Jimmy Carter post President life goal is almost complete

Gaius · 2018-04-27T16:43:41.647Z

As a nation we “got” to say “we put up with it long enough. Now we’re mad as hell and we’re fighting back.”
(“It” being hijackings, hostage takings, oil prices, inflation devouring the SS trust fund the general loss of American power and prestige.)

But as this is a political website, it escapes no one’s notice that the “put up with it years” were the Carter years, the “time to fight back” was the Reagan years.

I still think James Earl Carter is an excellent man and a better role model than most, but he was an AWFUL president.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-04-27T18:40:18.633Z

Gaius:

Most of the New Deal

a federally mandated minimum wafe,

a federally mandated retirement plan

etc.

Had been struck down by the courts every time and on every level where they were challenged. Once those decisions were re-re-affirmed by the Supreme Court, (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish) Roosevelt wanted to amend the Constitution.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was about a state law.

I think a federal minimum wage is constitutional.

I don’t know what “mandated retirement plan” you are referring to. Social Security?

Gaius · 2018-04-27T18:43:49.624Z

Min wage. SS, federal unempl ins.were each ruled unconst. appealed and lost, appealed and losf.

Roosevelt threatened to stack the court. and the decisions were immediately reversed, by the same Justices who had recently ruled against them.

Gaius · 2018-04-27T18:46:33.695Z

By 1936, before the courts allowed those programs, the depression was over, the adj. gdp was higher than the height-o d-the-boom GDP. (but unempl remained near 20%.)

Samson_Corwell · 2018-04-27T20:06:04.783Z

Gaius:

Min wage. SS, federal unempl ins.were each ruled unconst. appealed and lost, appealed and losf.

Roosevelt threatened to stack the court. and the decisions were immediately reversed, by the same Justices who had recently ruled against them.

That’s fine. I am saying that I think the first ruling was wrong.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-04-28T00:54:06.227Z

Gaius:

Thank you for replying.
Point for recognizing Hazlitt!

He was neither an economist (technically) nor an Austrian (at all) though.

He was a newspaperman, specifically a columnist who favored free markets an felt artificially increasing demand was a dumb idea.

Picture a John Stossel of the 1930s and you won’t be too far off.

The Austrians loved him, but they are only one school of free-market advocates.
hat doesn’t

more later.

You have not commented on the rest of my post yet.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-04-28T01:01:57.791Z

Gaius:

By 1936, before the courts allowed those programs, the depression was over, the adj. gdp was higher than the height-o d-the-boom GDP. (but unempl remained near 20%.)

They allowed the government program of laissez-faire to persist for a while.

Gaius · 2018-04-28T08:49:55.628Z

Lol.
That’s because sometimes when I get writing I think in nook-length responses. My bad.

Gaius · 2018-04-28T10:07:40.313Z

Samson_Corwell:

You have not commented on the rest of my post yet.

Thank you for waiting. I apologize for the delay.
You wrote:

There is no such thing as “intervention”

Yes there most definitely is.

You wrote

It is absurd for people to apply the label to things like
the minimum wage,
labor rights,
environmental protection, and
net neutrality

while never using it to describe intellectual property,
foreclosures,
debt collection,
enforcement of arbitration clauses, enforcement of non-disclosure agreements,
enforcement of non-compete clauses, and
land covenants.
I hope you don’t mind me putting your post into a vertical list.

Except for intellectual property the second part of your list describes law enforcement. Two free people freely agree to do something. One of them renegues. Making a deal then reneguing on it is fraud. It is the same fraud as if he made the deal intending to break it once he got his part.

A: "Give me $100 and I’ll give you my watch.
B: “Okay, here’s the $100.”
A: “A I changed my mind. I’ll keep your money and I’ll keep the watch.”

As to the first part if your list it’s kinda all over the board, not 100% incorrect per se, but a poor representation of what the various economic conservatives are referring to when we say intervention.

Intervention is primarily used to describe taxing, spending, borrowing and “buying back” bonds.

Gaius · 2018-04-28T11:22:56.924Z

I want you to picture the end of Communisn in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Collective farms are broken up, government enterprises (like factories and mines) are intermittently privatized etc…

That process began on The Merriest Christmas Ever . . . . Dec 25, 1991.

Everything, will being privatized. The markets will once again be free!
.
.
Fast forward 38 years, almost half a century to the USA today. How much does the government intervene in the free market?

The Federal Government owns (national
forests etc.,) 28% of all the land in the United States. Add in land owned by states and municipalities and the combined gov’t owns over 40% of the US.
Federal lands - Wikipedia
Total US government spending, federal, state, and local, is ~35.6 percent GDP.
US Total Government Spending in percent GDP, Breakdown for 2023 - Charts
US federal debt us $19 trillion, plus there are $10 trillion in state and local debt and unfunded pension liabilities.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
I forget how the denominated is calculated, but by one measure total goverment debt is ~40% of all the money saved and invested by Americans. (The “crowding out effect” : “Ya coulda created jobs, opened a steel mill or a pizza shop but instead, you invested in government bonds”).
17% of the US workforce is employed by the government.
Gov't. Employment Ranges From 38% in D.C. to 12% in Ohio
That number does not include private contractors such as road crews working for private construction companies, engineering firms who upgrade navy ships etc…

That’s
40% of all the land,
35% of all the spending,
40% of all the capital and
17% of the workforce.
Apparently “capitalist economy” means 60% capitalist, 40% government.

THAT is intervention.
.
.
.

Footnote:
Did anyone ever chant “40% is not enough?”
The US government mandates health insurance be employer provided and the plans must meet certain heavy-handed criteria.
Healthcare is 18% of the U.S. economy.
Fine, just take 18% of the 60% ya left us.

gooddad409 · 2018-04-28T14:38:45.022Z

Gaius:

As a nation we “got” to say “we put up with it long enough. Now we’re mad as hell and we’re fighting back.”
(“It” being hijackings, hostage takings, oil prices, inflation devouring the SS trust fund the general loss of American power and prestige.)

But as this is a political website, it escapes no one’s notice that the “put up with it years” were the Carter years, the “time to fight back” was the Reagan years.

I still think James Earl Carter is an excellent man and a better role model than most, but he was an AWFUL president.

That says it all. Well said.

madasheck · 2018-04-28T15:18:06.640Z

One of the best presidents in my lifetime.

gooddad409 · 2018-04-28T15:23:20.731Z

Only if you ignore the MISERY INDEX.

Gaius · 2018-04-28T17:02:05.532Z

gooddad409:

Only if you ignore the MISERY INDEX.

lol
ten characters

Samson_Corwell · 2018-05-01T02:25:25.800Z

Gaius:

Except for intellectual property

That’s curious because the MPAA and the RIAA would definitely call the enforcement of the intellectual property law enforcement. Who was Kim Dotcom arrested by for copyright infringement if not law enforcement

Gaius:

the second part of your list describes law enforcement.

Nope. The distinction is completely arbitrary. All those things in the first list are or would be laws and the enforcement of them is therefore law enforcement.

Let’s take environmental protection. There is absolutely no case that could be made that would explain why environmental protection is “intervention” while stopping efforts by environmental extremists to protect the environmemt is not.

If animal rights are considered “regulation” by some libertarians I’ve seen, then why shouldn’t their property rights be considered regulation, too? Like I said, it’s arbitrary.

Gaius:

Two free people freely agree to do something. One of them renegues. Making a deal then reneguing on it is fraud. It is the same fraud as if he made the deal intending to break it once he got his part.

A: "Give me $100 and I’ll give you my watch.
B: “Okay, here’s the $100.”
A: “A I changed my mind. I’ll keep your money and I’ll keep the watch.”

And why should the government intervene to enforce promises? People should be responsible for themselves instead of looking to daddy government to hold their hand.

Gaius:

As to the first part if your list it’s kinda all over the board, not 100% incorrect per se, but a poor representation of what the various economic conservatives are referring to when we say intervention.

That’s fine. My point is that the it’s a nonsense word, like “robot” or “relative morality”.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-05-01T13:58:45.653Z

How big government intervention hurts the economy.

Gaius · 2018-05-01T15:08:18.118Z

Gaius:

Two free people freely agree to do something. One of them renegues. Making a deal then reneguing on it is fraud. It is the same fraud as if he made the deal intending to break it once he got his part.

A: "Give me $100 and I’ll give you my watch.
B: “Okay, here’s the $100.”
A: “A I changed my mind. I’ll keep your money and I’ll keep the watch.”

And why should the government intervene to enforce promises? People should be responsible for themselves instead of looking to daddy government to hold their hand.

Yeah well in my early 30s the drug dealers and gangsters I knew had no need for cops and courts. They handled disputes on their own.
Tax-paying civilians thought cops and courts were both good ideas.

Gaius:

As to the first part if your list it’s kinda all over the board, not 100% incorrect per se, but a poor representation of what the various economic conservatives are referring to when we say intervention.

That’s fine. My point is that the it’s a nonsense word, like “robot” or “relative morality”.
[/quote]

Samson_Corwell:

Gaius:

Except for intellectual property

That’s curious because the MPAA and the RIAA would definitely call the enforcement of the intellectual property law enforcement. Who was Kim Dotcom arrested by for copyright infringement if not law enforcement

Gaius:

the second part of your list describes law enforcement.

Nope. The distinction is completely arbitrary. All those things in the first list are or would be laws and the enforcement of them is therefore law enforcement.

Let’s take environmental protection. There is absolutely no case that could be made that would explain why environmental protection is “intervention” while stopping efforts by environmental extremists to protect the environmemt is not.

If animal rights are considered “regulation” by some libertarians I’ve seen, then why shouldn’t their property rights be considered regulation, too? Like I said, it’s arbitrary.

Gaius:

Two free people freely agree to do something. One of them renegues. Making a deal then reneguing on it is fraud. It is the same fraud as if he made the deal intending to break it once he got his part.

A: "Give me $100 and I’ll give you my watch.
B: “Okay, here’s the $100.”
A: “A I changed my mind. I’ll keep your money and I’ll keep the watch.”

And why should the government intervene to enforce promises? People should be responsible for themselves instead of looking to daddy government to hold their hand.

Gaius:

As to the first part if your list it’s kinda all over the board, not 100% incorrect per se, but a poor representation of what the various economic conservatives are referring to when we say intervention.

That’s fine. My point is that the it’s a nonsense word, like “robot” or “relative morality”.

Samson_Corwell:

That’s fine. My point is that the it’s a nonsense word, like “robot” or “relative morality”.

Well the “thing” is making the ceteteus paribus assumption one could count any one of the following:

more saving = bigger economy
more borrowing = bigger economy
more aggreg demand = bigger economy
more corporate profits = bigger economy
more money on the sideline= bigger economy,
more private spending = bigger economy
more gov’t spending = bigger economy
etc… etc…

Eons ago economists started using using “aggregate demand,” (which includes both private and gov’t spending) as the single most frequently used indicator.

Thus if gov’t increaes taxes and buys $400 toilet seats the economy grows. If it pays $500 for those same toilet seats, the economy grows even more.

Services count too.
If it pays you $500 to dig holes and pays me $500 to fill them up again the economy grows twice as fast.

In short, the more seed corn we eat the better the economy. Saving seeds to plant next year is, on paper, a terrible thing to do.

BOTH PARTIES use this factoid to tout their programs as “growing the economy.”

So long as some of the money the gov’t diverts money from any category into aggregate demand,
wars grow the economy, and welfare grows the economy.

As a result both parties continue to pass spending packages requiring us to eat the seed corn.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-05-02T05:18:25.900Z

Can you fix your quote markup?

Gaius · 2018-05-02T05:22:44.028Z

Sorry, my bad.

Yeah Ill fix it in a bit or in the AM.
It’s late here.

Gaius · 2018-05-02T05:32:12.862Z

Samson_Corwell:

And why should the government intervene to enforce promises? People should be responsible for themselves instead of looking to daddy government to hold their hand.

Yeah the thugs and drug dealers I hung out with in my 20s did not think cops and courts were very good ideas.

If someone cheated them, they handled things themselves.

Their methods weren’t pretty.

John Q. Public OTOH seems to think cops and courts are good ideas.