Ah Sarge, it was a joke -- remember, my wife is a trained psychiatrist/psychoanalyst. <smile>.

Forgot, though you've elaborated more here than i've noted before.

I was hoping that Major would take the bait end talk about the Austrian school of economics. He did.

I was not seeking to be part of baiting.
Gary brought up education, and I responded.

I understand, and I'd accept that it was a tad snarky of me to do that.

Here's a hypothetical for folks.

Which will happen first, the total bankruptcy of the US due to fiscal 'policy' or the inundation of Florida, New Orleans, the outer banks, and large parts of the rest of the coastline due to rising sea levels attributed to global climate change.

I figure both of these questions tend to get answered with a juxtaposition of faith/belief and facts. Answering the question tends to demonstrate just what combination of faith/belief and facts one adheres to.

I was not seeking to be part of baiting.
Gary brought up education, and I responded.

Ah Sarge, it was a joke -- remember, my wife is a trained psychiatrist/psychoanalyst. <smile>.

I was hoping that Major would take the bait end talk about the Austrian school of economics. He did.

But Freud was more about therapy/meeting of psychology and psychiatry. I refer to things such as behaviorism, followed by cognitive science ... .

Glad to be of service. <grin>

I understand, and I'd accept that it was a tad snarky of me to do that.

Here's a hypothetical for folks.

Which will happen first, the total bankruptcy of the US due to fiscal 'policy' or the inundation of Florida, New Orleans, the outer banks, and large parts of the rest of the coastline due to rising sea levels attributed to global climate change.

I figure both of these questions tend to get answered with a juxtaposition of faith/belief and facts. Answering the question tends to demonstrate just what combination of faith/belief and facts one adheres to.

I was not seeking to be part of baiting.
Gary brought up education, and I responded.

Hmm... Tough question.

There are other factors in play in both of the outcomes you mention (bankrupt US and coastal inundation) that make things very difficult to predict.

On the underwater coastline side of things: yes, sea level does appear to be going up slightly. This could be for a number of reasons, not just global climate change. For instance, there is the possibility of topographical changes to the sea bottom near underwater volcanos and mid-ocean ridges (similar to land elevation increases in volcanic areas on land (similar to elevation increases near the Yellowstone Caldera for instance). Furthermore, we don't know when something rather drastic might happen that might cause a rather rapid increase in sea level.

Also, the land elevation in areas on the coast is decreasing in places, especially in urban areas, for a variety of reasons. For instance, elevation of land in the Houston area has dropped rather noticeably over the past decades, attributed to pumping of underground water from water wells.

So, on the whole, inundation of the coastline, or at least parts of it, is a distinct possibility over the short term, and could be considered likely over the medium term. The time-frame can't be nailed down with much more precision due to an overabundance of random factors. All we can say for sure is that living / owning property on the coasts and adjacent low-lying land can not be considered a safe thing to do.

As to the 'bankruptcy' of the US: Yes, deficit spending by the government does present a danger of this. As government debt piles up, sooner or later we will reach a point that we can not make the payments on it, hence bankruptcy. But again, other more random factors rear their ugly heads. Economic recession/depression will shorten the time we have left just as economic boom times would lengthen our remaining time, but wouldn't put it off forever as spending would tend to increase with revenue. Interest rate spikes would shorten the time left as well, as would any unforeseen sudden emergency requirements for massive public spending (major wars as in WWII, or massive natural disasters -- think Yellowstone Caldera blowing, for example).

So, on the whole, 'bankruptcy' of the US is a distinct possibility over the short term, and could be considered likely over the medium term. The time-frame can't be nailed down with much more precision due to an overabundance of random factors. All we can say for sure is that failure to bring spending under control, run a surplus, and pay down the debt can not be considered a safe thing to do.

So, which would happen first? I dunno. We can see the signs of both approaching. My gut instinct would be that the 'bankrupt US' would happen sooner, but there is not any way to know for sure due to massive random factors.

Interesting choice of scenarios, since both involve being 'underwater'... either financially or the ocean. <grin>

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Well, I had to make thread relevant you know <giggle>.

Earlier in this thread, it was Gary's contention that government deficits were (I believe he wrote this), the sole course of inflation. That of course run's a bit amiss of the past several years where inflation has been very modest indeed, while deficits have been (and we can agree on this) out of control.

I suppose if the Federal Government had eliminated itself adequately to avoid deficits in 2007 - 2012 we might have had enough deflation to get us back to the 70's in terms of the value of the dollar for those who happened to have them.

My point being that inflation has a number of causes, one of the them being government deficits for sure. Deflation also has a number of causes as well (with perhaps one of them being government surpluses). Again, to the extent we seek simple cause and effect, we are apt to be frustrated.

Interesting choice of scenarios, since both involve being 'underwater'... either financially or the ocean. <grin>

Well, I had to make thread relevant you know <giggle>.

Earlier in this thread, it was Gary's contention that government deficits were (I believe he wrote this), the sole course of inflation. That of course run's a bit amiss of the past several years where inflation has been very modest indeed, while deficits have been (and we can agree on this) out of control.

I suppose if the Federal Government had eliminated itself adequately to avoid deficits in 2007 - 2012 we might have had enough deflation to get us back to the 70's in terms of the value of the dollar for those who happened to have them.

My point being that inflation has a number of causes, one of the them being government deficits for sure. Deflation also has a number of causes as well (with perhaps one of them being government surpluses). Again, to the extent we seek simple cause and effect, we are apt to be frustrated.

Interesting choice of scenarios, since both involve being 'underwater'... either financially or the ocean. <grin>

Well, strictly speaking... Inflation is not 'prices going up'... It is an increase in the money supply over and above any increased demand for it. And deflation is a reduction in the money supply in excess of any reduced demand for it.

Inflation/deflation isn't prices going up/down, but prices going up/down *is* one of its effects.

That said, government deficits *is* a way that the money supply increases out of proportion to demand. Gary is right in that, ceteris paribus, government deficits can be a HUGE cause of inflation with its consequent price increases. However, the economic situtation of the last few years cannot be considered as anything approaching ceteris paribus (all else remaining equal or held constant).

The more normal way our money supply increases is through bank loans (a consequence of the fractional reserve requirements of the banking system). The slowdown of economic activity has reduced the amount of money being created through this process, counterbalancing (over the short term) the effects of the deficits. Thus, the price increases we have seen of late have not been a normal consequence of the deficits, but much less than would otherwise be expected. If something isn't done to remove the deficits, you will see a much greater upwards pressure on prices once economic activity normalizes (especially in the new home construction industry). There are signs that things are picking up, therefore the need to do something about the deficits is gaining in urgency.

Thus, the price increases we have seen of late have ...

Bread: up 88 cents to 99 cents. Happened a few months ago.
Gas, down, 50 cents to nearly a dollar, in about 6 months.
Beer: up $0.75 to $1.00, per pint, for a certain well known, commonly consumed in the US, but still kind of cheap brand. Time frame? 10-14 years. (That is, out on the town, not when purchased for home consumption.)

Agreed -- as I noted, while KISS is a nice approach to problem resolution on its face, the ceterisses all get mangled by their paribusses. <g>

That said, government deficits *is* a way that the money supply increases out of proportion to demand. Gary is right in that, ceteris paribus, government deficits can be a HUGE cause of inflation with its consequent price increases. However, the economic situtation of the last few years cannot be considered as anything approaching ceteris paribus (all else remaining equal or held constant).

Thus, the price increases we have seen of late have ...

Bread: up 88 cents to 99 cents. Happened a few months ago.
Gas, down, 50 cents to nearly a dollar, in about 6 months.
Beer: up $0.75 to $1.00, per pint, for a certain well known, commonly consumed in the US, but still kind of cheap brand. Time frame? 10-14 years. (That is, out on the town, not when purchased for home consumption.)

Bread: Yeah, I saw that one. Went from about $2.99 to about $3.49 to $3.79 per loaf here for the 'good stuff'. The 'cheap stuff' is still around $0.88 - $0.99 / loaf, though. IIRC, there was a wheat shortage in Russia this past summer because of a heat wave/drought causing a partial failure in their wheat crop... So I am gonna blame this one on normal supply/demand activity.

Gas: If you mean gasoline, this one is a normal price variation due to seasonal shifts in supply/demand. Price per gallon is normally somewhat higher in the summer than in the winter. That said, there does seem to be some level of price increases. The national average price reported today was, i believe, $3.38 / gal. This time last year, it was $3.11 / gallon. How much of this is due to the effects of inflation and how much due to nervousness over the geopolitical situation (*cough*Iran*cough*)? I dunno. Likely a little of both.

These two are why food & energy are omitted from the set of CPI figures that are usually quoted. These two sectors usually have some... volatility to them.

Beer: Out on the town, you say? Well, this gets into the theory of price points in the hospitality industry... Plus the possibility of tax increases thrown into the mix given the >10 year term you quoted on this one. I doubt it could be held to be a representative example given the term.

Well, I had to make thread relevant you know <giggle>.

Earlier in this thread, it was Gary's contention that government deficits were (I believe he wrote this), the sole course of inflation. That of course run's a bit amiss of the past several years where inflation has been very modest indeed, while deficits have been (and we can agree on this) out of control.

I suppose if the Federal Government had eliminated itself adequately to avoid deficits in 2007 - 2012 we might have had enough deflation to get us back to the 70's in terms of the value of the dollar for those who happened to have them.

My point being that inflation has a number of causes, one of the them being government deficits for sure. Deflation also has a number of causes as well (with perhaps one of them being government surpluses). Again, to the extent we seek simple cause and effect, we are apt to be frustrated.

Interesting choice of scenarios, since both involve being 'underwater'... either financially or the ocean. <grin>

Did I say that the inflation happened the very same day the debt went up? No. Allow a few years up to a couple decades for reaction. The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

Just consider the factors of the Government regulation changes that permitted and encouraged the wild speculation in real estate prices driven by crazy loans.

---

Agreed -- as I noted, while KISS is a nice approach to problem resolution on its face, the ceterisses all get mangled by their paribusses. <g>

That said, government deficits *is* a way that the money supply increases out of proportion to demand. Gary is right in that, ceteris paribus, government deficits can be a HUGE cause of inflation with its consequent price increases. However, the economic situtation of the last few years cannot be considered as anything approaching ceteris paribus (all else remaining equal or held constant).

Joke away. I see my grammar error...

Meant to type deficits *are*... but when the 2-year old starts fighting with the almost-4 year old, it gets distracting. Mistakes happen.

Yesterday, I replied to a different post than I had intended to, for much the same reason...

Sorry.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Indeed, well there are some here who would contend that virtually all regulation is Satanic. In this regard, I'd note that you are, dare I say it, a moderate.

Just consider the factors of the Government regulation changes that permitted and encouraged the wild speculation in real estate prices driven by crazy loans.

Major, I wasn't ragging on you for a grammar oopsie for gosh sakes. By the way, the *is* was in your original - not my emphasis there. Rather I was *agreeing* with that 'all things being equal' is a significant conditional phrase which tends to undercut declarative pronouncements.

I don't see that any of the participants in this thread fit in the 2 year old or 4 year old. Most of us here are old farts after all.

As to being jocular, I see it as important, as too often here we seem to drift toward fierce determination in making a stand.

Joke away. I see my grammar error...

Indeed, well there are some here who would contend that virtually all regulation is Satanic. In this regard, I'd note that you are, dare I say it, a moderate.

Just consider the factors of the Government regulation changes that permitted and encouraged the wild speculation in real estate prices driven by crazy loans.

What point Government, if there are no regulations?

I mean, everyone should be able to declare themselves a bank and print their own money! What a wonderful world without government regulations. Most favored customers $1000 Gary dollars for an ounce of gold, least favored customers $1,000,000 Gary dollars for an ounce of gold. Aren't regulations a pile of croc!

---

And move to Montana

I mean, everyone should be able to declare themselves a bank and print their own money! What a wonderful world without government regulations. Most favored customers $1000 Gary dollars for an ounce of gold, least favored customers $1,000,000 Gary dollars for an ounce of gold. Aren't regulations a pile of croc!

---

Major, I wasn't ragging on you for a grammar oopsie for gosh sakes. By the way, the *is* was in your original - not my emphasis there. Rather I was *agreeing* with that 'all things being equal' is a significant conditional phrase which tends to undercut declarative pronouncements.

I don't see that any of the participants in this thread fit in the 2 year old or 4 year old. Most of us here are old farts after all.

As to being jocular, I see it as important, as too often here we seem to drift toward fierce determination in making a stand.

Joke away. I see my grammar error...

Once again, I am misunderstood (?misunderestimated?)... :P

Ceteris paribus, when my 2-year-old son starts fighting with my almost-4-year-old son while I am trying to post it tends to distract the bejeebus out of me, vastly increasing the likelihood of the introduction of errors into my posting...... The other day, I even replied to the wrong (though it was related) post after a 'now, where was I...' moment following a peacekeeping action that ended the war of 'who gets to play with the toy dump truck right now'... Bill Cosby was correct. Insanity is hereditary.. you get it from your kids.


Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

As to your comment on the 'ceteris paribus'/'all else being equal or held constant' phrase...

The more complex the system under discussion, the more vital the use of the phrase is when making declarative statements. And, after all, the US/World economic system is extremely complex indeed with millions/billions of inputs.

The concept is also vital in scientific experiment, where one varies a single parameter (or at most a very few) that is being studied, holding everything else in the system constant (or as constant as possible) during the experimental runs. This enables the experimenter to study the effects of that single (or very small number of) parameter on the system as a whole. If one allowed all the parameters of the system under study to vary willy-nilly during successive experimental runs, one wouldn't learn much of anything.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Major, (no quote back here)

See, it is possible for folks like us to agree -- must be the solar flare.

We (and its the same between the great majority of people) agree on a great many things. However, where people disagree, it tends to be on things that people consider to be of vital importance.

For instance (on topic) the current 'bankruptcy' mess in the US.

Some say that politics is the art of the compromise. In some cases, this is certainly true. For instance, lets assume that there are two new federal buildings that need naming. One side proposes two names. The other side proposes two other names. A valid compromise would be for each side to name one of them.

However, on the issue(s) of Government size, scope, taxes, and spending, the art of the compromise becomes null and void, and we are left with a somewhat intractable clash of ideologies/belief systems.

Those on the side of a Government that is large in size and scope, with high spending levels and taxes (lets call them the Big Government people) believe that this sort of Government is helpful to the welfare of the people (or at least they say so publicly -- there are other issues in play here, namely power and control) by solving people's problems for them.

Those on the side of a Government that is small in size and limited in scope, with the minimum necessary levels of spending and taxes (lets call them the Small Government people) believe that this sort of Government is helpful to the welfare of the people by promoting freedom, liberty, and economic growth, and that the people would be in a better position to solve their own problems under these conditions.

Those on the side of Big Government are usually willing to compromise on a big/small government issue. To them, a compromise does not stop their progress towards their goals, it merely slows them down. Agenda creep.

Those on the side of Small Government are a lot less willing to compromise on a big/small government issue. To them, a compromise is a setback to their agenda.

To repeat, to the Big Government people, a half-step compromise is still a half-step towards their goals. And to the Small Government people, a half-step compromise is a half-step away from their goals.

The Big Government people have, over the years, thrown a LOT of money at various problems. Not only are these problems still there, they are in most (if not all) cases worse. Over the years, ever increasing numbers of people have become dependent to an ever increasing degree on ever increasing numbers of programs costing ever increasing amounts of money. These programs are almost never ended unless they are replaced by something of even larger scope (and greater cost). We still have some agricultural programs around from back in the Great Depression 1930s.

The Small Government philosophy that by and large held sway in this country helped this country grow from a small agrarian newborn nation into a mature industrial giant of a powerhouse by the dawn of the 20th century. Starting in the very early 20th century (if not a bit before), the philosophy of Big Government started taking over, reaching majority during the 1930s Great Depression (and continuing its growth pretty much ever since).

Sure, economic greatness continued for a while afterwards, but soon the decline became apparent. Currently, we are sliding back down the ladder of economic prosperity.

We, as a nation, are at a crossroads. Which path shall we follow? It is a rather common saying that socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money to spend on it.


We need to take the long-term view of things. What shall we do? Continue the overregulate/overtax/overspend policies of the Big Government people until we run out of money and have an economic collapse? Or, should we return to our Small Government roots and get the Government out of the way of the People so that in a generation or two we can return to economic greatness?

Yes, if we ended the Big Government social programs, there would be some pain in the short term as those millions of people that the Big Government people have addicted on GovCrack have to go cold turkey. And yes, a similar situation exists in businesses that have been addicted on the Big Government's GovCrack have to go cold turkey as well. The Government should not be in the business of granting some businesses special favors and effectively picking winners and losers in business. No business is 'too big to fail'. The Government needs to get out of the way and let the People handle our own business, so to speak.

There are some things that 'We the People' should not be allowed to do. The Founding Fathers of our nation did a pretty good job indeed of limiting the powers of the Government so that we would not have a tyranny of the majority. We need to return to those limits. He governs best who governs least.

As far as compromising goes, the 'Small Government' members in congress need to pursue their agenda at all costs. If they can not get their agenda completely, totally passed into law to the total exclusion of the 'Big Government' agenda, then a total and complete Government shutdown is preferable to compromising with the 'Big Government' people. The 2011 Congress was a do-nothing Congress? GOOD!

As far as compromising goes, the 'Small Government' members in congress need to pursue their agenda at all costs. If they can not get their agenda completely, totally passed into law to the total exclusion of the 'Big Government' agenda, then a total and complete Government shutdown is preferable to compromising with the 'Big Government' people. The 2011 Congress was a do-nothing Congress? GOOD!

Yes Major, by all means, shut the government water system, shut the government sewer, shut the government road, lay off the prison guards and let the inmates go, dump the air traffic controllers, layoff the FDA food inspectors, dump the TSA, FBI, ATF, CBP, Secret Service, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines and Air force, the IRS and all the rest. Shut the government because anarchy is the best!

---