4 ms·

The brilliant thing about "the existing system" is that no matter how bad a job it does, those failures are used as an excuse to justify taking even more money

by MCRed 12y ago

The brilliant thing about "the existing system" is that no matter how bad a job it does, those failures are used as an excuse to justify taking even more money to "fix" the problem created by the system. You seem to assume that all of those services would not exist without the current system. This seems to assume that there's only one possible way to fund things. There are historical examples of all of these (except "offsetting recessions") being funded privately, and arguably producing much better results. As for "offsetting recessions", the recessions and general economic malaise we experience are directly attributable to the current systems distortions of the market, particularly the monetary system. Naturally, the current system spends a great deal of effort telling people that the current system is the best system. This is not unique to the USA. People in most countries, from Saudi Arabia to North Korea, from Bolivia to New Zealand, think their country (and its "system") is one of the better ones. In large part this is because one of the first things any government takes over is education. I believe that if the US had held to the system it was intended to have in the constitution, we would have eliminated poverty by 1940, the great depression never would have happened, and everyone's effective purchasing power would be an order of magnitude better. The poverty line is $16k or so, right? If people today who earned $16k had the purchasing power of someone who earns $160k, then they wouldn't exactly be poor. That difference can be accounted completely by the distortion in economics and poor finance and operational results of the US government. And it is getting worse.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
if the US had held to the system it was intended to have in the constitution What was the intended system?
- MCRed 12y ago
  If you read the constitution, there's a section called the Enumerated Powers Clause that gives the federal government very specific, limited powers. If we had kept to that system, the federal government would not be swallowing the economy, and we'd be much better off. Consider this- the federal governments debt alone (including unfunded liabilities) is more than the amount of US dollars in circulation.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If you read the constitution, there's a section called the Enumerated Powers Clause that gives the federal government very specific, limited powers. This name is sometimes given to Article I, Sec. 8, which gives Congress certain powers, but is not the only part fo the Constitution providing powers to the federal government -- or even Congress specifically -- powers (as well as limitations other places in the Constitution that apply even to the exercise of the powers enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8 or elsewhere) are provided throughout the Constitution, so it is completely untenable to describe a federal government whose power is defined solely by those powers assigned to Congress in Article I, Sec. 8 ("the Enumerated Powers Clause") as "the system [the US] was intended to have in the Constitution". > Consider this- the federal governments debt alone (including unfunded liabilities) is more than the amount of US dollars in circulation. The total debt held by the public (you are using a bit of nonstandard terminology, so I'm not sure what you mean to include or exclude) is about 10 times the amount of US currency in circulation, and the total public debt is closer to 15 times the amount of currency in circulation, but I have trouble finding any remotely plausible reason for considering any particular ratio of those two numbers important.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I believe that if the US had held to the system it was intended to have in the constitution, we would have eliminated poverty by 1940, the great depression never would have happened, and everyone's effective purchasing power would be an order of magnitude better. Lots of people believe lots of things. What reason is there for anyone else to adopt your beliefs on these points?
- MCRed 12y ago
  Sorry, while I said "I believe", I should have stated it as a fact, as I consider it essentially proven by economics. I suggest you read Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. But if you want something shorter and quicker, try Economics in One lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Both are available free online.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    I'm sure you think those works indirectly make your argument, but what I'd really like to see is: 1) Your definition of "the system [the US] was intended to have in the constitution" (including how, in concrete terms, it differs from the status quo and your justification for the assertion that the system you describe was, in fact, what was intended in the Constitution), and 2) The argument (which can be brief and supported by appropriate citations to other works) that you believe has "proven" "as a fact" that that system would have the effect you claim.

by MCRed 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago

if the US had held to the system it was intended to have in the constitution What was the intended system?

MCRed 12y ago
If you read the constitution, there's a section called the Enumerated Powers Clause that gives the federal government very specific, limited powers. If we had kept to that system, the federal government would not be swallowing the economy, and we'd be much better off. Consider this- the federal governments debt alone (including unfunded liabilities) is more than the amount of US dollars in circulation.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > If you read the constitution, there's a section called the Enumerated Powers Clause that gives the federal government very specific, limited powers. This name is sometimes given to Article I, Sec. 8, which gives Congress certain powers, but is not the only part fo the Constitution providing powers to the federal government -- or even Congress specifically -- powers (as well as limitations other places in the Constitution that apply even to the exercise of the powers enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8 or elsewhere) are provided throughout the Constitution, so it is completely untenable to describe a federal government whose power is defined solely by those powers assigned to Congress in Article I, Sec. 8 ("the Enumerated Powers Clause") as "the system [the US] was intended to have in the Constitution". > Consider this- the federal governments debt alone (including unfunded liabilities) is more than the amount of US dollars in circulation. The total debt held by the public (you are using a bit of nonstandard terminology, so I'm not sure what you mean to include or exclude) is about 10 times the amount of US currency in circulation, and the total public debt is closer to 15 times the amount of currency in circulation, but I have trouble finding any remotely plausible reason for considering any particular ratio of those two numbers important.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I believe that if the US had held to the system it was intended to have in the constitution, we would have eliminated poverty by 1940, the great depression never would have happened, and everyone's effective purchasing power would be an order of magnitude better. Lots of people believe lots of things. What reason is there for anyone else to adopt your beliefs on these points?

MCRed 12y ago
Sorry, while I said "I believe", I should have stated it as a fact, as I consider it essentially proven by economics. I suggest you read Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. But if you want something shorter and quicker, try Economics in One lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Both are available free online.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  I'm sure you think those works indirectly make your argument, but what I'd really like to see is: 1) Your definition of "the system [the US] was intended to have in the constitution" (including how, in concrete terms, it differs from the status quo and your justification for the assertion that the system you describe was, in fact, what was intended in the Constitution), and 2) The argument (which can be brief and supported by appropriate citations to other works) that you believe has "proven" "as a fact" that that system would have the effect you claim.