Trump Brings Back Keynesian Economics

The state is merely the name we give to a group of individuals. Only individuals have agency and can make moral decisions. The state, being an abstraction, cannot act morally or immorally.

 

The contribution is common, the amount may not be.

Moreover, you are making the very same mistake that a great many do regarding the Constitution as well as the Bible. They take both literally.

Our Constitution is a damn fine document. But any document written two-hundred or even two-thousand years ago should be taken in the sense of the time at which it is written. The world evolves and so do the "literal sense" of documents.

Which is why we, as a nation, should be striving for a Societal or Social Democracy, which is a new term in the dictionary. But one that gives added significance to the world in which we live. That significance is typified in their definition:

All that in green above is new to this earth since the end of the 19th century in terms of political thinking. It took wing under Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party, which died along with his political career in his defeat for the presidency in 1913.

Never again to be revived, except in part by another Roosevelt in the 1930s immersed in a full-scale Great Depression brought about by the Stock Market Crash of 1929, itself provoked by human financial exaggerations explained here: What caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929? - excerpt:

Meaning what? That we, ourselves, out of exaggerated cupidity are the perpetrators of our own economic downfall because we do not establish and maintain proper market oversight and safeguards ...

 

If a written law should not be taken literally, then what's the point in writing it down in the first place?

 

Good question, but laws have a way of outliving their age.

Slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution - but the fact that "all men are created equal" was in the Declaration of Independence that the southern states signed.

So, how about the law that allowed slavery in the southern states, since people could actually "buy" and "keep" them?

Most importantly, what how about the fact that blacks to this day still are America's lowest class of wage earners:


Were MLK able to return today, he'd cry himself a river for what has happened to his people ...

PS: The Marquis de Lafayette about slavery (And George Washington's response): Marquis de Lafayette's Plan for Slavery

 

Alright.

Individuals......can make moral decisions for themselves, ie, not for other individuals

A moment's reflection reveals you are ignoring the implications of interaction between these individuals, which is why we have rule of law.

Wrong. The state enables the prosecution of justice. (see above).

 

I'm not ignoring the interaction between individuals. I have already said that no individual has any moral right to take what is owned by another. Did you miss that?

 

You mean did I miss your incredibly simplistic proposition that taxation is immoral? (which btw is merely one of innumerable manifestations of the 'greed is good' mantra - so much for morality).

You are ignoring the implications of all interactions between individuals who might have wildly differing ideas of morality, and widely differing aptitudes, goals and interests.

Hence the necessary administration of justice, through the agency of the state.

Implying that necessity can only be served by charity, an entirely sterile proposition for enabling efficient advancement of the general welfare in a complex modern economy.

 

If there is no rule of law without the state, how does a state come to exist?

What do people act like without the state, dogs, hyenas, apes, wild hogs? Or, do you appeal to works of fiction to inform your opinion of human nature? If people are incorrigible without the state, how are the few who comprise the state able to herd them? Do they beat them into submission? Why don't the incorrigible animal-people beat back? If they're so disorderly, how did anyone ever get them to pay taxes instead of just killing the people calling themselves the state?

 

The common desire for personal security, which of necessity requires limits on individual freedom, is the impetus to form a state to deal with these competing claims.

As for the rest, it would be wonderful if people were naturally co-operative, but they are not.

Indeed the economic possibilities (the subject of this thread) that might be realised if we can successfully codify co-operation on a global scale are immense, as I pointed out in my post #89.

 

Either the desire for personal security is common to the point that people will unify sufficiently to allow formation of a state OR people are not naturally cooperative.

Take your pick. Acknowledge reality, or cling to Hobbesian fantasies of human nature.

Or don't, and continue believing mutually exclusive propositions.

 

This is where we diverge, so I am not required to choose the 'either - or' proposition as you present it (and anyway, look around you - 'man at war with man' (Hobbes) is not an entirely fantastical description of reality).

For example in the international sphere, where rule of international law=well-ordered relations between nations (cf well-ordered relations between individuals, within a nation):

Keynes' ideas for mutually beneficial international trade (Bretton Woods,1944), an undeniable good, which took into account the differing natural and human resources of nations, were rejected by the Americans out of unmitigated self -interest at a time when they were the world's largest creditor nation, a rejection for which they themselves have paid a hefty price (which Trump is not very happy about) since Japan, Germany, Korea, China, et al have proved able competitors.

 

What Hobbesian fantasies about Human Nature when it comes to security?

The human race has been banding together for security ever since the homo-erectus left the savanahs of east Africa. There is nothing at all special about "security" - it is a fundamental aspect of all economies.

To the extent that both police and national defense are major budget items in any modern society. What has not happened in America, however, is either Employment-security (necessary training/education) or Health Security (much lower cost National Health Service).

Men at war with men is happening today. Istanbul proved that point on New Years Eve. Of course, that's not America's concern this time around, because Obama steadfastly refused to get re-involved in a Middle-east conflict. He gave only air-support to efforts to destroy ISIS in Syria.

We shall see what Donald Dork has up his sleeve.Yet another Replicant who has never done combat military-service and who will "throw our boys into the breach" of Syria?

Let's hope not ...

 

It's dichotomous. You don't have to acknowledge that if you don't want to, but it's true. If man were so adverse to order that the state is necessary to establish it, then no state could ever be established. States have been established. Therefore, man is not so adverse to order as for it to require the state.

I am looking around me. I don't see a Hobbesian playground. I see everyone interacting in relative peace, even though there is no such thing as a "power to overawe them ALL" and there never can be any such thing.

Also, Hobbes didn't say "man at war with man", he said "war of all against all", and yes, it is completely fantastical.

 

The interstate is for military transport so that troops and material can be moved quickly and efficiently thus it is for the common defense. It has the added bonus of increasing trade and stimulating almost every aspect of our country. All people that buy or sell anything benefit from it every day. Thus all pay taxes for its maintenance.

 

While Man is not adverse to 'order' (he is endowed with 'intelligence'), whether sufficient only to ensure individual security, or 'order' associated with the much more ambitious goal of universal participation in community development, nature - with its processes of natural selection, including war between species and competition for resources including among members of the same species - has no interest in any such 'order'.

Intelligence, arising from the development - evolution - of the cerebral cortex especially in homo sapiens, enables the super-imposition of 'order' (however defined) on the natural system that is devoid of order. To the extent that animals including humans do unite to form protective groups, this is a consequence of the operation of (whatever level of) 'intelligence' (notably absent in crocodiles, survivors from the age of the dinosaurs, who have no need of protection from anything, and who eat anything in their vicinity including their own offspring).

Man does not require the State for Order? Give me a break


Yes, States have been established for a reason, even if only initially to enforce laws as primitive as 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Code of Hammurabi, c.1750BC). But much more than personal security can be won, through community co-operation, requiring efficient administration by government as populations increase.

--------

Now can you quit trying to show that government is unneccesary, whether for the unworthy goal of merely managing warfare (which, with a bit of tweaking at the UN, can finally be rendered obsolete as a method of dispute settlement), or for the more ambitious goal of enabling the successful development of an admirable civilisation on planet earth (and what if there is alien life out there.............).

.....and begin discussing how Trump can best deal with a burgeoning national debt, while simultaneously cutting company and personal taxes AND keeping faith with all those demoralised workers in the 'rust belt' and coal industries, who voted for him, not to mention funding the creation of shiny new community infrastructure including schools and hospitals? And preferably not by placing unnecessary obstacles in the continuing (or beginning) development of overseas economies?

This article outlines what he is facing:

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...l-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/#

 

Just as I would expect from a purely self-interested minimalist philosophy of government.

Of course international rule of law, and elimination of war as a method of dispute settlement is possible and achievable.

You already agree to live under a 'rule of law' regime in your own country; it's a small step to agree to live under an 'international rule of law' regime.

I know, you have issues with unnecessary legislation; well get rid of the unnecessary stuff.

In any case a UNSC with ultimate control of military force need not impinge your personal freedom any more than the supreme court in your own nation, provided of course you are prepared to elevate the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights above your personal interests, creeds,beliefs.

It's our human intelligence and desire for order that can bring it about.

 

That entire interstate highway system costed less than $500 billion in 2012 dollars.

We spend more than $4 trillion every year on the vehicles we drive on it.

That comes out to .0125% of our commuting costs.

Oh my what on Earth would we do without our wise overlords?

 

What does that have to do with moving troops from one place to another or transporting goods from one place to another? There is no person in this country that has not benefited from the interstate system. Also other then some hermit living in the far north of Alaska everyone will benefit from them in the future as well. So thank you wise overlords.

 

Nothing.

I guess you really believe that people who spend $10,000 every year on a car and $180,000 every year on a truck wouldn't cough up the extra $6.25 for a flat place to drive them on without politicians.

 

Not just them. Ambulances, buses, police, as mentioned the military, the list goes on and on. Which company do you trust enough not to shut down a state it chooses to get higher fees or to make other demands? Interstates are vital to national security as such they should not be left up to the private sector. I am all for business when it does not endanger the whole country.

 

Which company would I trust over government? Any of them. At least I know what their motive will be; profit motive, the success of which entails pleasing customers. With a government, the motive could be anything any ascendant special interest group wants to impose. But that question is irrelevant because opening a field up to competition means we don't have to trust any one of them.

The list doesn't go on. I've already accounted for everything other than fleet automobiles under 26,000lbs. Their annual operating cost is about $58billion, which barely adds to the $4.5trillion already accounted for.

 

It is not about the money, I do not believe you have thought through the consequences of your proposal.

 

I know that I have and that you haven't.

 

OLIGOPOLIES

Absolutely simplistic reasoning.

The reason the US Attorney General has an entire anti-trust department is because, historically, the consumer cannot have sufficient faith that BigBusiness will not to profiteer. And profiteering they are doing.

Due to a lackadaisacle pursuit of industry amalgamation that has occurred in the US that results in oligopoly pricing.

An oligopoly is "a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers". Thus both collusive and non-collusive "sticky pricing" amongst the major producers (meaning limited competition amongst them) results in illicit profits of the major players. (See "non-collusive behaviour" here: Prices Under an Oligopoly.)

In effect, without breaking the law by conniving with one another, they settle into a "mutual agreement" regarding market prices. As a result of sticky-pricing, the highest to lower prices are still way above that which Real Competition would impose were the market truly competitive.

Anyone who thinks BigBusiness has the consumer's interest at heart is deluding themselves. Oligopolies therefore enjoy "artificial profits", but who cares as long as (1) Management is getting stock-bonuses that they cash-out and (2) the illicit profits assure that stock-markets maintain high Price-to-earnings ratios.

For a competent overview of oligopolies as practiced in the US read the section "United States" of this OECD review: OECD Policy Roundtables - Oligopoly, at page 199.

And we the consumers are the "suckers" who pay the cost of their illicit enrichment ...

NB: More on "oligpolies":
*Investopedia: What Are Some Current Examples of Oligopolies
*The New Yorker: THE OLIGOPOLY PROBLEM
*Reference: What are examples of oligopoly companies?
*Your Business: Examples of Oligopoly Markets

 

Not to mention the $305 billion highway spending boondoggle Congress just passed, after holding it for many years. Hypocrisy abounds.

Problem is the timing.

6 years ago, we needed this kind of Keyensian spending to power us out of the recession. Instead, we got Tea Party Austerity and it hurt the recovery. And not be accident, IMO.

But now, with the economy growing at 3% real and unemployment at 5% or less, this kind of large stimulus will take resources from the private sector and overheat the economy, leading to inflation.

As usual, the wrong thing at the wrong time.