Thread: Marginal Utility

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I did check, it was true, and you are nothing but a tool for left wing propaganda. There has not been a true surplus since 1957 and every factual source proves it over and over again. If you want buy into borrowing from Peter (trust funds) to pay Paul (debt held by the public) you are certainly able to do so and maintain your ignorance.

When I say check, I mean look up the answer from a reliable source.

Originally Posted by goober

I used the official numbers from the Office of Management and Budget, you used a right wing wacko propaganda website.

Do you believe every thing you read? The OMB is using the voodoo accounting convention I described earlier.

and you are correct, "(it) Serves no purpose when you use propaganda to "prove?" your argument."

Think about it, the best you can come up with is Craig Steiner, this isn't breaking news, this happened over 10 years ago.
If what you say was true, there would be history books, well known scholars, brilliant professors of accounting and economics you could cite.
Instead all you got is Craig Steiner and 9aces....that's a pretty good critique on the value of that argument right there.

The value of the argument has noting to do with the supporting individuals or web sites. The treasury department is really all anyone needs and the following chart proves our point irrefutably. The total national debt went up every year under Clinton and that is all I need to know. I don't need some propaganda from OMB or any left wing site you can find. Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Date ...............Dollar Amount
09/29/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I ignored nothing. It is apparent you did not understand the total article which revolves around the point, "does the marginal dollar give as much satisfaction as the earlier dollars?

Which the article answered with no, else the author would have skipped the entire paragraph talking about money. As well as other parts of the article that went right over your head. If what you are saying is true about the intentions of the article, then the author would have written that no matter if you had $1,000 or $1,000,000 or $100,000,000, then the next $1,000 would be the same value to all the three subjects. He would have said that every $1,000 block has the same utility. But clearly the author said something entirely different showing that not only is the marginal utility of money not a constant but it does in fact decline (with plenty of evidence, in the that same article, that you 'liked,' for some unknown reason.)

Originally Posted by goober

Conservative accountants agree, there were surpluses in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Because receipts exceeded outlays (and borrowing doesn't count as a receipt)

Are you wondering why when you Google this, you only find Craig Steiner, and an old thread on USPOL when the original poster admits his error at the end of thread?

Only in the imaginary world of voodoo accounting which defines the accounting convention which leaves out a major part of the debt. (Debt held by intragovernmental trust funds) . No matter how much you insist in ignoring that debt had the borrowing not occurred the debt held by the public could not have been paid down. I really don't care that you are not smart enough to read through the fluff and understand the whole picture. You are counting FICA and MC premiums collected as part of the income without considering that those premiums were only borrowed. If a private company tried to cook the books in the same manner federal auditors would have their butts in a jam.

Originally Posted by goober

Were receipts greater than outlays in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001? Why can't you answer that simple question?

I did. Gave you a source for the data you cannot dispute that showed your attempts to deny reality fail.

Originally Posted by goober

When I say check, I mean look up the answer from a reliable source.

You don't believe the Treasury Department is a reliable source?

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Only in the imaginary world of voodoo accounting which defines the accounting convention which leaves out a major part of the debt. (Debt held by intragovernmental trust funds) . No matter how much you insist in ignoring that debt had the borrowing not occurred the debt held by the public could not have been paid down. I really don't care that you are not smart enough to read through the fluff and understand the whole picture. You are counting FICA and MC premiums collected as part of the income without considering that those premiums were only borrowed. If a private company tried to cook the books in the same manner federal auditors would have their butts in a jam.

Goober thinks the debt is only about 11 trillion too btw. You might want to ask him about that.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Which the article answered with no, else the author would have skipped the entire paragraph talking about money. As well as other parts of the article that went right over your head. If what you are saying is true about the intentions of the article, then the author would have written that no matter if you had $1,000 or $1,000,000 or $100,000,000, then the next $1,000 would be the same value to all the three subjects. He would have said that every $1,000 block has the same utility. But clearly the author said something entirely different showing that not only is the marginal utility of money not a constant but it does in fact decline (with plenty of evidence, in the that same article, that you 'liked,' for some unknown reason.)

When it is obvious you do not understand the total meaning of the article you suggest it went over MY head? ROTFLMAO

Originally Posted by 9aces

I did. Gave you a source for the data you cannot dispute that showed your attempts to deny reality fail.

No you didn't, it's a simple yes or no. You tend to give a contorted song and dance that may fool you, but it doesn't fool anyone who is familiar with accounting rules.

Come on, answer the question.

Were receipts greater than outlays in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001?

Originally Posted by dnsmith

You don't believe the Treasury Department is a reliable source?

And what were the actual numbers for receipts and outlays you found at the treasury department?

9ACES, I guess Sluggo and Goober don't believe we really owe intragovernmental holdings. But the treasury dept believes it. Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Current ..........Debt Held by the Public .......Intragovernmental Holdings ....Total Public Debt Outstanding
05/16/2012....10,950,509,043,850.59...........4,758,244, 627,917.05..............15,708,753,671,767.64

Originally Posted by goober

And what were the actual numbers for receipts and outlays you found at the treasury department?

Yes! I gave you the links. Use them and figure it out for yourself.

But lets use one more example and maybe, just maybe if you can think instead of being eaten up with the propaganda. Assume you are a private citizen. You owe $10,000 to Bank A. Your salary is $15,000. Your cost of living eats up $12,000. But you go to a different Bank (B)and borrow $5,000 to cover the last $2,000 you needed to live and paid the other $3,000 to reduce the debt to Bank A. Do you have a surplus? Absolutely not. You went further into debt and now owe $7,000 to bank A and $5,000 to Bank B. Is it logical for you now to only be concerned with Bank A? Are you suggesting that by paying down Bank A you now have a surplus of funds to spend as you please? The answer to all those questions is no and those who try to apply that same false reasoning to Clinton's budgetary deficits and claim there was a surplus are using voodoo accounting and leaving out the second source of debt which went up far more than the debt to Bank A (debt held by the public) If you can't understand that and prefer to listen to someone's version of accounting "convention" that is your problem. I am not going to fight with you about this anymore.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

When it is obvious you do not understand the total meaning of the article you suggest it went over MY head? ROTFLMAO

Ok, you tell us how the following paragraph means the marginal utility of money is a constant, including but not limited to what is in bold.

Furthermore, the fact that the utility of a marginal unit of wealth of given size diminishes as the quantity of wealth available to us increases is actually an important aspect of the desirability of increasing our wealth. What we rationally want is to be in a position in which the marginal utility of a unit of wealth of any given size more and more approaches zero, while what we deal with more and more is progressively larger-sized units of wealth. We want to be in a position in which the loss of the wealth represented by $10, say, is absolutely unimportant to us; better still, in which the loss of the wealth represented by $100, $1000, or $10,000 is absolutely unimportant to us. The loss of wealth represented by $10 will be unimportant to us when we are rich enough to afford spending $50 or $100 for a single fine meal rather than $10 for a whole day’s food--when, in other words, $50 or $100 replaces $10 as the representative of a marginal unit of food. The loss of $1,000 will be unimportant to us when we can afford to spend $50,000 for a second automobile, perhaps, rather than just $1,000 for our one and only ancient used car. The loss of $10,000 will be unimportant to us when we can afford to spend $1,000,000 for our second or third home rather than just $10,000 for our one and only small used trailer.