3 ms·

Increasing size of government and not balancing the budget. The government is a bucket with holes(corruption). The bigger the bucket, the more holes and the le

Increasing size of government and not balancing the budget. The government is a bucket with holes(corruption). The bigger the bucket, the more holes and the less effective government becomes. Why does government always grow? You campaign, you become mayor/premier/emperor. You want to execute your vision, you move forward with that spending. The next guy will figure out how to pay for it. You never go back to fix the last guy's mistakes. If politicians did this, then your ideas would be removed by the next guy. Eventually government grows too big and no amount of water flowing into the bucket will ever fill it. Eventually a politician will come along to fix the bad ideas of all the last guy and you receive lots of screaming. Worstest politician ever who is terribad and all his followers are nazis. If they are able to prevent that politician from fixing that big government, which is what usually happens. Then you inevitably end up in a failure position. Think Detroit or Greece for example. NYC and California are contemporary ongoing. Greece peaked at 30% unemployment and that's down to 9%. Poverty is similarly down. In some situations though, bankruptcy and austerity isn't an option. That's when people in Boston do things with tea. You end up with an insurrection aka american revolution. These are more often then not quite violent and deadly. No taxation without representation! Within about 2-3 years we are going to have a new stage, the whole cycle is about 80(average age of a person) years for these. These always end in something equivalent to a world war. 2024-80 = 1944 - World war 2 1944-80 = 1864 - American Civil War 1864-80 = 1784 - American Insurrection/Revolution 1784-80 - 1704 - Various european revolutions. Perhaps the "Glorious" in relation to England. What comes after all these though? American High, Reconstruction and the gilded age, the era of good feelings. But this is just when those politicians get to spending again. The fix to this entire cycle is balancing the budget.

303uru 3y ago
This ain’t it. Your comment presents a metaphor of the government as a "bucket with holes" to argue that increasing its size leads to inefficiency and corruption. While this metaphor captures concerns about government inefficiency and debt, it oversimplifies complex economic and political realities. 1. *Government Size and Efficiency*: The assumption that larger governments are inherently more corrupt or less effective is not universally true. The efficiency and effectiveness of a government depend on its structure, governance, and accountability mechanisms, not just its size. Many countries with larger governments, measured in terms of spending relative to GDP, have high levels of public service efficiency and low corruption. 2. *Cyclic Nature of Politics and Economy*: The idea that political and economic cycles follow a rigid, 80-year pattern correlating with major wars or revolutions is an interesting hypothesis but lacks empirical evidence. Historical events are influenced by a complex interplay of factors including economic conditions, political ideologies, technological advancements, and international relations, which do not follow a predictable cyclical pattern. 3. *Budget Balancing*: While fiscal responsibility is important, the concept of balancing the budget is more nuanced than simply equating it with good governance. Economies can benefit from deficit spending during downturns or for long-term investments. Conversely, austerity measures during economic contractions can exacerbate downturns. The key is sustainable debt management rather than a rigid adherence to balanced budgets. 4. *Historical Correlations*: The correlation you draw between certain years and significant historical events like the World Wars, American Civil War, and American Revolution is intriguing but seems to imply a deterministic view of history. This perspective overlooks the unique and varied causes of these events. Historical patterns can offer insights, but they rarely dictate future events with the precision you suggest. 5. *Contemporary Examples*: Citing Detroit, Greece, NYC, and California as examples of government failure oversimplifies their challenges and successes. These cases involve unique economic, social, and political contexts. For instance, Greece's high unemployment and subsequent recovery involved complex interactions within the EU and global financial systems. 6. *Revolution and Change*: The suggestion that mismanagement inevitably leads to violent revolution is a drastic oversimplification. Political change often occurs through democratic processes, reforms, and non-violent movements. While fiscal mismanagement can contribute to unrest, it's one of many factors that can lead to political upheaval. While your comment raises valid concerns about government efficiency and fiscal responsibility, its conclusions are based on oversimplified analogies and deterministic views of history and politics. A more nuanced understanding of these topics recognizes the complexity of government functions, the diversity of historical outcomes, and the multifaceted nature of economic policies.
- incomingpain 3y ago
  >This ain’t it. Your comment presents a metaphor of the government as a "bucket with holes" to argue that increasing its size leads to inefficiency and corruption. While this metaphor captures concerns about government inefficiency and debt, it oversimplifies complex economic and political realities. It's not an original idea by me. There are multiple books, many studies and understanding about this. Obviously my anonymous unsourced short comment is going to lose the complexity in the subject. >The assumption that larger governments are inherently more corrupt or less effective is not universally true. Seems to be true to me and is the fundamental of every revolution per life generation. >The idea that political and economic cycles follow a rigid, 80-year pattern correlating with major wars or revolutions is an interesting hypothesis but lacks empirical evidence. I literally provided the evidence right there and you disregard without comment? >While fiscal responsibility is important, the concept of balancing the budget is more nuanced than simply equating it with good governance. Economies can benefit from deficit spending during downturns or for long-term investments. Germany and friend's having a constitutional requirement to balance the budget is the powerhouse behind the Euro coming up to replace the $. We can use their system on the 'nuance'. >The correlation you draw between certain years and significant historical events like the World Wars, American Civil War, and American Revolution is intriguing but seems to imply a deterministic view of history. This perspective overlooks the unique and varied causes of these events. Historical patterns can offer insights, but they rarely dictate future events with the precision you suggest. Maybe there's no steadfast rule, but how about that world stability... going strong or heading toward what i predicted? >reece's high unemployment and subsequent recovery involved complex interactions within the EU and global financial systems. Austerity, crazy poverty, death, and despair is those unnamed 'complex interactions' and the best part it was the socialist party of greece who picked austerity and privatization. >The suggestion that mismanagement inevitably leads to violent revolution is a drastic oversimplification. That's a strawman. >While your comment raises valid concerns about government efficiency and fiscal responsibility, its conclusions are based on oversimplified analogies and deterministic views of history and politics. A more nuanced understanding of these topics recognizes the complexity of government functions, the diversity of historical outcomes, and the multifaceted nature of economic policies. I didnt really say anything unique and original here. The founders of this understanding wrote their work before my grandparents were born. Modern science confirming it. There are 4 stages of this cycle, just as life has 4 stages. Kid/student stage consumption. Young adult, contribute but still heavily consume off debt, middle age produce more then you consume, retirement consume off your excess production. The interaction with the economy is obvious enough. Thus resulting in the 4 stages of the country.

303uru 3y ago

This ain’t it. Your comment presents a metaphor of the government as a "bucket with holes" to argue that increasing its size leads to inefficiency and corruption. While this metaphor captures concerns about government inefficiency and debt, it oversimplifies complex economic and political realities. 1. *Government Size and Efficiency*: The assumption that larger governments are inherently more corrupt or less effective is not universally true. The efficiency and effectiveness of a government depend on its structure, governance, and accountability mechanisms, not just its size. Many countries with larger governments, measured in terms of spending relative to GDP, have high levels of public service efficiency and low corruption. 2. *Cyclic Nature of Politics and Economy*: The idea that political and economic cycles follow a rigid, 80-year pattern correlating with major wars or revolutions is an interesting hypothesis but lacks empirical evidence. Historical events are influenced by a complex interplay of factors including economic conditions, political ideologies, technological advancements, and international relations, which do not follow a predictable cyclical pattern. 3. *Budget Balancing*: While fiscal responsibility is important, the concept of balancing the budget is more nuanced than simply equating it with good governance. Economies can benefit from deficit spending during downturns or for long-term investments. Conversely, austerity measures during economic contractions can exacerbate downturns. The key is sustainable debt management rather than a rigid adherence to balanced budgets. 4. *Historical Correlations*: The correlation you draw between certain years and significant historical events like the World Wars, American Civil War, and American Revolution is intriguing but seems to imply a deterministic view of history. This perspective overlooks the unique and varied causes of these events. Historical patterns can offer insights, but they rarely dictate future events with the precision you suggest. 5. *Contemporary Examples*: Citing Detroit, Greece, NYC, and California as examples of government failure oversimplifies their challenges and successes. These cases involve unique economic, social, and political contexts. For instance, Greece's high unemployment and subsequent recovery involved complex interactions within the EU and global financial systems. 6. *Revolution and Change*: The suggestion that mismanagement inevitably leads to violent revolution is a drastic oversimplification. Political change often occurs through democratic processes, reforms, and non-violent movements. While fiscal mismanagement can contribute to unrest, it's one of many factors that can lead to political upheaval. While your comment raises valid concerns about government efficiency and fiscal responsibility, its conclusions are based on oversimplified analogies and deterministic views of history and politics. A more nuanced understanding of these topics recognizes the complexity of government functions, the diversity of historical outcomes, and the multifaceted nature of economic policies.

incomingpain 3y ago
>This ain’t it. Your comment presents a metaphor of the government as a "bucket with holes" to argue that increasing its size leads to inefficiency and corruption. While this metaphor captures concerns about government inefficiency and debt, it oversimplifies complex economic and political realities. It's not an original idea by me. There are multiple books, many studies and understanding about this. Obviously my anonymous unsourced short comment is going to lose the complexity in the subject. >The assumption that larger governments are inherently more corrupt or less effective is not universally true. Seems to be true to me and is the fundamental of every revolution per life generation. >The idea that political and economic cycles follow a rigid, 80-year pattern correlating with major wars or revolutions is an interesting hypothesis but lacks empirical evidence. I literally provided the evidence right there and you disregard without comment? >While fiscal responsibility is important, the concept of balancing the budget is more nuanced than simply equating it with good governance. Economies can benefit from deficit spending during downturns or for long-term investments. Germany and friend's having a constitutional requirement to balance the budget is the powerhouse behind the Euro coming up to replace the $. We can use their system on the 'nuance'. >The correlation you draw between certain years and significant historical events like the World Wars, American Civil War, and American Revolution is intriguing but seems to imply a deterministic view of history. This perspective overlooks the unique and varied causes of these events. Historical patterns can offer insights, but they rarely dictate future events with the precision you suggest. Maybe there's no steadfast rule, but how about that world stability... going strong or heading toward what i predicted? >reece's high unemployment and subsequent recovery involved complex interactions within the EU and global financial systems. Austerity, crazy poverty, death, and despair is those unnamed 'complex interactions' and the best part it was the socialist party of greece who picked austerity and privatization. >The suggestion that mismanagement inevitably leads to violent revolution is a drastic oversimplification. That's a strawman. >While your comment raises valid concerns about government efficiency and fiscal responsibility, its conclusions are based on oversimplified analogies and deterministic views of history and politics. A more nuanced understanding of these topics recognizes the complexity of government functions, the diversity of historical outcomes, and the multifaceted nature of economic policies. I didnt really say anything unique and original here. The founders of this understanding wrote their work before my grandparents were born. Modern science confirming it. There are 4 stages of this cycle, just as life has 4 stages. Kid/student stage consumption. Young adult, contribute but still heavily consume off debt, middle age produce more then you consume, retirement consume off your excess production. The interaction with the economy is obvious enough. Thus resulting in the 4 stages of the country.