Re: We escaped depression despite government not because of government.

Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:07:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:31:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:55:40 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 1, 8:39 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:33:44 -0400, L&*$?%l
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Not even close. Government spending is what *ended* the Great
>>>>>>>>>>> Depression.
>>>>>>>>>> False. The end of government intervention around 1947 is what
>>>>>>>>>> ended the great depression.
>>>>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>>>> YEP, that 90% tax rate was bleeding the life from the private
>>>>>>>>> market economy, how can it grow if government is sucking up all
>>>>>>>>> the GDP, the government will grow but the economy is hard pressed
>>>>>>>>> to manage any growth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>> The laughter of the stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me: why is it that you think you’re an expert on econ
>>>>>>> when you clearly don’t know f&*$?%k-all about it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>> Give me a detailed economic explanation on how extracting money from
>>>>>> the private sector by the government and then wasting it on runaway
>>>>>> growth of government will help the private sector grow……
>>>>> This question is the classic “have you stopped beating your wife”
>>>>> false frame. Government does not absorb money for the sake of
>>>>> government growth. That is a religious point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> So let us look at the economic reality as opposed to the religious
>>>>> stupidity:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Texas oil man who inherited his ranch from his daddy receives a
>>>>> check for $50k each week for _ALLOWING_ an oil company to pump oil
>>>>> from under his ranch. The his daddy used to actually run a ranch
>>>>> that provided beef to the community. Now he spends money on lavish
>>>>> consumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we apply an 80% tax to the money he receives then there will be no
>>>>> change to the price of oil and no reduction in the productivity of
>>>>> the Texas oil man. There will be no change on productivity because
>>>>> the Texas oil man was not “producing” anything in the first place.
>>>>> He could be comatose and the oil would still flow. If government
>>>>> spends this captured money on infrastructure instead of spending it
>>>>> on a big fine house and swimming pool and a new car then the benefit
>>>>> of the spending inures to the public at large as opposed to one
>>>>> person. The cost of oil has not changed yet we may have a new school
>>>>> or a new bridge and the society at large will be more productive for
>>>>> this exercises and be the beneficiary of the spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> When government taxes the productive and then pours the money down a
>>>>> military rat hole then the government is a boil on the a&*$?%s of
>>>>> humanity. If, however, the government taxes the non productive an
>>>>> employs the funds to reduce the cost of health care for the
>>>>> productive then government is performing an economically valid
>>>>> service.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You built your whole story on the false premise that somehow the owner
>>>> of the land and therefor right to drill the oil will allow you to take
>>>> his profit and he will do nothing but ignore it. They won’t raise
>>>> their price like Alaska did when Alaska saw that they were getting too
>>>> little of the profit. Where do you think that money to Alaska came
>>>> from? It came from higher gas prices.
>>> A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE of why ANWR oil belongs, not to the @#*#^&
>>> Alaskans, but to every voting citizen of the USA. In reality all
>>> natural resources
>> You mean the oil belongs to every human on the planet, if property
>> rights are worthless then State line and country borders are meaningless
>> too.
>
> At least you are bringing up an ALMOST valid point. The things that trump
> economics are, culture/morals and law. Each sovereignty has a different
> culture and that is the reason for the sovereignties. The people in
> Iraq, for instance, see the issue differently, than the people in India.

As do people in Alaska and Florida…. Still separate people and
separate Governments. why would they have less rights than Saddam in
Iraq, don’t you believe in equal?

> At present the people in the USA see the issue in the “I am close to it
> and that makes it mine” sort of way. But I don’t think that will hold up
> under any honest consideration and debate.
>

It’s more like I paid for it so if I can make a buck selling it, then
I’m lucky, if not I lose my a&*$?%s and someone else might try something
different with it and make a buck. If we listen to you no one will take
any risk or bother to try to exploit what they own to make money and
maybe accidentally improve the human race. You spelled out the plans
for a #MEDIOCRACY where we all do as little as possible to help
ourselves and society.

>>> belong to the people et al. Only that which is actually PRODUCED is a
>>> candidate for privatization, and then ONLY after the public has been
>>> paid for what the “producer” has delivered as a commodity.
>> There are many things like geologic energy from the planet core, are you
>> saying that energy belongs to all and payment has to be paid every human
>> on the planet? The sun that shines in Florida is also owned by Alaska so
>> Florida owns Alaska’s oil and Alaska owns Florida’s sun?
>
> The sun you get is all yours as it is in limitless supply (not scarce).
> Lockean proviso “As much and as good left for others”.

Can’t be, it’s shining on land and if you use that land to produce
energy it would be the same as the person owning the land also owning
the right to drill for oil….. you are violating your own standards
that you voiced earlier.

> The sovereignty, which is the border of the morals of a people is the
> dividing line. And it is because the morals and the economics of a
> foreign sovereignty are not under the control of the government of any
> given sovereignty. Morals and laws differ.

Can’t be, the economics have to be equally distributed for any resource
or your whole “no owner” plan will be compromised. Look at the
dictators like Saddam who own all that oil and would profit in such an
unequal way, just because he owns some property that he stole from a
bunch of people?
–