Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 08:25:07 AM
Let's not be hasty.  I ask only that you engage me in constructive discussion and give me the opportunity to explain.

Thanks

The forum ain't goin' nowhere, so take your time.  I'm not being hasty and encourage you to learn about economics through discussion.

Quote from: taxed on December 05, 2016, 07:30:37 AM
No.  The economy will, as the kids say, "do what it do".

Ok, if you don't support economic growth as a policy, then this post isn't really aimed at you.

Quote from: taxed on December 05, 2016, 07:30:37 AMWhy?

How can an economy grow, if there is less money in the economy?

"Free market principles" don't explain where that money will come from.

So let's go through this slowly.

Would you agree that spending, no matter the source is earned as income by some other source?

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 04, 2016, 08:11:08 PM
Ok, so then you believe that increasing personal(private sector) debt is the solution, correct?  I mean, the government currently spends 1 out of every 4 dollars in the economy.  So in order to grow, the private sector would have to increase its debt by whatever the public sector decreases it.

Why are you under the illusion govt creates jobs? A govt job is actually a negative component in that it takes from the private sector and decides who the winners and losers are, unlike the free mkt, where the private sector decides what's efficient and productive.
Reading through this thread it's obvious you have absolutely zero understanding of Free mkt principles, instead, you see the private sector as an unwieldy beast that needs govt to control it to keep it alive.
Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact the complete opposite, govt is an impediment to growth, in that it decides who succeeds, despite free mkt principle.

Here's an example, "Green Energy", a complete and total failure, yet the Marxist tried to keep it alive through crony capitalism, another term for socialism.
Green energy is a perfect example of what you're advocating, on the other hand, Ng (Natural gas) is what the free mkt demands, as well as oil and nuclear etc, but in order to make "Green Energy" competitive, required govt to hamstring all the other players on the playing field starting with coal. "(Of course energy prices will necessarily Skyrocket under my administration")
Yes, the Marxist went about killing off the cheapest form of energy, and still Green energy wasn't viable, so he went about increasing regulations on fracking on Federal land, and still that wasn't enough, solar etc still can't meet the demands of the nation, despit subsidies and bribes to the private sector.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, your bias impedes your ability to see that govt has a function, and creating jobs is not one of them.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 08:56:47 AM
Ok, if you don't support economic growth as a policy, then this post isn't really aimed at you.

I don't support it.  The free market handles growth.  That's nature.  You might as well argue that policy should affect the weather.

Quote
How can an economy grow, if there is less money in the economy?

Labor is traded for compensation via supply and demand.

Quote
"Free market principles" don't explain where that money will come from.

Yes it does.  Free trade is the cornerstone of not only our economy, but our civilization. 

Quote
So let's go through this slowly.

Goodie!

Quote
Would you agree that spending, no matter the source is earned as income by some other source?

Yes.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 08:20:53 AM
Not sure why you think I believe that.  I never said it nor do I think that.

For the sake of this discussion, would you mind defining efficiency in the context you're using it?

Agreed

Yes, I covered that where I said:

"Let's say, though reductions in waste and regulation and elimination of unnecessary jobs $200 billion has been saved"

No disagreement here.

Agreed

This is where we disagree.   Taxed has laid out a bunch of questions, so look to my answers there.

Check.

"For the sake of this discussion, would you mind defining efficiency in the context you're using it?"

Fair warning. You are bordering on trolling and that will not be tolerated here.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 08:56:47 AM
Ok, if you don't support economic growth as a policy, then this post isn't really aimed at you.

Growth is a byproduct of the free mkt, not govt.

QuoteHow can an economy grow, if there is less money in the economy?

Creating wealth is the purpose of capitalism, and again, Growth is a byproduct of the free mkt.

Quote"Free market principles" don't explain where that money will come from.

Are you implying money comes from govt? The Fed's only responsibility is to regulate a standardized currency, not create it.
For every penny of inflation, there is a penny lost on investment, this is known as inflation. I bought my first car in 1969 for twenty eight hundred bucks, that car today would cost 10 times that amount, all due to inflation.
So let's go through this slowly.

QuoteWould you agree that spending, no matter the source is earned as income by some other source?

Would you agree that a bank can't create money? Your problem here is thinking the govt can print money without consequence, it can't.
So when the govt spends money, it's actually stealing from the private sector without return.

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 09:33:47 AM
Growth is a byproduct of the free mkt, not govt.
Creating wealth is the purpose of capitalism, and again, Growth is a byproduct of the free mkt.
Are you implying money comes from govt? The Fed's only responsibility is to regulate a standardized currency, not create it.
For every penny of inflation, there is a penny lost on investment, this is known as inflation. I bought my first car in 1969 for twenty eight hundred bucks, that car today would cost 10 times that amount, all due to inflation.
So let's go through this slowly.

Would you agree that a bank can't create money? Your problem here is thinking the govt can print money without consequence, it can't.
So when the govt spends money, it's actually stealing from the private sector without return.

How did cavemen ever eat and survive without government?  His premise seems to be that parties can't engage in trade if there's not a big federal department pumping money into the pockets of criminals and other politicians.

Is this what they're teaching in schools now?

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 09:06:14 AMWhy are you under the illusion govt creates jobs?

It makes no difference to me what sector the job resides in, gov or private sector.  That is a political decision and you guys are getting caught up in the politics assuming I have some ax to grind.  All I'm trying to point out is the economics of it.  That's not to say I don't have my own personal and political ideas about how things should be run, but I'm keeping my politics out of it because the point I'm making is entirely apolitical.

So let me say for the record, it makes no difference, in the context of this discussion, if the employer is the public or private sector.

Having said that, I think we'd agree that one of the tasks of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.  Ever dollar it spends to the private sector is earned by someone as an income, agreed?

It's the same in the private sector.  Every dollar spent in the private sector is earned by someone as an income.

GDP is the aggregation of all these transactions.

Is there anything there I've said that you can't agree with?

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 09:06:14 AMA govt job is actually a negative component in that it takes from the private sector and decides who the winners and losers are, unlike the free mkt, where the private sector decides what's efficient and productive.
Reading through this thread it's obvious you have absolutely zero understanding of Free mkt principles, instead, you see the private sector as an unwieldy beast that needs govt to control it to keep it alive.
Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact the complete opposite, govt is an impediment to growth, in that it decides who succeeds, despite free mkt principle.

Right or wrong, This has nothing to do with the argument I'm making.

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 09:06:14 AMHere's an example, "Green Energy", a complete and total failure, yet the Marxist tried to keep it alive through crony capitalism, another term for socialism.
Green energy is a perfect example of what you're advocating, on the other hand, Ng (Natural gas) is what the free mkt demands, as well as oil and nuclear etc, but in order to make "Green Energy" competitive, required govt to hamstring all the other players on the playing field starting with coal. "(Of course energy prices will necessarily Skyrocket under my administration")
Yes, the Marxist went about killing off the cheapest form of energy, and still Green energy wasn't viable, so he went about increasing regulations on fracking on Federal land, and still that wasn't enough, solar etc still can't meet the demands of the nation, despit subsidies and bribes to the private sector.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, your bias impedes your ability to see that govt has a function, and creating jobs is not one of them.

No bias, you're just not understanding the basis for my argument.

In order for the economy to grow, under the system we have today, new money must come from debt.  Period.

If you think money, again in the system we have, can be created without debt, please tell me how that's possible, keeping in mind the OP.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 09:52:08 AM
It makes no difference to me what sector the job resides in, gov or private sector.  That is a political decision and you guys are getting caught up in the politics assuming I have some ax to grind.  All I'm trying to point out is the economics of it.  That's not to say I don't have my own personal and political ideas about how things should be run, but I'm keeping my politics out of it because the point I'm making is entirely apolitical.

Government jobs are not jobs.  They are leeches sucking on the host of the producers in our society.  That's not politics.  That's just fact.

Quote
So let me say for the record, it makes no difference, in the context of this discussion, if the employer is the public or private sector.

It does make a difference.  You're talking about jobs and growth, yet don't want to acknowledge an entity that can only grow by pointing a gun at the producers of our society and stealing their money.  That's not "growth".

Quote
Having said that, I think we'd agree that one of the tasks of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.  Ever dollar it spends to the private sector is earned by someone as an income, agreed?

It steals earnings from the producers (not government employees).  Why are you having a hard time with that?

Quote
It's the same in the private sector.  Every dollar spent in the private sector is earned by someone as an income.

That occurs naturally in the free market.  Again, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

Quote
GDP is the aggregation of all these transactions.

Is there anything there I've said that you can't agree with?

Yes.  You're entire premise.

Quote
Right or wrong, This has nothing to do with the argument I'm making.

You aren't making an argument.  You are simply parroting something that makes no sense.

Quote
No bias, you're just not understanding the basis for my argument.

In order for the economy to grow, under the system we have today, new money must come from debt.  Period.

If you think money, again in the system we have, can be created without debt, please tell me how that's possible, keeping in mind the OP.

You should start here:
https://mises.org/library/how-saving-grows-economy

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 09:52:08 AM
It makes no difference to me what sector the job resides in, gov or private sector.  That is a political decision and you guys are getting caught up in the politics assuming I have some ax to grind.

You title says otherwise. Free mkt does not create debt, only govt can do that.

QuoteAll I'm trying to point out is the economics of it.  That's not to say I don't have my own personal and political ideas about how things should be run, but I'm keeping my politics out of it because the point I'm making is entirely apolitical.

Wrong, your very premise is leftist in nature.

QuoteSo let me say for the record, it makes no difference, in the context of this discussion, if the employer is the public or private sector.

Wrong, there is but one employer, the other is a dictator in a sense of the word. One steals from the producer to "Create", while the other makes an agreement to share wealth for services traded.

QuoteHaving said that, I think we'd agree that one of the tasks of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation.  Ever dollar it spends to the private sector is earned by someone as an income, agreed?

Funny you would use that. Defense of this Nation was at one time the only Charge of govt.

QuoteIt's the same in the private sector.  Every dollar spent in the private sector is earned by someone as an income.

NO!!! It's not the same, get that through your head!
If I'm the getaway driver for a bank robbery, did I earn that money?

QuoteGDP is the aggregation of all these transactions.

Is there anything there I've said that you can't agree with?


Right or wrong, This has nothing to do with the argument I'm making.

No bias, you're just not understanding the basis for my argument.

In order for the economy to grow, under the system we have today, new money must come from debt.  Period.

If you think money, again in the system we have, can be created without debt, please tell me how that's possible, keeping in mind the OP.

OMG! Did Bill Gates not make money selling an idea? Did gold miners not find new wealth? The list is endless, and guess what?
These individuals had a huge portion of their wealth confiscated by the Fed.
Think about that....

Quote from: taxed on December 05, 2016, 09:41:57 AM
How did cavemen ever eat and survive without government?  His premise seems to be that parties can't engage in trade if there's not a big federal department pumping money into the pockets of criminals and other politicians.

Is this what they're teaching in schools now?

It's not so much what they're teaching, as to what they're avoiding teaching. Actual economic principles.

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 10:50:49 AM
It's not so much what they're teaching, as to what they're avoiding teaching. Actual economic principles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiGsHCpBGg4

Ok, I think I see where this discussion is getting derailed.....But to be sure.

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 10:31:31 AM
You title says otherwise. Free mkt does not create debt, only govt can do that.

OMG! Did Bill Gates not make money selling an idea?

Did gold miners not find new wealth?

Where did Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak get the money to start their business?

Where do miners get the money to buy the capital equipment they need to mine for gold?

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 05, 2016, 11:30:21 AM
Ok, I think I see where this discussion is getting derailed.....But to be sure.

Where did Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak get the money to start their business?

Where do miners get the money to buy the capital equipment they need to mine for gold?

What part of "Private Capital" (Investment) do you not get?

Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2016, 11:33:47 AM

What part of "Private Capital" (Investment) do you not get?

So you believe that all business are funded via PC?