___The Costs of Large Parasitical Gov't____

[tr027 0]

A rough estimation of how much prosperity we lose each year at the hand of the government, and some insight into how our debt became so staggeringly huge.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Murphygovernmentcosts.html

"Critics of government intervention have pointed out the waste of resources associated with various programs and regulations. Yet, even most fans of the free market would be surprised to see how much richer the average American would be if the government restricted its activities to protecting citizens from domestic criminals and foreign armies."

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[kelpdiver 2]

ugh - did you read it? (people are posting some really awful citations today to support their viewpoint).

The article says that DC private schools spend 70% less (14.5k) than public schools (24.6k) for the same result, then "conservatively" says this means all public spending is 50% costlier than a private equivalent would be. Problems with this are obvious, starting with cherry picking with DC which has historically spend more per student than most states, though I think Cato did some nice accounting to boost it to this level as well. Private schools also have the benefit of rejecting students that are more difficult to educate.

Then goes on to say we're wasting huge amount of money trying to make kids attend school through end of high school and subsidizing their college education when many of them could be working already. Then suggests an annual military budget of 150B for fortress defense only, and the usual cut taxes and revenue will grow story.

One big element missing from his conclusion that we could immediately be 18% richer is that firing all those people associated with government spending would be extremely disruptive for a a couple decades.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

ugh - did you read it? (people are posting some really awful citations today to support their viewpoint).

The article says that DC private schools spend 70% less (14.5k) than public schools (24.6k) for the same result, then "conservatively" says this means all public spending is 50% costlier than a private equivalent would be. Problems with this are obvious, starting with cherry picking with DC which has historically spend more per student than most states, though I think Cato did some nice accounting to boost it to this level as well. Private schools also have the benefit of rejecting students that are more difficult to educate.

Then goes on to say we're wasting huge amount of money trying to make kids attend school through end of high school and subsidizing their college education when many of them could be working already. Then suggests an annual military budget of 150B for fortress defense only, and the usual cut taxes and revenue will grow story.

One big element missing from his conclusion that we could immediately be 18% richer is that firing all those people associated with government spending would be extremely disruptive for a a couple decades.

Also the article suggested that making sure we have unadulterated food and properly tested drugs is a waste. Perhaps the author wants to sell snake oil.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

...though I think Cato did some nice accounting to boost it to this level as well.

The Cato Inst is less credible than even the Heritage Foundation. Once I read Cato saying FDR tripled taxes I knew they were either liars or stupid.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

A rough estimation of how much prosperity we lose each year at the hand of the government, and some insight into how our debt became so staggeringly huge.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Murphygovernmentcosts.html

"Critics of government intervention have pointed out the waste of resources associated with various programs and regulations. Yet, even most fans of the free market would be surprised to see how much richer the average American would be if the government restricted its activities to protecting citizens from domestic criminals and foreign armies."

How about the costs of not having this, as you call it, parasitic government?

- Elderly die in the streets

- Great Deprssion, caused by Wall Street, would have virtually ended this nation w/o intervention

- GWB's mortgage mess / bank shutdown would have killed this nation w/o gov intervention

- All teh diseases controlled/educated by the CDC

- Schools, HC, on and on and on.....

W/o gov, this nation would be shit, but you want to think we can go w/o and be fine, huh? Look at nations w/o gov, 3rd world nations, usually a corrupt regime surfaces to act as government. Just brilliant

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

...though I think Cato did some nice accounting to boost it to this level as well.

The Cato Inst is less credible than even the Heritage Foundation. Once I read Cato saying FDR tripled taxes I knew they were either liars or stupid.

1.6B in 1933 to 5.3B in 1940. To the rest of the world, that's 3.3X.

I guess it's different for liars, the stupid or in Lucky-ville.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tr027 0]

Quote

How about the costs of not having this, as you call it, parasitic government?

- Elderly die in the streets

- Great Deprssion, caused by Wall Street, would have virtually ended this nation w/o intervention

- Schools, HC, on and on and on.....

W/o gov, this nation would be shit, but you want to think we can go w/o and be fine, huh?

You forgot a few important others:

-Roving gangs of 'Mad Max' style pirates

-Post-apocalyptic conditions of anarchy

-Kids stealing each others candy on the playgrounds

My stance is a society's prosperity is always inversely proportional to the size and oppressiveness of its government. The irony is prosperity allows the cancer to grow faster, and that's how the country who experimented in small, limited government ended up screwed over by the largest most coercive government on Earth. From smallest to largest and soon broke in record time.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...though I think Cato did some nice accounting to boost it to this level as well.

The Cato Inst is less credible than even the Heritage Foundation. Once I read Cato saying FDR tripled taxes I knew they were either liars or stupid.

1.6B in 1933 to 5.3B in 1940. To the rest of the world, that's 3.3X.

I guess it's different for liars, the stupid or in Lucky-ville.

Tax receipts may have trippled, just as they are increasing now after your hero left this mess and Obama has started to bring it around, but to say taxes have trippled means that the tax rate trippled. I like my version of stupid over yours; mine is more honest - yours deceitful.

I realize conservatives think tax reciepts are bad, the chart clearly shows that: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

All evidence shows that tax receipts increasing lead to a healthy economy, the very one your illustration described. In case ya don't understand, there was much healing between 1933 and 1940. Hoover raised taxes, the income tax rate 260% in June 1932, so I see it worked as tax revs shot way up and we started to heal.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I like my version of stupid over yours; mine is more honest - yours deceitful.

Which version is the "Hoover killed 12 million" claim?

Quote

All evidence shows that tax receipts increasing lead to a healthy economy, the very one your illustration described. In case ya don't understand, there was much healing between 1933 and 1940. Hoover raised taxes, the income tax rate 260% in June 1932, so I see it worked as tax revs shot way up and we started to heal.

Yeah, about that -

"By the time Roosevelt was running for his second term, federal spending had doubled. In 1937, the stock market crashed again, part of the depression within the Great Depression. Between September 15 and December 15, 1937, notes Amity Shlaes, "the jobs started to disappear, with employment moving back to 1931 levels."

Henry Morgenthau, who served as Roosevelt's treasury secretary, admitted to a congressional committee in May 1939 (as quoted in the recent book New Deal or Raw Deal? by Burton Folsom, Jr.): "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work.... We have never made good on our promises.... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I like my version of stupid over yours; mine is more honest - yours deceitful.

Quote

Which version is the "Hoover killed 12 million" claim?

Having a hard time staying on track? Just like you tried to sell us BS about nominla GDP when that is obscure, GDP is measured in and refered to as Real GDP. And that is in accord with this issue.

Now, if you're done looking foolish, trying to misdirect, etc, then let's talk tax increases and tax revenues.

Quote

All evidence shows that tax receipts increasing lead to a healthy economy, the very one your illustration described. In case ya don't understand, there was much healing between 1933 and 1940. Hoover raised taxes, the income tax rate 260% in June 1932, so I see it worked as tax revs shot way up and we started to heal.

Quote

Yeah, about that -

"By the time Roosevelt was running for his second term, federal spending had doubled.

Yes, when faced with total economic collapse, you have to deficit spend or tax-n-spend, but either way you better spend or the whole mess will run down the toilet. Now I know you're from teh school of, "let it fix itself" but other than the uber-short recession of 1920 that has never worked, at least since. So if you're done living 90 years ago, shall we talk even semi-contemporary?

Quote

In 1937, the stock market crashed again, part of the depression within the Great Depression. Between September 15 and December 15, 1937, notes Amity Shlaes, "the jobs started to disappear, with employment moving back to 1931 levels."

I realize your cite wrote, "...with employment moving back to 1931 levels." But unemployemtn, basically the same thing, was not at 25% but at 18% or so. Guess what pulled it out then? Oh yea, more gov spending called WWII WAR SPENDING. So tax increases / New Deals got us to 1937, the recession, then military war spending got us out and all the while the debt didn't reallt take a huge hit, as politicians weren't so afraid that they wouldn't raise taxes, as they are now.

http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/EconomicCatastrophe/GreatDepression.html

Just curious, what did you expecct from FDR then, a 2-week turnarond like you do now? As I thought, Republicans ruin it in years, the same expects an immediate fix.

Quote

Henry Morgenthau, who served as Roosevelt's treasury secretary, admitted to a congressional committee in May 1939 (as quoted in the recent book New Deal or Raw Deal? by Burton Folsom, Jr.): "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work.... We have never made good on our promises.... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot."

That's his opinion based on an old assertion by probably a disgruntled cabinet member, but the data shows otherwise; unemployment fell dramatically and GDP rose astoundingly. Kinda looks stupid when data refutes his assertion.

Oh, and Mike, nice to see you haven't changed a bit, a partisan quote from who knws where with no website/bibliography. In school you'd be failed, but I don't think you need to worry about that.

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I like my version of stupid over yours; mine is more honest - yours deceitful.

Quote

Which version is the "Hoover killed 12 million" claim?

Having a hard time staying on track? Just like you tried to sell us BS about nominla GDP when that is obscure, GDP is measured in and refered to as Real GDP. And that is in accord with this issue.

Yes, Lucky - the post you changed from just "GDP" to "Real GDP" while I was in the process of replying to it - since we're all about truthfullness.

Quote

Now, if you're done looking foolish, trying to misdirect, etc, then let's talk tax increases and tax revenues.

Yes, lets.

Quote

Yes, when faced with total economic collapse, you have to deficit spend or tax-n-spend, but either way you better spend or the whole mess will run down the toilet. Now I know you're from teh school of, "let it fix itself" but other than the uber-short recession of 1920 that has never worked, at least since. So if you're done living 90 years ago, shall we talk even semi-contemporary?

Quote

Guess what pulled it out then? Oh yea, more gov spending called WWII WAR SPENDING. So tax increases / New Deals got us to 1937, the recession, then military war spending got us out and all the while the debt didn't reallt take a huge hit, as politicians weren't so afraid that they wouldn't raise taxes, as they are now.

Try again - it was the tax DECREASE after the war that got the economy started again.

Quote

Henry Morgenthau, who served as Roosevelt's treasury secretary, admitted to a congressional committee in May 1939 (as quoted in the recent book New Deal or Raw Deal? by Burton Folsom, Jr.): "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work.... We have never made good on our promises.... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot."

That's his opinion based on an old assertion by probably a disgruntled cabinet member, but the data shows otherwise; unemployment fell dramatically and GDP rose astoundingly. Kinda looks stupid when data refutes his assertion.

I think I'll take his opinion as SecTreas (I guess you missed that part) over yours.

Quote

Oh, and Mike, nice to see you haven't changed a bit, a partisan quote from who knws where with no website/bibliography. In school you'd be failed, but I don't think you need to worry about that.

Have a tissue.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I like my version of stupid over yours; mine is more honest - yours deceitful.

Quote

Which version is the "Hoover killed 12 million" claim?

Having a hard time staying on track? Just like you tried to sell us BS about nominla GDP when that is obscure, GDP is measured in and refered to as Real GDP. And that is in accord with this issue.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Have a tissue.

So no source. I see your assertions are as reliable as always.

and another thread completely devolved.

NEXT!

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Have a tissue.

So no source. I see your assertions are as reliable as always.

and another thread completely devolved.

NEXT!

How dare I ask for a source when someone posts data.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Have a tissue.

So no source. I see your assertions are as reliable as always.

and another thread completely devolved.

NEXT!

How dare I ask for a source when someone posts data.

I call devolution when both sides make a zero argument back to back. as I quoted.

next

--
Rob