Quote :

"How do you think it got the name the “WILD west?”"

How did it get the name Wild West? Was it specifically over property or was that a small piece of the equation? How long after the "Wild West" was the "Wild West" did the government actually come in to enforce the rights?

Quote :

"there's a reason that era is specifically remembered today for widespread banditry"

Let's be clear here, we're talking homesteads here, land and homes.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 12:48:02 PM

Quote :

"Let's be clear here, we're talking homesteads here, land and homes."

I don't quite follow the backpedal. Is it now "the concept of property rights was hammered out and maintained in the Wild West without a government or military force to enforce them, but only for land and homes"?

12/19/2010 1:29:43 PM

It was and has been clear from the start we've been talking about land and homes. Well, clear to those of us who aren't really interested in arguing about the argument.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 1:41:47 PM

Quote :

"So what? He got the exacthistorical chronology wrong based on a book he read years ago."

He was off by about 700 years.

Quote :

"It turns out, his recalling of what he read isn't terribly off as Smith indeed does state that firearms are a great equalizer and effectively stopped the cycle of growth and barbarian invasion. If you have a problem with this telling of history, please take it up with Adam Smith."

Are you daft? Smith never made such a claim. Don't confuse lonesnark for Adam Smith

Quote :

"And yet the concept of property rights was hammered out and maintained in the Wild West without a government or military force to enforce them."

What in the holy fuck are you talking about? Go read a book for chrissakes. US Marshalls were created to protect the people's rights from bandits. The US military was out subjugating the Indian tribes to prevent them from attacking pioneers and homesteaders and ensuring water and grazing rights.

Quote :

"Then stop acting like it is."

Never once have I acted as such.

Pull your head out of your ass buddy.

Quote :

"Let's be clear here, we're talking homesteads here, land and homes."

The most important rights in the Old West were water rights and grazing rights, incidentally, they are the most important rights today. All of which were enforced by the government. Ranchers relied upon posses (eventually US Marshalls) to track down cattle rustlers, etc. and so forth

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 1:46:34 PM

Quote :

"It was and has been clear from the start we've been talking about land."

Where? We've been talking about property. Land is only one of the many types of property.

And I fail to see how what was literally a "land grab" of land stolen from the indigenous peoples is a shining example of the observance of property rights.

12/19/2010 1:52:27 PM

Kris, you're the one that used the term "banditry". You're the one that backpedaled if anyone has.

12/19/2010 1:57:52 PM

do portable possessions not count as property?

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 2:02:07 PM

Apparently if stuff is in a train or bank it is no longer property.

12/19/2010 2:16:28 PM

Quote :

"Are you daft? Smith never made such a claim. Don't confuse lonesnark for Adam Smith"

The fuck? Go read book 5. And he talks at length throughout WoN about the commercialized/civilized state over barbarous states.

What Lonesnark posted

Quote :

"When all we have are sharp objects, the winner is going to be the one with the most practice. A dozen vikings could repeatedly overcome whole villages. But when it is firearms, the victor is far less certain: "

Is virtually straight from book V.

Furthermore, Lonesnark also stated this

Quote :

"There was a reason the concept of "Barbarians""

No real explanation needed. You're the guy that history nerd raged and fucked up the understanding of what you read.

Quote :

"do portable possessions not count as property?"

Well yes, but in this context "barbarians" still exist as property is taken by force every day and in many instances even the state is powerless to protect the "owner". The discussion as we are having it has naturally tended to the homestead where it's easier to discuss property rights, the state, and who can defend those rights rather than to talk about trinkets and other lesser property.

12/19/2010 4:00:43 PM

Quote :

"trinkets and other lesser property"

These "trinkets and lesser property" could be bags full of money or pallets of gold bars.

12/19/2010 4:19:47 PM

Quote :

"The fuck? Go read book 5. And he talks at length throughout WoN about the commercialized/civilized state over barbarous states. "

Smith isn't referring to the invention of the firearm in the sense that lonesnark is attempting to make use of it. Smith was referring to wealthy states, with the help of firearms, no longer needed to worry about being taken over by poorer states.

Quote :

"No real explanation needed. You're the guy that history nerd raged and fucked up the understanding of what you read."

No, I read it quite well. Lonesnark wasn't referring to our pastoral shepherd barbarians. He was talking about ravaging hordes, hence his viking reference, hordes that hadn't plagued Europe for many centuries prior to the invention of the firearm.

Quote :

"Well yes, but in this context "barbarians" still exist as property is taken by force every day and in many instances even the state is powerless to protect the "owner". The discussion as we are having it has naturally tended to the homestead where it's easier to discuss property rights, the state, and who can defend those rights rather than to talk about trinkets and other lesser property."

Who is stealing anyone's land by force? Jesus Christ, talk about back peddling.

Quote :

"These "trinkets and lesser property" could be bags full of money or pallets of gold bars."

or livestock

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2010 4:23:44 PM

How did this thread move from a debate about how America is losing it's middle class in favor of the rich, to a theoretical discussion of Adam Smith (as if it's relevant)? Some people think that the "invisible hand of the market" is the same hand that's painted on the Sistine Chapel, about to touch the hand of man. The market is not God, and what is good for business is not always what's best for everyone.

The current problem is that "enlightened self interest" has moved the invisible hand of the market offshore, and we soon may be dealing with John Locke's theories of "consent of the governed" ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101228/ap_on_re_us/us_overseas_hiring

12/29/2010 3:16:43 PM

interesting tidbit from that last article

Quote :

"A key factor behind this runaway international growth is the rise of the middle class in these emerging countries. By 2015, for the first time, the number of consumers in Asia's middle class will equal those in Europe and North America combined"

12/29/2010 4:19:43 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrEHFwZ9hk&feature=player_embedded

Interview with Michael Hudson. Excertps:

Quote :

" JAY: So we've been having conversations. And let's pick up on the issue of taxes. Now, during the Eisenhower years, the marginal tax rate at the highest level was 90 percent. Give us a little bit of the history, because that seems an astounding number compared to the debate that's going on today. How did we get to that 90 percent? And then what happened? HUDSON: But you got to that 90 percent right with the first income tax law that was passed in 1913. Under the original income tax law, only 1 percent of Americans had to file income tax returns, and you had to make the equivalent of about $120,000 in today's dollars even to be liable to file. The idea of the income tax was to get what the classical economists called unearned income. Most people who made over $100,000 at that time got it from rent or interest, or the financial sector or the real estate sector. JAY: What was the politics of the time that allowed such a thing to be passed? HUDSON: It was called the progressive era. And you had--at that time the Republicans were still relatively progressive. You had the business schools believing in the economy of high wages doctrine and--that underlay American progress after the Civil War. The idea was that American labor could undersell foreign labor by being highly paid, because highly paid labor was well-clothed, well-educated, healthier labor. So the idea was to raise wages and the economy hand-in-hand, and it would be a feedback where there would be positive growth. And the essence of free market economics at that time, which is what the Republicans believed, and many Democrats, was that a market was free of interest and rent charges. The idea of free market from Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Henry George, and the American progressives was how do you free market from income and prices that are not necessary. And what is unnecessary in prices? Well, you need to pay wages, you need to pay the cost of living, but you don't need to pay rent and interest. And the idea was that the government was initially to collect all of the higher rental income of land, that that was basically--land rent was created by public prosperity, it belonged to the public. "

Quote :

" HUDSON: Only 1 percent of the American population even had to pay a tax return. And that 1 percent that had to file tax returns paid up to a 90 percent marginal rate. Wikipedia gives a whole history of the American tax rate. This became normal during World War II. You had high tax rates in the--up to 90 percent not only here but in England, in Europe. You had, all over the world, very high marginal tax rates, because the theory was that over a given amount of income, you just didn't need any more income, and that if you made more than, let's say, 30 or 40 times what a normal worker made, it was probably unnecessary income, and it was income that was created by public spending and by public subsidy and public infrastructure. There was a whole different view of how the economy worked than what you have today. JAY: But massive fortunes were accumulated during this period. HUDSON: Yes, they were, even at 90 percent. You're quite right. Massive fortunes were accumulated. And they were accumulated because even with paying high tax rates, you had the greatest prosperity of all. You could say that GDP, national income, and prosperity and wealth grows fastest when income tax rates are highest, and wealth slows in--the economy slows when taxes are cut. That's counterintuitive, but if you look at any chart comparing tax rates and economic growth rates, that's what you find. The 19th century knew it. The 18th century knew it. But today you have a kind of counterrevolution of junk economics that is basically anti-labor economics. "

1/5/2011 1:45:48 PM

Quote :

"The idea of the income tax was to get what the classical economists called unearned income."

What income is ever earned under this definition? All income is a form of rent. Wages are the rent paid for your labor services.

Quote :

"Yes, they were, even at 90 percent. You're quite right. Massive fortunes were accumulated."

Because some Americans just don't pay the going tax rates. Just ask Warren Buffett. At 90% tax rates, although being one of the richest men in America, he would still be paying less than his secretary. High tax rates only punish Warren Buffett's poorer competitors, securing his financial position from upstarts which, unlike him, cannot avoid a 90% tax rate and therefore don't become the cash cows they are at 35% tax rates. It is no surprise to me that as upper tax rates fell, the proportion of federal taxes paid by the rich has increased dramatically, allowing lower bracket tax rates to fall.

1/5/2011 4:04:27 PM

Quote :

"What income is ever earned under this definition? All income is a form of rent. Wages are the rent paid for your labor services."

I think the difference is drawn at labor capital versus capital.

1/5/2011 11:39:00 PM

Quote :

"Because some Americans just don't pay the going tax rates. Just ask Warren Buffett. At 90% tax rates, although being one of the richest men in America, he would still be paying less than his secretary. High tax rates only punish Warren Buffett's poorer competitors, securing his financial position from upstarts which, unlike him, cannot avoid a 90% tax rate and therefore don't become the cash cows they are at 35% tax rates. It is no surprise to me that as upper tax rates fell, the proportion of federal taxes paid by the rich has increased dramatically, allowing lower bracket tax rates to fall"

so, do you punish the rich by raising taxes, or by lowering them? or maybe both...that must really suck--being rich

1/6/2011 12:01:22 AM

Quote :

"What income is ever earned under this definition? All income is a form of rent. Wages are the rent paid for your labor services. "

Wages are compensation, an exchange of your labor for money. At the end of the day, you have gained your wages and lost 8 hours of your labor.

Rent is a borrowing fee, there is no exchange involved, at the end of the day the landlord gains your rent and loses nothing except the cost of mowing the lawn and repairing a gutter.


Or in simpler terms:
Wage is what you're paid for something you give (labor), Rent is what you're paid for something you loan (property)

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2011 1:43:53 PM

Figured this was somewhat related to the local economy:

http://www.technicianonline.com/news/red-hat-to-stay-on-centennial-campus-1.2430062

Quote :

"Red Hat to stay on Centennial Campus Donning a red fedora for the occasion, Gov. Bev Perdue announced Monday homegrown "upstart" company Red Hat will build its corporate headquarters somewhere in Wake County - and maintain its presence on Centennial Campus. ... On the strength of a multimillion-dollar incentive package, the company will keep its headquarters in Wake County rather than moving ... an $18 million incentive package to be paid out by the state."

1/12/2011 4:56:16 AM

3/24/2011 11:34:06 AM

Sadly...we need to do both columns.

3/24/2011 5:18:40 PM

^Why? Tax breaks to the rich don't boost the economy. If it had, we would've been at full employment under Bush.

3/24/2011 5:40:01 PM

We were at full employment.

Err...and I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying we need to let many tax credits/breaks expire and cut programs.

Ideally we change the tax code so that it is equitable to all so that rich people can't dodge the system or buy loopholes. But so long as we're racking up 10% of GDP debts every year, it isn't going to matter eventually.

[Edited on March 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/24/2011 5:46:37 PM

When the top marginal tax rate went up to 39% under Clinton, we were running budget surpluses.

3/24/2011 6:00:06 PM

Yes, and government was literally half the size.

3/24/2011 6:28:19 PM

^no it wasn't

3/24/2011 7:21:28 PM

its really dumb to use as a % of GDP as your argument.

If the government borrows 15 trillion and spends it all into the economy, GDP will roughly double (assuming we can spend it all), % of GDP will remain exactly the same.

3/24/2011 7:52:39 PM

I think you're forgetting the context. If the number of government employees doubled, or "the size of the government", percentage of GDP would have to rise.

[Edited on March 24, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2011 11:00:23 PM

^^^ Your graph disagrees with everyone else. I suspect the maker of your graph tried to include all local and state spending as well. But, taking your graph, government ballooned from 33% to 41% since Clinton left office. I feel we had more than enough government at that time.

Also, %GDP is the wrong measure. The correct measure is absolute inflation adjusted size, which does show a near doubling of federal spending and a 70% growth of state spending.

3/24/2011 11:53:12 PM

Both axises are defined, and the graph is fairly common. But I sincerely doubt that the writer of "usgovernmentspending.com", a conservative Hayek dick-sucking, depression apologist, had any political interest in masking a government spending increase, but it's nice to see that doesn't keep you from attempting to write off any evidence I post.

Quote :

"%GDP is the wrong measure. The correct measure is absolute inflation adjusted size, which does show a near doubling of federal spending and a 70% growth of state spending"

Link or graph plz?

3/25/2011 12:05:42 AM

What is there to write off? Let me say again, "taking your graph, government ballooned from 33% to 41% since Clinton left office." So, thank you for demonstrating to everyone here the outrageous growth of government and, in my opinion, the economic ruin it has caused and will continue to cause in the future.

Quote :

"Link or graph plz?"

Let me google that for you...Ok, when Clinton left office federal spending was just under $2 Trillion and now federal spending is just under $4 Trillion. Although I suspect this graph might not be inflation adjusted...be warned.


[Edited on March 25, 2011 at 12:23 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/25/2011 12:13:24 AM

Quote :

"but it's nice to see that doesn't keep you from attempting to write off any evidence I post."

and in the very next reply, he posts a graph from the Cato Institute. Classic

Not trying to dispute the accuracy of the graph, just pointing out the funny.

3/25/2011 9:12:33 AM

What can be said. They are very prolific when it comes to producing graphs. Google image search just fills with them.

3/25/2011 11:39:48 AM

Quote :

"If the number of government employees doubled, or "the size of the government", percentage of GDP would have to rise."

You're making an assumption with this: that "size of government" means number of employees. It doesn't. I'm referring to total spending, and as LoneSnark's chart demonstrates, spending has doubled, or close to it.

One important note is that everyone here is completely willing to admit that a lot of the spending increases happened under Bush's watch. In fact, I don't know that anyone currently in the discussion holds anything close to what would be called a "positive" view of the Bush admin. Clearly, both parties have been our undoing in the past decade. The rhetoric is different, but the policies are the same.

[Edited on March 25, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2011 12:15:36 PM

Relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&hp

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

3/25/2011 1:17:19 PM

Quote :

"I think you're forgetting the context. If the number of government employees doubled, or "the size of the government", percentage of GDP would have to rise."

If the context was government employees, why did you post a chart of government spending instead of "government employees" or "government spending on government employees"?

3/25/2011 1:36:03 PM

Quote :

"When the top marginal tax rate went up to 39% under Clinton, we were running budget surpluses."

that he had nothing to do with.

^^ do any of the "strategies" involve being buddy-buddy with the current admin and doing everything in their power with their media arm to help him get elected and then giving him positive press?

3/25/2011 8:14:16 PM

*cough*Halliburton*cough*

3/25/2011 8:22:28 PM

Quote :

"Ok, when Clinton left office federal spending was just under $2 Trillion and now federal spending is just under $4 Trillion. Although I suspect this graph might not be inflation adjusted"

You could make a similar chart for China and see massive growths in government spending, yet their relative government spending could be dropping, thus why I put it in terms of GDP.

Quote :

"You're making an assumption with this: that "size of government" means number of employees."

I didn't with the original chart I posted, I related size of government as the percentage of money used on the government to the market value of all final goods and services produced within the US. I felt like that would be a fairly good metric for the "size of government".

Quote :

"If the context was government employees"

It wasn't, it was "size of government", I felt government spending as a percentage of GDP was the best metric of that.

3/26/2011 1:23:34 AM

And in terms of your graph, "government ballooned from 33% to 41% since Clinton left office." A dramatic growth in government which has been quite destructive to the economy at large. While it is clearly not the only influence, as government has grown in the 21st century, so has inequality.

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 1:57 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/26/2011 1:57:17 AM

Quote :

"And in terms of your graph, "government ballooned from 33% to 41% since Clinton left office.""

That ignores the normal fluctuations the graph shows, +/- 5% seems fairly normal. Additionally, as I was using it to point out, the size of the government hasn't "doubled", not that it hasn't grown at all.

Quote :

"A dramatic growth in government which has been quite destructive to the economy at large"

There have been other much larger spikes, they haven't been that bad.

Quote :

"While it is clearly not the only influence, as government has grown in the 21st century, so has inequality."

That's a fairly small window of only 10 years, we had a smaller government in 1901, do you think we had more equality then?

3/26/2011 9:17:22 AM

A lot has changed since 1901. Most Americans then were farmers, today we live in cities. Not much has changed since 2000, with the exception of our government doing significantly more in the world and at home.

3/26/2011 3:31:22 PM

You could say the same if you compared 1901 to 1911.

3/26/2011 4:54:31 PM

I don't think so...did the government really do much more in 1911 than it did in 1901? According to this graph, government was even smaller in 1911 than it was in 1901.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sic_Ub0PqSE/TW4ILP9GkdI/AAAAAAAAKtI/pzUKtXw2UWY/s1600/usa%2Binc%2B-%2Bfederal%2Bspending%2Bpercent%2Bof%2BGDP.png

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/26/2011 5:08:44 PM

You could most certainly say that not much has changed from 1901 to 1911 as far as people being farmers and not living in cities and such, but if you really want, I can pick a different 10 year window. The point is that you are looking at a small time frame and claiming that government size is related to inequality, yet doing nothing to actually explain why this might be occurring.

[Edited on March 26, 2011 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2011 5:43:59 PM

It should be occurring because as government grows it will restrain competition to a greater degree, it will also mean more and more of the economy is filtered through the government, which tends to set up monopolies where-ever it goes (often no bid contracts, always single winner). Government also tends to operate in a dollar auction fashion based upon grant request writing. While it is conceivable for all car makers to serve customers equally well, it is not believable for all car makers to have equal pull in Congress.

Based upon looking at how government operates versus how non-government operates, I would be shocked if inequality was not correlated with government size.

3/27/2011 10:34:44 AM

Quote :

"Based upon looking at how government operates versus how non-government operates, I would be shocked if inequality was not correlated with government size. "

Haha

What an odd statement…

You should work for the Heritage Foundation, they are great at throwing correlations together while ignoring causation to force their point.

3/27/2011 11:01:24 AM

Quote :

"Based upon looking at how government operates versus how non-government operates, I would be shocked if inequality was not correlated with government size."

It's not to conclusion, it's the premise. You believe that inefficiency and corruption stem alone from government. This isn't true. Capitalism by nature destroys the competition it depends upon. Companies who wish to succeed need to participate in anti-competitive behavior, and they commonly use the government to do so, but the idea that they wouldn't be able to participate in that behavior without it is naive, they'll find a way.

3/27/2011 6:03:05 PM

Quote :

"You believe that inefficiency and corruption stem alone from government."

Not really. Inefficiency will be present anytime when all market actors don't have perfect knowledge, which is pretty much all the time. The problem is that there's no competitive forces to encourage "good government" within government. The government is a monopoly, in many ways.

3/27/2011 8:54:56 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that there's no competitive forces to encourage "good government" within government."

There is a force at work to give people what they want, even in a dictatorship, we are seeing it in the middle east right now, we will see it here in just a few short months.

Quote :

"The government is a monopoly, in many ways."

Except the way that defines a monopoly, the pricing system.

3/27/2011 9:01:15 PM