both. They could learn something from Clinton's playbook. "Slick Willie" may have been a piece of work, but it's interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face. But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?
In general I don't disagree with what you are saying, the questions is where are the tax increases and spending cuts to take place, and how to we do it such a way that demand in increased for the immediate future while over the long term inflation is kept under control. I have posted many of these ideas before. Tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, make all wages including gains from stock option bonuses subject to FICA, get control of Medical costs, also raise the minimum wage and find a way to control the costs of higher education, and cut the military budget in half and but the costs of the VA back in the military budget when you do these calculations (and increase the care for our veterans as necessary). Also if we cannot not eliminate the subsidy to the real estate industry - the home mortgage credit limit to one home at a time and cap it at say 500,000. per lifetime. Also eliminate farm subsidies and set the estate tax exemption cut off at a level that equals the value of the estates at the amount that covers say the bottom 90% of estates. On the state and local levels much more can be done, such as eliminating FDAs which only serve to steal companies from one local jurisdiction to another by competing to give tax breaks to favored businesses.

The Government is the economy! Everywhere!
Only the wealthy ever want to frame the dichotomy of government verses economy(ie. private sector etc …)
The Government is the economy.
This can be summed up in this simple dictum:
When people petition the govt. through lobbying, voting, bribery, blackmail, referendums, policy organizations, gerrymandering, etc…they are trying to
mold the government in their best private interests.
This is government! That is government!
What do many of these invalids think? That govt is some outside force? No the govt is being steered by the people. It is the people.
We get the friggin’ government we deserve!
And the wealthy get the government they pay for.
And when you hear talk about…“big government” or govt. vs. private sector…that’s the wealthy and the powerful interests being the squeaky wheel.
They are the friggin’ govt! And they want their govt. Not our government!
They’re absolutely happy when it’s their government(a big friggin’ govt I might add!!)
But when the people(the underrepresented, disenfranchised people) start to reach for a piece of their own government, well then…
Government is too big! It’s government verses the people!
The government is the economy! Wake up!

double post delete. corrected grammar and spelling errors.

And for any “less attenuated” folks who rebut: “We know the govt is the people! But is the government getting in the way of the economy?
Or does the govt have a role in the economy?”

  1. If the FDA, The EPA, and the FCC for example, all got defunded and closed, then That’s government! That’s a government in action!
  2. The role of government in economy(ie:the govt is the economy) is: whatever interest can wrest enough control over the economy gets to form or partake in the government. Or it could be equally stated in the inverse…whatever interest can control the government gets to partake in the economy or form the economy.
  3. Hey! When there are multiple interests then economy/government is varied and complex. That’s government! ooorrrrrr…that’s the economy! It’s the same shit!
    To get to the crux one more time…if Ayn Rand came back from the dead and become dictator. And she instituted a complete capitalistic, rugged individual, libertarian, system. Guess what…wait for it! That’s Government! Or, as I said earlier…that would be the economy in action!

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph

Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph
Yes Gary-maybe it always has been the theology.
Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph
This must be one of the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
I'm well aware of the effect of government on the economy, for better and for worse. With the budget battles going on now, my chief objection is that both sides continue to use their respective party lines to be as obstructionist as possible even when they KNOW full well that it'll do enormous damage. Each side has half the solution. Yes, we need to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt. We need for government to live within it's means instead of irresponsibly racking up a debt which our great grandchildren's great grandchildren will have to pay. That or face a catastrophic financial collapse. The Tea Party has this much right. Yes, for the near term, we're going to have to live with deficits and acknowledge once and for all that revenues will HAVE to be raised by among other things, tax hikes as well as eliminating loopholes. The left has this much right. What neither side wants to face is that in order to fix this problem, they're going to have to do both. They could learn something from Clinton's playbook. "Slick Willie" may have been a piece of work, but it's interesting to note that by the time he left office, the government was actually tracking surpluses, and without crippling budget cuts. This is not something the Tea Partiers or anybody else on the Right likes to face. But then giving an opponent their due credit for ACYUALLY getting something right is not something anybody likes to do, is it?
In general I don't disagree with what you are saying, the questions is where are the tax increases and spending cuts to take place, and how to we do it such a way that demand in increased for the immediate future while over the long term inflation is kept under control. I have posted many of these ideas before. Tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, make all wages including gains from stock option bonuses subject to FICA, get control of Medical costs, also raise the minimum wage and find a way to control the costs of higher education, and cut the military budget in half and but the costs of the VA back in the military budget when you do these calculations (and increase the care for our veterans as necessary). Also if we cannot not eliminate the subsidy to the real estate industry - the home mortgage credit limit to one home at a time and cap it at say 500,000. per lifetime. Also eliminate farm subsidies and set the estate tax exemption cut off at a level that equals the value of the estates at the amount that covers say the bottom 90% of estates. On the state and local levels much more can be done, such as eliminating FDAs which only serve to steal companies from one local jurisdiction to another by competing to give tax breaks to favored businesses. Or just stop all tax breaks and have everyone, individuals and corporations pay the same rates. Besides being fairer and easier to administer we wouldn't have the ridiculously complicated tax code we have that even the IRS can't figure out and which forces people to hire accountants to wade through. If tax collection were simplified every one of us (who are below the 2 percent) would wind up paying less and paying a fairer rate, and collection would not be the problem it is now. The problem is that manipulating the tax code is an excellent way for politicians to buy and sell votes. Think of that the next time your taxes are due. There is no need for a complicated tax code except to line someone's pockets. We know it costs the rest of the population untold misery and represents an overwhelmingly unfair burden, especiallly on the bottom segment of the economy. Will it be changed? Of course not. If the tax burden were fair the rich would pay more. We can't have that. Keep the tax code impenetrable and allow the burden to continue falling on the ones who have the least power. Isn't that what American democracy is all about?

I agree with your plan, Lois, except for one thing. I think we have to assign a minimum adequate living income for everyone to help keep them out of poverty, say, the first $50,000 of income would not be taxed. That way we wouldn’t be penalizing those who can hardly survive on their incomes.
Occam

I agree with your plan, Lois, except for one thing. I think we have to assign a minimum adequate living income for everyone to help keep them out of poverty, say, the first $50,000 of income would not be taxed. That way we wouldn't be penalizing those who can hardly survive on their incomes. Occam
I have no problem with that plan. There is also no reason it couldn't be imposed across the board. We should figure out the minimum amount of money for a person and his or her dependent family members to live on and make anything above that amount the base for taxation. This would apply to the wealthy as well as the poor. As the tax system works now people at the bottom pay far more in taxes as a percentage of their income than do those at the top.. Most tax avoidance schemes are available only to the wealthy. In fact, our taxation system is designed (rather it has developed) to wring as much as possible from the people at or near the bottom so the wealthy can keep an increasingly larger portion of their income. If taxes were imposed as a percentage of discretionary funds rather than income, we'd have a fairer system. Of course this is unlikely to happen for the simple reason that the wealthy write the tax code.
Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph
This must be one of the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. It may be silly but it is fairly close to the truth.
I agree with your plan, Lois, except for one thing. I think we have to assign a minimum adequate living income for everyone to help keep them out of poverty, say, the first $50,000 of income would not be taxed. That way we wouldn't be penalizing those who can hardly survive on their incomes. Occam
That is actually the way the income tax started out. No one below $5,000. a year back in the 19 teens had to file or pay. I would be more specific but I can't find the copy of the orginal income tax return I used to have. :-/ :-/
Economics is the theology of today. - Stiglitz, Joseph
This must be one of the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. It may be silly but it is fairly close to the truth. Theology is the study of something that doesn't exist. Economy, OTOH, is real. Just like with most social sciences, economics is far from perfect, but I believe we'll get there eventually. I know Stiglitz is only having fun here, but as smart as he can be, he is no Oscar Wilde. His attempt at trying to sound witty here doesn't seem to work at all. At least for me it doesn't.
George-Theology is the study of something that doesn't exist. Economy, OTOH, is real. Just like with most social sciences, economics is far from perfect, but I believe we'll get there eventually. I know Stiglitz is only having fun here, but as smart as he can be, he is no Oscar Wilde. His attempt at trying to sound witty here doesn't seem to work at all. At least for me it doesn't.
-How do you know Stiglitz was only being funny? Did he say so? George first, theology is the study of religions-which do exist. I think your attempt here to try and sound pragmatic doesn't work at all. What makes economics any more real than theology? In fact what makes economics real? The only thing we know about economics is that there are many different schools of competing and complimentary economics. And there are many people who feel that they have the right economic formula. But like you said they are far from perfect. You think they would have it perfected by now. Why isn't it perfected yet? It's been thousands of years. It deals with pretty straight forward material. What's the hold up? Sounds an awful lot like religion to me. No they will never perfect it. It can't be perfected. Economics runs straight into the wall of human nature. There's nothing to perfect because "economics" is a loose term or concept which is used to describe or enumerate the prevailing and current situation of resource allocation and the reactions of people to those resource allocations. The point of view that economics will one day be perfected is the most stark example of economics being exactly like religion! In order to perfect it, one would have to think that the prevailing situation could be changed. It can't. That's why it's called prevailing. Look at all the Rum-bum economic geniuses that have occupied ministerial or cabinet or administrative positions for centuries! They were certainly qualified and experts. The best any of them could do was to adjust to the prevailing situation and either have temporary success, or temporary failure.
George-Theology is the study of something that doesn't exist. Economy, OTOH, is real. Just like with most social sciences, economics is far from perfect, but I believe we'll get there eventually. I know Stiglitz is only having fun here, but as smart as he can be, he is no Oscar Wilde. His attempt at trying to sound witty here doesn't seem to work at all. At least for me it doesn't.
-How do you know Stiglitz was only being funny? Did he say so? George first, theology is the study of religions-which do exist. I think your attempt here to try and sound pragmatic doesn't work at all. What makes economics any more real than theology? In fact what makes economics real? The only thing we know about economics is that there are many different schools of competing and complimentary economics. And there are many people who feel that they have the right economic formula. But like you said they are far from perfect. You think they would have it perfected by now. Why isn't it perfected yet? It's been thousands of years. It deals with pretty straight forward material. What's the hold up? Sounds an awful lot like religion to me. No they will never perfect it. It can't be perfected. Economics runs straight into the wall of human nature. There's nothing to perfect because "economics" is a loose term or concept which is used to describe or enumerate the prevailing and current situation of resource allocation and the reactions of people to thosJe resource allocations. The point of view that economics will one day be perfected is the most stark example of economics being exactly like religion! In order to perfect it, one would have to think that the prevailing situation could be changed. It can't. That's why it's called prevailing. Look at all the Rum-bum economic geniuses that have occupied ministerial or cabinet or administrative positions for centuries! They were certainly qualified and experts. The best any of them could do was to adjust to the prevailing situation and either have temporary success, or temporary failure.
I think it's a good quote. Economics has become a religion for people at the top of the income scale.
Economy, OTOH, is real.
I must keep in mind that you said this.

VYAZMA,
Theology is the study of God, not religions. Religions, which of course do exist, are studied by, for example, anthropology.
As far as economics being far from perfect, IMO, the one thing that would help them move ahead is adding biology to the equation. But I know you don’t believe in that stuff or it makes you upset or something like that…