@rougy, I would argue that it doesn't create more people who are able to afford those goods since the price of those goods will go up directly with the amount that minimum wage increases. Assuming, of course, there is a labor force working on minimum wage to create those goods. If minimum wage were to go up a quarter, that good would go up according to the increase of cost it takes to produce the item. So even though some are making more, the things they buy will cost more.

I do agree that Friedman's model is unrealistic. He fails to factor human condition. He might as well be Karl Marx in terms of unrealistic economic models.

One rich woman may buy a hundred pair of shoes, but a million people will buy a million pair of shoes.

True, but as a devil's advocate I'd have to say that this rich woman needs money for these shoes. Money that could come from a business. The money that'll buy her shoes comes may come from the work of a thousand people. That's people with jobs.

I like to play devil's advocate because I don't have to choose a side. Mainly because there's good points from both teams.

Okay, before we get a little too sidetracked by imstellar's schizophrenic simultaneous condemnation and endorsement of violence, let's see if we can at least agree that Joe Stack's complaints didn't start or end with taxes.

Flipping through, I would summarize his grievances with government as:

1. Failing to stop GM corporate bosses from mistreating their workers
   
2. Bailing out GM without forcing a change in management
   
3. Not passing comprehensive health care reform
   
4. Tax laws are overly complex
   
5. Tax laws disproportionately benefit Catholic churches
   
6. Tax laws disproportionately benefit big business
   
7. There are two interpretations of every law, one for the rich, and one for everyone else
   
8. His neighbor had his pension stolen by a mismanaged corporation, and unions and government stood aside and let it happen
   
9. Lobbyists from Arthur Anderson (of future ENRON fame) helped open a loophole for companies to deny benefits to employees on a long term basis (by keeping them on as "independent contractors")
   
10. The US government closed military bases in California without concern for the negative effect on the local economy
    
11. After 9/11 the government overreacted with draconian flight security requirements
    
12. The government fined him $10,000 for failing to file a tax return, then later he got screwed by his tax accountant
    
13. During the current economic crisis, no CEO's are leaping to their death from their executive offices, instead they're making all their middle- and working-class employees take the plunge for them
    

He then closes by quoting Karl Marx, and juxtaposing the communist creed with what he sees as the capitalist creed. Specifically, he says:

The communist creed: From each according to ability, to each according to his need
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed

I'll go out on a limb and say that the whole thing reads to me like a left-wing screed, not a right-wing one.

His chief complaint didn't seem to be that government does too much, but that government does things for the wrong people.

This doesn't change my assessment of him being a crazy person who killed a bunch of innocent people who should be condemned, but I find it kinda funny that people on the left and right are assuming he was an anti-government, anti-tax teabagger of some sort.

Must be the plane into IRS building thing. Fits into the general teabagger narrative too nicely.

There's no place for people like me to exist in your paradigm of Right vs. Left.

I'm your version of Leftist in terms of civil liberties and the belief that all people are absolutely equal. I'm your version of Rightist in terms of limited government and anti-Statist nanny systems.

The true right is no government and the true left is absolute government. There really can be no other way to define left and right. In this way, yes, Hitler would be very, very far Left. So would Karl Marx and Stalin and Mao and everyone else who wants us to live under the government's thumb.

^ Baiting anyone who wants to fight with a very non-controversial statement.

I find it funny that people buy into the shadow statistics website. Why are their numbers more believable than the government's?

For that matter, if TIPS gives a payout based on government-based CPI, doesn't that mean this measure becomes an effective way to gauge whether the market agrees with the officially-published CPI? If the market believes the government consistently under-reports inflation, then wouldn't it bid up the constant-value yields, and make this test show that the market expects high inflation?

It's kinda the beauty of the test -- both yields are set by market forces, but the payout for TIPS will be adjusted by the government-reported CPI, while constant-value won't be. The spread is determined entirely by market-expected worth of the TIPS vs. constant-value.

Now, this isn't a way to measure inflation, it's a way to divine what the market consensus prediction about the 10-year rate of inflation is.

The way I see it, you have four possibilities:

1. The government is lying, and the market knows it.
   
   In this case, the constant value yield gives you an upper bound for the rate of inflation -- the market expects that security to pay back the rate of inflation + market interest of >0%.
   
   
2. The government is not lying, and the market knows it.
   
   The above is true, and the test as described can also be expected to be a reasonable predictor of the 10-year inflation rate.
   
   
3. The government is not lying, but the market thinks it is.
   
   In this case, we would see a high TIPS spread, but real inflation will be less than it predicts.
   
   
4. The government is lying, and the market doesn't know it.
   
   This is the Austrian belief. It means for some reason all the people controlling all the money in the world believe the Government's fraudulent statistics, while shadowstatistics.com, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul play the role of economic Cassandras.
   
   I don't see why smart (and therefore most) money wouldn't bet on their predictions, if they are indeed accurate. They have no new theory, or special information, and certainly aren't keeping what they know to themselves. As a liberal, I don't see why the market not listening to their "correct" ideas doesn't violate the basic premise of why we should surrender our lives to the infallible, prescient markets, but I digress.
   

My judgment is that #4 would indicate not that Paul and Schiff are right, but that Karl Marx is right, and capitalism should be considered a fatally flawed system.

Mostly though, I think the evidence points to reality falling somewhere between #1 and #2. To the degree that the government is lying, the market is aware of it, and adjusting accordingly, with inflation likely to fall between the TIPS spread and the constant-value yield...and neither number is large right now.

I'm more of a free marketeer than Paul and Schiff -- I think if they really had valuable insight, more money would be moving on the basis of their theories and predictions.

>Stormsinger:
Jon is so much more polite than I could make myself be... Rand is one of those that has taken (or created) a position so extreme that in order for her philosophy to have any chance of working, the very nature of humanity would have to be changed. Exactly like Karl Marx, except that she apparently took that extremist position intentionally, even -after- seeing the results when such ideologies are applied to the real world.

Ok, so you go into a writer's party. One guy says. "I've wrote this great book, it has many big words." - next guy speaks up with, "I wrote a better book, it has much bigger and more varied words." - next guy steps up, "Mine has tons more words, big and small", etc etc. Then one guy says, "My book has every word in the english language!" Which is cool, but his book is the dictionary.

That's what an ideal is to me. A reference. No one should want to achieve it, they should just use it to learn how to write their own books.

Jon is so much more polite than I could make myself be... Rand is one of those that has taken (or created) a position so extreme that in order for her philosophy to have any chance of working, the very nature of humanity would have to be changed. Exactly like Karl Marx, except that she apparently took that extremist position intentionally, even -after- seeing the results when such ideologies are applied to the real world.

She was, by any measure I can agree with, a loon (not to mention a twisted, nasty old biddy). That said, Francisco d'Anconia's money speech in "Atlas Shrugged" is an amazing piece of writing, and certainly a philosophical treatise worth thinking about. I've read "Atlas Shrugged" many times through my life (it's one of my favorite books), but I long ago realized that it just isn't an appropriate philosophy to use in defining how to live a life. I would rather live my life by "Lord of the Rings" or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...if I had to choose a book for that purpose.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." - Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschilds wife.

-

"I am one of those who do not believe the national debt is a national blessing... it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

Andrew Jackson, Letter to L. H. Coleman of Warrenton, N.C., 29 April 1824

-

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had mens views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Doubleday

-

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Winston Churchill, "Zionism versus Bolshevism", Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

-

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

Henry Ford, My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922

-

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment or bank sale destroys a deposit. And they who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

Reginald McKenna, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the shareholders as Chairman of the Midland Bank, at the Annual General Meeting in January 1924.

-

"The present Federal Reserve System is a flagrant case of the Governments conferring a special privilege upon bankers. The Government hands to the banks its credit, at virtually no cost to the banks, to be loaned out by the bankers for their own private profit. Still worse, however, is the fact that it gives the bankers practically complete control of the amount of money that shall be in circulation. Not one dollar of these Federal Reserve notes gets into circulation without being borrowed into circulation and without someone paying interest to some bank to keep it circulating. Our present money system is a debt money system. Before a dollar can circulate, a debt must be created. Such a system assumes that you can borrow yourself out of debt."

Willis A. Overholser, A short review and analysis of the history of money in the United States, with an introduction to the current money problem (1936), p. 56

>> ^quantumushroom:
When you examine the numbers, conservatives give more of their time and money to charity than liberals.
There's a big difference between someone helping others of their own free will, religious values or community values and a government entity taking money at gunpoint from one group and giving it to another.
The most offensive aspect of liberalism is also one of its defining features: refusing to analyze RESULTS intended and unintended. When a wasteful government program not only fails to deliver and additionally causes harm, the RESULTS are simply ignored by the liberal who believes in the underlying good intentions.
Ayn Rand's value to civilization is much higher than Karl Marx's, and Rand's philosophy hasn't left 100 million dead worldwide.


There is so much uncorroborated opinion passing as 'fact' in that posting that I cannot take anything in it seriously.

What numbers are you examining?
What makes you suggest liberals take money at 'gunpoint' (I'm assuming you meant that metaphorically)?
Which results are liberals refusing to analyze, and how are you an expert on liberal ideology?
How do you measure 'value to civilization' so I can rationally duplicate your results?
How are you measuring the '100 million dead' you attribute to Marx' philosophy?
Why are you bringing up Marx at all? Is it your suggestion that Ayn Rand is to conservatives what Marx is to liberals?

Again, I am only trying to rationally and completely analyze your statements. They are either not factual, or they are fallacious, or I am not aware of the metric you are using. As an objectivist surely you appreciate my skepticism.


Or perhaps you are just opposed to anyone being opposed to conservatism, and you don't care what you say, as long as it disagrees with someone liberal.

Please, disabuse me of my misconceptions.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
Someday I'm going to write a long treatise here about why this song and this story have very little to do with god's grace and being connected through JC. This is about awe and gratitude. Christians believe there is some force that is doling out goodwill and that we are unwitting and undeserving of this goodwill, unless we respond in a Christian way.

I read a great quote recently: "Christian is a wonderful noun, but a terrible adjective." I have to agree. I think the feeling you're describing, the feeling hinted at by Phipps, is transcendental. As Newton emerged from his cabin that day, and heard the dirge rising up from the hold, something in his brain clicked. No doubt, "Unknown" was sold into bondage exactly on schedule, and so the song did not save him in a meaningful way, but unbeknownst to him, that song did have an effect. Newton began to reconsider his role in things, and left the slave trade. He was a vocal proponent of abolition in England. It would be many, many years before he would put pen to paper and write out Amazing Grace (he experienced his conversion moment in 1748, and composed AG between 1760 and 1770) but nevertheless, the wordless song never truly left him. He chose to share its melody with those who'd never set foot on a slave ship, and found that, somehow, the effect was sustained.

Now everything I've just mentioned can be looked at in a non-Christian context, and it would remain true. It should be said, though, that the presence of Christianity and its memes made it easier for Newton to become aware of just how far he'd strayed in his life. Given the number of unrepentant slave captains who called themselves Christians, it does not necessarily follow that Newton's salvation was due to his turn to Christianity, but it certainly helped. And it also helped all the slaves who would have found passage in the hold of his ship, but did not, thanks to his conversion. Again, Christianity didn't do it, but it was a 'hook' upon which Newton could hang this unsettling feeling in his belly.

Kurt Vonnegut notes much the same in a speech he gave at Clowes Hall in 2007. He starts by pointing out that, while Marx said that 'religion was the opium of the lower classes', he should have been taken literally. Opiates were a wonderful class of drug that numbed the pain, and who knew pain better than the working classes? He continues, "The most spiritually splendid phenomenon of my lifetime is how African-American citizens have maintained their dignity and self-respect, despite their having been treated by white Americans, both in and out of government, and simply because of their skin color, as though they were contemptible and loathsome, and even diseased. Their churches have surely helped them to do that. So there's Karl Marx again. There's Jesus again."

I guess the question is, could John Newton have composed Amazing Grace without believing in the Magic Man Who Lives in the Sky? Maybe. Probably. But it certainly helped.

When you examine the numbers, conservatives give more of their time and money to charity than liberals.

There's a big difference between someone helping others of their own free will, religious values or community values and a government entity taking money at gunpoint from one group and giving it to another.

The most offensive aspect of liberalism is also one of its defining features: refusing to analyze RESULTS intended and unintended. When a wasteful government program not only fails to deliver and additionally causes harm, the RESULTS are simply ignored by the liberal who believes in the underlying good intentions.

Ayn Rand's value to civilization is much higher than Karl Marx's, and Rand's philosophy hasn't left 100 million dead worldwide.

WPP, QM - It's pretty simple. America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

So what? When do liberals care what anything COSTS? If our health care costs were less, the difference would be wasted elsewhere in other ways, probably on gold-plated schools.

Almost 90% of Americans are happy with their health care even with the problems it has now.

Do you have a conceptual counter-argument for Weiner's point, that a private insurance company's first priority is profitability, not the health and well being of its customers? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah. Karl Marx was wrong. No matter the business, you cannot remove the profit motive from the equation and expect excellent or even adequate results. The soviets tried it...end result: with massive natural resources they lived in poverty. The profit motive is what makes a company value its customers' satisfaction. Even a heavily-regulated company is NOTHING like the nightmare of inefficiency in a government organization. FEMA, Amtrak, Post Office...

The Constitution is a "negative document", mostly dedicated to telling the federal government what it CANNOT do. If the feds were supposed to have a blank check and give the people whatever they demanded, the Founders would not have 'wasted time' being very specific about the limited powers granted.

That shyster, Lord Obama, is on record as saying the Constitution didn't go far enough in spreading the wealth around. He cannot be trusted.

This liberal sophistry about what the Constitution means, why not just go all the way and claim you have a "right" to a free home, car, high-paying job and a life free from struggle and pain? There's always another Ted Kennedy ready to spend someone else's money to make your dreams come true.

Again: WE'RE GOING BANKRUPT on all the entitlements (aka fake "rights") we've got now. We can't afford any more Christmases on the backs of yet-to-be-born generations. The tit's run dry.

Long ago, intellectuals were the first eaten by saber-toothed tigers, as they were "above" feeling fear. As humans tamed the wilderness and became agrarian, the opportunity for intellectuals to thrive arrived, but they still weren't explorers and thrill seekers and it's doubtful you'd find many on the Mayflower or taming the West.

America was founded by balls-out bad-asses who decided to take their chances instead of being a satellite of another monarchy. They would not for one second equate the line "promote the general welfare" with the welfare state of today that is going bankrupt, as they all eventually do.

Even in Jefferson's day, intellectuals were suspect, that's the way it was, and is. ACTION made America, and made America great, and there was freedom enough that Franklin got his libraries and anyone could be a seeker of knowledge. But the egghead has never been embraced, in any American era.

Constitutional principles and Republican principles have an eerie resemblance and are a lot closer cousins than modern liberalism. I have more faith in the "ignorant" Midwesterners who understand the Constitution better than the socialists in power now.

Karl Marx was a great intellectual, and yet he couldn't have been more wrong about economics and human nature. On a personal level he was disastrous with money and never held a job. It would appear that WISDOM--the fusion of time, intelligence and experience--has it all over plain vanilla high intelligence that praises theory over results.

As ignorant as they often are, and despite inevitable mistakes, The People are smarter than any king or bureaucrat. Or Bureaucrat-King. Even when they're "greedy".

If America continues to exist in some free incarnation, Obama will go down in history as just another Jimmy Carter, praised by revisionists and loathed by the people who were there.

Karl Marx called -- he wants his beard back! And you assholes to quit delaying the revolution.

Oh, Rougy, just calm down. I know perfectly well what Marxism is. I have actually read quite a bit of Karl Marx and I write papers on Marxist literary theory on a regular basis. I just thought qm's comment was funny and ridiculous (I mostly liked the first part, btw). You get offended too easily, man, and I just thought that if you were going to throw out personal insults and unsubstantiated claims about what I don't know, I'd answer you with equal immaturity.

Besides, although I know that Obama is not Marxist, he has a few objections to capitalism and the processes thereof that strike me as slightly Marxist in nature.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I enjoy reading Marx because the guy made a lot of sense. Hey, I don't lick capitalism's feet, but I certainly like it a lot better than whatever perverted economic theory Obama subscribes to.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
You know what's really funny, Rougster?
Your pimply butt-face.


You're a cute little shit.

If you knew what Marxism meant, you'd know instantly that Obama is anything but a Marxist, and that QM is only being his juvenile self.

Just for kicks, read up on the basics of Marx. He pointed out the fundamental weaknesses of capitalism, and one of those weaknesses is apparent today (attn. US car makers).

These are the basics:

The capitalist system is designed so that over the course of time, the working class will no longer be able to afford the goods that it produces.

Wealth is constantly funneled to the upper-classes and when the working class is too poor to buy anything, it results in a glut of products that nobody can afford to buy, a.k.a. a depression, or a crash of the model.

His solution to the problem wasn't very realistic, but his recognition of the problem was prescient.

Karl Marx never actually defined how a communist society is supposed to function in principle he only postulated it as a emerging system given his more thorough criticism of the capitalist system.

Furthermore communism in its form of being a system where the commune as a whole would possess power has not been implemented ever, eventuality always lead to a emergence of a upper class controlling the other equalized classes, the so called politburo.

Eventually leading to dictatorship and totalitarianism.