My Politics: Team America Style (warning - LOTS of profanity.)

[Essence]

2. The government is a business, one which has different priorities to most, but it is one.

I literally have no idea how you can believe this.  There has never been a government in the history of the world that has been run like a business.  Governments don't sell products or services; they collect taxes.   Governments don't track profits, they write budgets that they are required to spend.  Governments don't ever downsize; they grow endlessly unless the people stop them.

3. But if you don't get anything from donating, a lot less will donate. That means they get less money. So they will have to get support from the media ect another way.  (because the media ect win the elections most years) That means they will recruit people will good media relationships.

Yup.  So what?  I don't see the corruption here.  Once the've been given the money, they can use it to purchase media ties.  No problem.


And Sir Valimont, I couldn't give less of a crap if you're inclined to take me seriously. 

[Sir Valimont]

And Sir Valimont, I couldn't give less of a crap if you're inclined to take me seriously. 

That's your prerogative and I have no quarrel with you on that score. I just thought it might help you to take note that your opinions will not penetrate much beyond video-game fansites without an adjustment to your delivery.

[vrt]

That's your prerogative and I have no quarrel with you on that score. I just thought it might help you to take note that your opinions will not penetrate much beyond video-game fansites without an adjustment to your delivery.

Only if you're oversensitive. In which case, politics probably isn't something you should be talking about.

[Sir Valimont]

That's your prerogative and I have no quarrel with you on that score. I just thought it might help you to take note that your opinions will not penetrate much beyond video-game fansites without an adjustment to your delivery.

Only if you're oversensitive. In which case, politics probably isn't something you should be talking about.

I am not talking about a sensitive vs. a not sensitive audience. I am referring to the simple fact that most intelligent adults will dismiss foul language as immature without giving the underlying message a chance. And that sort of self-sabotage is just unnecessary for someone whose opinions are intelligent and stated with clarity.

[Belthus]

6) Unless there's an economic emergency, the government is REQUIRED to have a budget surplus.  I don't care how important the War on Whatever is to you; if it's not "oh shit, the country is teetering on the brink of economic collapse!", you MUST have a surplus of at least $1,000,000 every year, and that's after you pay at least $500,000,000 toward the debt.  No exceptions.  Fuck irresponsible assholes who want to spend money they don't have.

That is a mercantile philosophy in a world that has fiat currency. You would be creating a permanent "economic emergency" by taking more money out of the economy than government spending puts back in. With a fiat currency, you shouldn't think of the government as the equivalent of a really large household. Unlike a household, government creates and destroys money.

The timing is crucial. During economic downturns, the government should be creating more money than it destroys (i.e., running a deficit). During boom times, it should move more toward a balance.

[Essence]

Belthus, I think you and I are saying the same thing.  When the government has a budget surplus, that translates directly into 'destroying money', because it's not like the Federal government has a 'rainy day fund' like they keep telling the states they should have. 

The idea is to create a little bit of economic stress during times when the private sector can handle it, because it drives the value of the currency up slightly to 'destroy money' when the economy is strong.

most intelligent adults will dismiss foul language as immature without giving the underlying message a chance.

I have to assume that by 'adults', you're referring to senior citizens here.  The adults that I know -- people my age -- watch things like Team America: World Police, The Daily Show, and other political media that range from utterly profanity-ridden to simply "average four bleeps per episode" on a near-daily basis.  Profanity doesn't even start to phase them.

[Sir Valimont]

I have to assume that by 'adults', you're referring to senior citizens here.  The adults that I know -- people my age -- watch things like Team America: World Police, The Daily Show, and other political media that range from utterly profanity-ridden to simply "average four bleeps per episode" on a near-daily basis.  Profanity doesn't even start to phase them.

If your goal is to speak to your peers, then fine. If your goal is to communicate your ideas to people who don't share them, you need a common language. I'm not pretending you're on a soapbox or trying to set your intentions for you -- but if your intentions are to actually inform people who don't already agree with you, the best approach is more or less opposite the one you take. It starts with mutual respect, and a respectful tone is the prime indicator of that.

[Daxx]

I have to assume that by 'adults', you're referring to senior citizens here.  The adults that I know -- people my age -- watch things like Team America: World Police, The Daily Show, and other political media that range from utterly profanity-ridden to simply "average four bleeps per episode" on a near-daily basis.  Profanity doesn't even start to phase them.

If your goal is to speak to your peers, then fine. If your goal is to communicate your ideas to people who don't share them, you need a common language. I'm not pretending you're on a soapbox or trying to set your intentions for you -- but if your intentions are to actually inform people who don't already agree with you, the best approach is more or less opposite the one you take. It starts with mutual respect, and a respectful tone is the prime indicator of that.

QQ MOAR

It's an internet forum. Get over yourself.

[Belthus]

Belthus, I think you and I are saying the same thing.  When the government has a budget surplus, that translates directly into 'destroying money', because it's not like the Federal government has a 'rainy day fund' like they keep telling the states they should have.

State governments and the federal government are different. The federal government issues money. State governments do not.

We are not saying the same thing at all. You said that a federal budget surplus is a good thing. I say that it isn't, except in very rare circumstances. In order for economies to grow, the money supply has to grow to keep up with the pace of economic activity. A budget surplus shrinks the money supply. There are other ways to grow the money supply, but they would have to offset the surplus. Also, those other methods become almost useless in the situation the US is in now, when the interest rate is close to zero.

The idea is to create a little bit of economic stress during times when the private sector can handle it, because it drives the value of the currency up slightly to 'destroy money' when the economy is strong.

If inflation is very high, then steps to shrink the money supply may be appropriate. But that is very far from the current situation or anything we are likely to see soon. Right now inflation is going down, and we may even cross over into deflation.

[Essence]

The idea is to create a little bit of economic stress during times when the private sector can handle it, because it drives the value of the currency up slightly to 'destroy money' when the economy is strong.

If inflation is very high, then steps to shrink the money supply may be appropriate. But that is very far from the current situation or anything we are likely to see soon. Right now inflation is going down, and we may even cross over into deflation.

Trust me, I've done a lot of research into the topic for my work on all247news.com -- and the economists of the USA are very widely divided on the issue.  Right now they're about 55/45 in favor of deflation, but there's still a lot of people warning us that hyperinflation is just around the corner.  Personally, I blame Glenn Beck. 

[Belthus]

Trust me, I've done a lot of research into the topic for my work on all247news.com -- and the economists of the USA are very widely divided on the issue.  Right now they're about 55/45 in favor of deflation, but there's still a lot of people warning us that hyperinflation is just around the corner.

They were saying that a year ago, and it hasn't happened yet. Some of them bet money and lost. So how soon is "just around the corner"? Then we can check back and see whether hyperinflation exists.

P.S. Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/how-the-other-half-thinks/) gives a nice summary of what the inflation predictors said and thought and why they were (and are) wrong.

[DrunkDestroyer]

2 , 4 and 6 are your strongest points in my opinion.

2) Beaurocracy is ridiculous, and in essence contributes nothing to scociety (much like lawyers when I come to think of it). Rules should be simple, and not debatable. "Do not kill" doesn't give you that much leeway. However, "Do not kill, unless you are in mortal danger, are in the upper class of scociety, or have knowledge that said victim has not paid his tax, unless of course it is a public holiday, where all killings are accepted providing the weapon of choice is a firework" is what I see happening now. Of course my statement is exxagerated, and in a certain sense in the wrong direction, but I think the point has been made.

4) My main concern is the separate legal identity. If a single buisinessman, owning his own company paid his/her employees far below minimum wage, could be sued for everything he owns. However if a large scale multinational company does this, nothing happens to the individual shareholders, even when they are aware of this, and still investing in the company (Nike, McDonalds ect being my main examples). And the governments of the country would find it difficult to impose minimum wage laws due to the unemployment it would bring, the capital goods it would remove from the economy, and perhaps bribes from the company itself. I think if the facts are known, the (main) shareholders should also be to blame.

6) I have never understood the concept of spending more than you have. I can understand why a government would spend as much as it earns rather than saving it (Money could be invested in low skill construction/training ect, boosting employment, increasing revenue and decreasing benefits paid from taxes), as it can potentially have greater benefits. But, (This slightly contradicts my last statement) if the government saves this money, when there  a recession, the government can invest in all of this instead, and pay much less for all of it, as demand has fallen greatly, so prices have fallen. It isn't the best possible way of boosting an economy, but it is a mentality which enables the government to
1.Reduce costs on necessary and beneficial projects (and potentially fund more than would have been able to before)
2. Not overspend, and be prepared for the next recession