Thread: They chose to fail.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well let's see.

We have Russia and it's 10-15 million dead.

China and it's 20+ million dead.

Cambodia and it's 20% of the population dead.

Never mind the disaster that is Africa virtually from top to bottom.

Those are all communist regimes. Not mixed economies The numbers are quite low for your estimates.

I wouldn't support a communist economy and in America we have actually chosen a right wing agenda of free trade to the detriment of the economy.

If I wasn't American ... I wouldn't care that it was the American economy being destroyed ... from policies providing for a few ... under the guise that protectionism is unproductive for prosperity.

I think its more about the negative effects of cheap foreign labor on the American economy from globalism. I don't really here anything about trade with Germany, France, Canada, ... its about India and China.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

"The government that drives them from their lands, steals their ability to provide for themselves, or just kills them because they're inconvenient."

Is 9 talking about the US?

Oh! He's talking about Warlords whose main occupation is selling cocaine to the US.

Africa kicks out the educated farmers, converts their fields for poppy and then screams, "FAMINE!".
Sorry, not every American is gonna fall that garbage.

You should go there sometime.

Let's start with a personal experience. The Nigerian coup of 1984. We were shipping materials over for a project we were building and the goods were seized at the port during the coup. Lost about 2 million there, so it's a particularly vivid memory. Quite a few people killed there, and it's not educated farmers, it's uneducated farmers being killed and stolen from at gunpoint. Disrupt them, and it starts a domino effect of death and disease.

Drive past a few dead bodies on the side of the road. It will change your perspective a bit.

Originally Posted by michael h

Those are all communist regimes. Not mixed economies The numbers are quite low for your estimates.

I know some estimates are higher, much higher. But I tend to use the lower numbers because someone always bitches about what's probably the real story.

Originally Posted by michael h

I wouldn't support a communist economy and in America we have actually chosen a right wing agenda of free trade to the detriment of the economy.

I'm sure a lot of people in those countries didn't support it either. Look where it got them. 6 feet under, if they were lucky enough to warrant a grave.

Originally Posted by michael h

If I wasn't American ... I wouldn't care that it was the American economy being destroyed ... from policies providing for a few ... under the guise that protectionism is unproductive for prosperity.

Well when you figure out who is actually responsible for that coming about, be sure to say so, I already do.

Originally Posted by michael h

I think its more about the negative effects of cheap foreign labor on the American economy from globalism. I don't really here anything about trade with Germany, France, Canada, ... its about India and China.

Partially. Partially it's the environment that's been fostered here in this country. Like so many things it's not just one thing, but a combination of things.

Originally Posted by 9aces

I know some estimates are higher, much higher. But I tend to use the lower numbers because someone always bitches about what's probably the real story.


I'm sure a lot of people in those countries didn't support it either. Look where it got them. 6 feet under, if they were lucky enough to warrant a grave.


Well when you figure out who is actually responsible for that coming about, be sure to say so, I already do.


Partially. Partially it's the environment that's been fostered here in this country. Like so many things it's not just one thing, but a combination of things.

As we have a right wing economy for a few you know I'm quick to point out consensus of government ... dems and pubs.

I mentioned other economies we trade with that have regulations and still manage to succeed economically. Germany and Japan are protective of their economies. So some environments that are the same as us ... succeed ... we are not protective and fail.

So if trading with a particular country is detrimental why trade?

Is America the only economy with environmental protections?

Originally Posted by smurf

I clearly understand what happened, but you are either too blinded ideologically, or too slow mentally, to understand.

I have clearly and repeatedly explained what happened.

As I have stated repeatedly, I have clearly shown how if the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes were simply general fund receipts, and thus could not have also been used to invest in Treasury bonds held by the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund, that there was indeed, a surplus. But that it also means that Social Security (and Medicare) has no assets and is insolvent.

I have also clearly shown that if the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes were invested by the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund into Treasury bonds, that those funds are not receipts, but are the proceeds from borrowing, hence no surplus. Or have you forgotten, "a loan is not income"?

How do you reconcile excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes being spent, and also being invested?

Please use coherent english.
Was there a surplus?
It's a yes or no question.

Were receipts greater than outlays, and if not, what were the correct numbers?

Originally Posted by goober

Please use coherent english.
Was there a surplus?
It's a yes or no question.

Were receipts greater than outlays, and if not, what were the correct numbers?

2009

OASDI receipts were $559.1 Billion while payments were $683.0 Billion
www.usgovernmentspending.com

Originally Posted by michael h

As we have a right wing economy for a few you know I'm quick to point out consensus of government ... dems and pubs.

Consensus isn't always a good thing is it?

Originally Posted by michael h

I mentioned other economies we trade with that have regulations and still manage to succeed economically. Germany and Japan are protective of their economies. So some environments that are the same as us ... succeed ... we are not protective and fail.

Seems Japan isn't in as great a shape as was thought is it?

Originally Posted by michael h

So if trading with a particular country is detrimental why trade?

Is America the only economy with environmental protections?

No, ours just appear to be the most extreme.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Consensus isn't always a good thing is it?


Seems Japan isn't in as great a shape as was thought is it?


No, ours just appear to be the most extreme.

You have sparked my interest, I am curious as to government regulations relative to other countries. I'll have to do some research.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Consensus isn't always a good thing is it?


Seems Japan isn't in as great a shape as was thought is it?


No, ours just appear to be the most extreme.

That's why we love China.
We have too many rules and China has none.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Consensus isn't always a good thing is it?


Seems Japan isn't in as great a shape as was thought is it?


No, ours just appear to be the most extreme.

So we now have the end of the fallacious claim the US is over regulated.

Here we go, I got a study grouping three different studies. These are OECD countries in the survey.
Note in the quote that the US falls in the liberal category of being less regulated.

Added economic freedom.

What is economic freedom?

Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation

To provide a clearer picture of these cross-country differences in regulation ithat are identified by the joint consideration of the three overall measures of regulation (S-KKZ, ONSB: P+L and S-P: Total), we employed a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s methodology to group countries according to the similarity of objective and subjective assessments. Two large
groups of countries emerge quite clearly: a relatively “liberal” group including all English-speaking countries, as well as Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Switzerland; and a relatively “regulated” group including most other continental European countries and Japan. Using a less
restrictive distance criterion we further isolated a group of “ultra-liberal” countries (the US, the UK, New Zealand and Ireland) and a group of “ultra-regulated” countries (France, Italy and Greece).
These results provide a rigorous confirmation of our a priori expectations.
In brief, our conclusion is that all three studies point to the same economic reality, even though they draw upon quite different data and handle the data using very different statistical techniques, in detail. The next step for research is to determine more exactly how these differences
in regulation influence economic performance.

www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/Economics/fpryor1/Nicoletti Pryor Essay.pdf

Regs 1.jpg Economic freedom.jpg

regs 2.jpg

reg 3.jpg

regs 4.jpg

Originally Posted by goober

Please use coherent english.

My English is quite clear. You are either not intelligent enough to understand, or are being purposefully obtuse, because you don't like the truth.

Originally Posted by goober

Was there a surplus?
It's a yes or no question.

Were receipts greater than outlays, and if not, what were the correct numbers?

Dodge, dodge, dodge.

It is obvious that you either cannot understand the situation at hand, or understand it and will not admit to it.

So all that you do is obfuscate to try and avoid answering the questions that will make you admit the truth.

How do you reconcile excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes being spent, and also being invested?

Originally Posted by smurf

My English is quite clear. You are either not intelligent enough to understand, or are being purposefully obtuse, because you don't like the truth.



Dodge, dodge, dodge.

It is obvious that you either cannot understand the situation at hand, or understand it and will not admit to it.

So all that you do is obfuscate to try and avoid answering the questions that will make you admit the truth.

How do you reconcile excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes being spent, and also being invested?

in 2000, and 1998, 1999 and 2001 for that matter,
That money was counted once as a receipt, when it came in, and again as a outlay or a redemption, when it went out.

You realize that the excess has to be invested in US Treasuries by law,
I doubt you'd understand why.

At least you admit there was a surplus, because I don't see you questioning the receipt numbers or the outlay numbers.
So at least we have made some progress....or have we?

Originally Posted by goober

in 2000, and 1998, 1999 and 2001 for that matter,
That money was counted once as a receipt, when it came in, and again as a outlay or a redemption, when it went out.

You realize that the excess has to be invested in US Treasuries by law,
I doubt you'd understand why.

At least you admit there was a surplus, because I don't see you questioning the receipt numbers or the outlay numbers.
So at least we have made some progress....or have we?

No, goober.

You are treating the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes as receipts, while ignoring that the proceeds from the Treasury bonds into which they were invested are not receipts, but are instead the proceeds from debt issuance.

Once again, if the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes were simply receipts, then they were unavailable for investment by the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund. That means that there would have been a surplus, but also that Social Security has no assets, and is currently insolvent.

However, if the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes were invested by the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund into Treasury bonds, then those funds which were spent on outlays were not all receipts, but instead were a combination of receipts and proceeds from debt issuance. Ergo, there was no surplus, as "a loan is not income". You do remember who said those words, right?

Do you deny that the bonds held by the Trust Funds pay interest, and are counted as part of the statutory debt ceiling? Do you deny that the bonds held by the Trust Funds are real? Do you deny that the proceeds from the bonds that were issued to the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund in fiscal year 2000 were spent on outlays in fiscal year 2000?

It is really quite simple.