[Big Mac]

Here are two thought provoking economics articles I got from my Twitter-verse and thought were worth sharing with the PWL: The Great Stagflation (Forbes) and Violent Deflation.

The first article from Forbes critiques a hot new book that claims we're experiencing a stagnant economy because America has already consumed the low hanging fruit that used to power the economy. The author of the article says that the book's conclusions are unpersuasive and instead that the reason why we're not doing better generally is because the old 20th Century management model doesn't work in today's information-based economy; companies must change over to continuous-innovation models like the one Apple uses.

The second on deflation is a shorter piece about the reasons why the US government and other governments have been flooding the markets with liquidity (fabricated money) and what that could mean when they turn off the spigots - violent deflation.

I think there's a lot of truth in both articles, although neither of them are perfect explanations of why we're at this juncture and where we're possibly going. Old business models that relied on monopolistic practices and captive consumer bases can't succeed nearly as well when consumers have a lot more information and choice. And as for deflation, while I am very concerned about the toll the Fed's inflationary policies have taken in the short term, I worry that once the easy devalued fiat flow gets shut off, it's quite possible we will see a violent second downturn that could make the current level of misery and world turmoil look tame by comparison.

Few alive today are truly prepared for real hard economic times. The following are generalizations not meant to describe all people but which are accurate in describing many IMO: The Baby Boomers were raised by their WWII-era parents to be spoiled and entitled, and they raised spoiled, entitled kids in turn. The US as a whole has been so corrupted by enormous government progressivism that old and young alike are throwing temper tantrums over the prospect that governments can't perpetually run enormous deficits to give them everything to which they deem themselves entitled.

We've lived on the false economy of greed at too many levels for too long. Greed in the private economic sphere and greed in the public economic sphere. Efforts to charge up the world's economies through hyper-spending and hyper-easing have translated to anemic growth and can't go on forever. The Democrats just want to demagogue reform efforts until we have a Greece style debt crisis. Unless a rabbit is pulled of the collective hat, I think Winter is Coming. Who is prepared?

[ort888]

Those are some pretty arrogant generalizations there.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Few alive today are truly prepared for real hard economic times. The Baby Boomers were raised by their WWII-era parents to be spoiled and entitled, and they raised spoiled, entitled kids in turn. The US as a whole has been so corrupted by enormous government progressivism that old and young alike are throwing temper tantrums over the prospect that governments can't perpetually run enormous deficits to give them everything to which they deem themselves entitled.

I've never heard anyone say with a straight face that the government should give them everything they wanted, apart from the basic premises of the Constitution (which does entitle Americans to certain rights).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I've never heard anyone say with a straight face that the government should give them everything they wanted, apart from the basic premises of the Constitution (which does entitle Americans to certain rights).

Then you haven't been watching much of any news or following presidential debates the last number of elections, I guess. Unless you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, high government/union salaries/benefits and the like are Constitutional rights. And note, I didn't say people are asking of government everything they could possibly want but rather what they think they are entitled to. There's a difference between the two.

The political conflict in the country today is between the entitlement half versus the non-entitlement half, or to put it in slightly different terms, the enormous government half versus the limited government half. It's the reason why the Tea Parties formed in large part.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The political conflict in the country today is between the entitlement half versus the non-entitlement half, or to put it in slightly different terms, the enormous government half versus the limited government half. It's the reason why the Tea Parties formed in large part.

False. No matter what your own views are, the political conflict in the country today by and large is not about entitlements vs. no entitlements. As Republicans are finding out recently, people like their entitlements. "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare" and all of that. The political conflict is, by and large, over how to pay for it in the short term (spending cuts versus tax hikes) and everybody is punting the long term problem down the road.

[Big Mac]

And that is false, SpaceMonkey. You can't take one aged moron who proclaimed that government should keep its hands off of her Medicare as representative of the Tea Party or conservatism more generally. No true, informed fiscal conservative would say something that ignorant. And it shows how weak your argument is that you have to resort to that kind of misleading rhetoric.

As for resistance to Paul Ryan, there have been orchestrated true "astroturf" campaigns by the Left to make it seem like conservatives are opposed to his reforms. There may be some marginal conservatives who are so opposed, but the heart of the party is not with them and other RINOs who just want the status quo like the Dems do.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And that is false, SpaceMonkey. You can't take one aged moron who proclaimed that government should keep its hands off of her Medicare as representative of the Tea Party or conservatism more generally. No true, informed fiscal conservative would say something that ignorant.

That was just a colorful example. I'm talking about the polling results you get when you ask people if Medicare/Social Security spending should be cut.
WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds Support Lacking for Entitlement Reductions - WSJ.com

As for resistance to Paul Ryan, there have been orchestrated true "astroturf" campaigns by the Left to make it seem like conservatives are opposed to his reforms. There may be some marginal conservatives who are so opposed, but the heart of the party is not with them and other RINOs.

I think your own ideological commitment is blinding you to the actual politics within the Republican party, which recognizes the fact above.

[Athens]

But isn't the entitlement people valid because after all they pay into the system that is supposed to provide for them down the road. I mean if I was paying into something I would expect entitlement to the use of that system. Side note, Any one born in the 60s and later have no idea what hardship is. No one in my generation saves for a rainy day. Its hard to save when living pay check to pay check. Most of us have no concept of being totally broke and with no options. I am always amazed at some of the real old people I know, those in their 80s and 90s who manage to live on so little. The thriftiness which should be a skill taught in school. In defense to my generation our entire lives we have been told and manipulated to spend spend spend. Its how our economic system is design. We spend and the economy grows.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That was just a colorful example. I'm talking about the polling results you get when you ask people if Medicare/Social Security spending should be cut.
WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds Support Lacking for Entitlement Reductions - WSJ.com

I don't put much trust in the polling on this issue right now. We can argue this point for a long time to come, but we'll get a real answer in November 2012 when we see if the Tea Party can extend its gains from 2010. If we have a new president committed to limited government and strong Republican majorities ready to tackle the true fiscal problems we face, then I will have been vindicated.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then you haven't been watching much of any news or following presidential debates the last number of elections, I guess. Unless you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, high government/union salaries/benefits and the like are Constitutional rights. And note, I didn't say people are asking of government everything they could possibly want but rather what they think they are entitled to. There's a difference between the two.

The political conflict in the country today is between the entitlement half versus the non-entitlement half, or to put it in slightly different terms, the enormous government half versus the limited government half. It's the reason why the Tea Parties formed in large part.

No. The political conversation in this country right now is trying to determine what it means to be a modern American attached to a government with notions of modernity within an international context and what that actually means for the American citizen as attached to that government. Whether or not the modern American has access (or in your words, entitled to) to that healthcare is an open question in that debate.

[Big Mac]

"Trying to determine what it means to be a modern American attached to a government with notions of modernity?" That's what you think the debate is about? I'll remember to watch for such arguments very carefully the next time I watch a presidential debate, but I don't think what you describe encapsulates the American political debate well at all.

I'm discovering that your grasp on domestic politics is no stronger than your grasp on middle eastern politics.

Earth to Mitchell: We're running trillion dollar deficits and a $14.4 trillion debt increasing at a frightening pace by the day. The question comes down to (trillions of) dollars and cents - what kind of government do you want, and at what cost? You either want the status quo to even more progressive, more enormous government (i.e. debt crisis and world-wide economic devastation), or you want moderate to radical cut-backs/reform to put us back on saner financial territory.

And btw, SpaceMonkey, those conservatives polled who don't want to cut Entitlements also mostly don't want to raise taxes. They also don't want to continue to increase the debt. Their positions aren't credible, which means they're not sufficiently educated on the topic yet to offer credible opinions. The truth will be seen in 2012.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"Trying to determine what it means to be a modern American attached to a government with notions of modernity?" That's what you think the debate is about? I'll remember to watch for such arguments very carefully the next time I watch a presidential debate, but I don't think what you describe encapsulates the American political debate well at all.

I'm discovering that your grasp on domestic politics is no stronger than your grasp on middle eastern politics.

Earth to Mitchell: We're running trillion dollar deficits and a $14.4 trillion debt increasing at a frightening pace by the day. The question comes down to (trillions of) dollars and cents - what kind of government do you want, and at what cost? You either want the status quo to even more progressive, more enormous government (i.e. debt crisis and world-wide economic devastation), or you want moderate to radical cut-backs/reform to put us back on saner financial territory.

And btw, SpaceMonkey, those conservatives polled who don't want to cut Entitlements also mostly don't want to raise taxes. They also don't want to continue to increase the debt. Their positions aren't credible, which means they're not sufficiently educated on the topic yet to offer credible opinions. The truth will be seen in 2012.

Earth to Big Mac: Money is a part of the conversation as well. It's an all-encompassing debate and all US politics happen within its context. Unless you're saying that how to deal with debt, healthcare, etc, isn't a part of a modern state (because it has been since 1500s England). This is why there are political parties: because different people have different visions of a modern American and how the modern American interacts with the government.

[Big Mac]

Money, economic realities, that's the bottom line, mitchell, and you're simply out of touch with reality if you think otherwise. It would be paradise on earth if everyone could afford everything they ever want, but in this world there are economic realities - resources, goods and services are scarce, not freely available. Economics is the study of how societies utilize limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants and needs.

The US government has been, in modern times, outstripping its ability to pay for the commitments it makes, and economic reality is about to hit home in a huge way. The status quo is a dead-end. Raising taxes only on the wealthy won't fix the problem. And the problem won't go away. It's getting worse every day. When the tsunami hits even someone as out of touch as you will be forced to take notice.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And btw, SpaceMonkey, those conservatives polled who don't want to cut Entitlements also mostly don't want to raise taxes. They also don't want to continue to increase the debt. Their positions aren't credible, which means they're not sufficiently educated on the topic yet to offer credible opinions. The truth will be seen in 2012.

Well duh, they're not "credible" in the sense of offering a coherent long-term solution. Neither are most Democrats. That was what I just explained in my original post. For someone who is lecturing others about their grasp on domestic politics, you are remarkably quick to assume that the political outcome rests on credibility rooted in a long-term, consistent plan. That's the exception to the rule when it comes to the history of "saving" Medicare/Social Security.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Money, economic realities, that's the bottom line, mitchell, and you're simply out of touch with reality if you think otherwise. It would be paradise on earth if everyone could afford everything they ever want, but in this world there are economic realities - resources, goods and services are scarce, not freely available. Economics is the study of how societies utilize limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants and needs.

The US government has been, in modern times, outstripping its ability to pay for the commitments it makes, and economic reality is about to hit home in a huge way. The status quo is a dead-end. Raising taxes only on the wealthy won't fix the problem. And the problem won't go away. It's getting worse every day. When the tsunami hits even someone as out of touch as you or SpaceMonkey will be forced to take notice.

Or it could raise taxes to be with in its means. I think the failure is in the thinking you can have your cake and pay little for it. Everything has a cost. If social programs are important to the people they need to be willing to cough up the dough to pay for it. You cant have social programs and low taxes at the same time. Its one or the other. The US government is trying to do both.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well duh, they're not "credible" in the sense of offering a coherent long-term solution. Neither are most Democrats. That was what I just explained in my original post. For someone who is lecturing others about their grasp on domestic politics, you are remarkably quick to assume that the political outcome rests on credibility rooted in a long-term, consistent plan. That's the exception to the rule when it comes to the history of "saving" Medicare/Social Security.

If there's such substantial agreement between the two of us, I wonder why we're arguing. You made it sound as you agree with those who don't think there's a massive problem here.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Money, economic realities, that's the bottom line, mitchell, and you're simply out of touch with reality if you think otherwise. It would be paradise on earth if everyone could afford everything they ever want, but in this world there are economic realities - resources, goods and services are scarce, not freely available. Economics is the study of how societies utilize limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants and needs.

I'm not disagreeing that it's important, but that's not how the conversation is taking place. Nobody stands up on Capitol Hill and starts a debate about money; it's a debate about healthcare, defense, or whatever. But I'm sure you'll be happy to point out how that's Islamist and out of touch or something preposterous

The US government has been, in modern times, outstripping its ability to pay for the commitments it makes, and economic reality is about to hit home in a huge way. The status quo is a dead-end. Raising taxes only on the wealthy won't fix the problem. And the problem won't go away. It's getting worse every day. When the tsunami hits even someone as out of touch as you will be forced to take notice.

Wow, you really know nothing about me. I guess you didn't notice the budget thread where besson and I both agreed that the US's spending was nearing dangerous levels. But again, I guess I'm just out of touch, even when I'm saying the same exact thing as you. You may even remember me saying in another thread that the only thing I don't like about the US's support of Israel is the fact that I don't think the US should be writing off billions of dollars of aid per year to other countries when we can't even figure stuff out at home. But I guess that's probably Islamist too.

[Big Mac]

If you largely agree with me, then why be so disagreeable? Why did it take until this latest post of yours for you to clarify your position in this thread?

The truth is, I am far more likely to see you as left-wing now because of the stances you took in recent Israel thread and similar recent conversations. Your initial reply to this thread made it seem like you were again being left-wing. I apologize for any inaccurate assumptions I may make about you based on what I know of your current politics.

You should know that US government spending/debt/entitlements and the Arab Israeli conflict are the top two political issues for me, and I don't have much patience on these topics. If I think you hold an opposing view that you can't validate, I'll quickly move to argue against you vigorously. I know I should be more reserved in negative judgments, but I take both of these issues deadly seriously.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If there's such substantial agreement between the two of us, I wonder why we're arguing. You made it sound as you agree with those who don't think there's a massive problem here.

With respect to entitlement programs, you presented the "political conflict in the country today" as an overarching ideological conflict (limited versus progressive government). That conflict is there, and is a component of the political conflict in the country today, but it is not "the" political conflict. Politics and ideology are not the same thing. Ideology is a vision statement about the world, and politics is the practice of satisfying constituencies who may or may not fully agree with your ideology. I think you are bound to be disappointed in 2012, even if the Republicans win, if you think that the politics of Medicare is simply a matter of educating people about the direness of the fiscal crisis.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: what is going on here is the same thing I have pointed out a number of times: the assumptions you make suggest you being completely out of touch, and it is annoying being put on the defensive over these phantom issues you erroneously attribute to us. Your "enemy" isn't what you think it is.

[Big Mac]

That's true, besson, you have pointed this out to me before. When it comes to these two issues most of all, I'm not very tolerant at all of views that don't immediately look right-wing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Unless you're saying that how to deal with debt, healthcare, etc, isn't a part of a modern state (because it has been since 1500s England).

The English healthcare system was invented in 1948.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's true, besson, you have pointed this out to me before. When it comes to these two issues most of all, I'm not very tolerant at all of views that don't immediately look right-wing.

Well, why don't you take the time to find out what they actually are before coming out with your guns a'blazin?

[Big Mac]

I'll try to do so in the future, but it seems with some people that only after I argue against them do they clarify their positions.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's true, besson, you have pointed this out to me before. When it comes to these two issues most of all, I'm not very tolerant at all of views that don't immediately look right-wing.

Then why are you making threads about it on a forum for open discussion? Having a hardline view is fine, but this is a discussion forum. Being intolerant isn't the point of a forum.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The English healthcare system was invented in 1948.

True enough. I was referring to a national debt specifically.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'll try to do so in the future, but it seems with some people that only after I argue against them do they clarify their positions.

That's called being put on the defensive, and it's not fun. If you don't know what their positions are and you are arguing what you think they might be, you'll get your argument, but you'll also get other stuff. I would bet that the vast majority of people on the left here do not think what you often seem to think they do.

As far as I'm concerned, my recommendation to you is that you just assume that I'm right (correct) about everything, and that I'm better than you. This is a good strategy in general no matter who or what you are, it will serve you well. What I usually suggest to people is that when you are ready to reply to me and argue something I said, you count to five and say to yourself "well, besson3c *is* the best there is. Am I sure that I really want to do this?"

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you largely agree with me, then why be so disagreeable? Why did it take until this latest post of yours for you to clarify your position in this thread?

The truth is, I am far more likely to see you as left-wing now because of the stances you took in recent Israel thread and similar recent conversations. Your initial reply to this thread made it seem like you were again being left-wing. I apologize for any inaccurate assumptions I may make about you based on what I know of your current politics.

You should know that US government spending/debt/entitlements and the Arab Israeli conflict are the top two political issues for me, and I don't have much patience on these topics. If I think you hold an opposing view that you can't validate, I'll quickly move to argue against you vigorously. I know I should be more reserved in negative judgments, but I take both of these issues deadly seriously.

Your problem is that you only see things in black and white, right or wrong, or left or right. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it simplifies nuanced matters, such as how a government handles debt, or the Arab/Israeli conflict. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that the government needs to do a complete 180˚ turn from the way it is now and stop basically all but the barest bones of spending. But the reality is that can never happen. I completely agree that the way the government spends (if you can even call it spending, it's more like hemorrhaging) money isn't sustainable, but I don't think that the answer is to just stop spending everything and make itself tiny again. That'd be nice, but it's very difficult to do for a country involved in two wars, foreign investment, and controlling national corporations. Hence the suggestion I've made to drop foreign aid that isn't response to natural disaster, which you strongly have disagreed with. A good example is General Motors post-bailout. The resulting company after the bailout isn't any less complicated than it was before. I'm sure that you'll point out that the bailout was a result of a Democratic government, but our government has always acted inefficiently since WWII (IMO), no matter who is in office. People are used to a certain level of accommodation from the government. Complaining about Baby Boomers isn't going to solve anything, because the reality is that voters will vote for what they want. England is struggling with what this looks like right now. I don't think they've found the right answer, but the US needs to look at other countries and see what works and what doesn't, instead of just bickering about right and left issues.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I've never heard anyone say with a straight face that the government should give them everything they wanted, apart from the basic premises of the Constitution (which does entitle Americans to certain rights).

Have you forgotten about the ponytail guy?

YouTube -The Ponytailed Guy Turns Election