What does a "small government" look like?

review some basic economics, being common by itself does not make something more valued to investors nor make it a store of future value

- - - Updated - - -

If the Euro/USD went to 4.000 in a relatively short amount of time, say 1 year, that would mean something really bad happened here, and printing that much cash is really bad.

Eurozone is held up by Germany, which is doing fine without QE or massive deficits, that's why investors think the eurozone has a brighter future.

I need to that currency flows are complicated, there is a lot more to the story, but I'm not going to write a thesis.

 

Ya? And what happens when the interest rates go up? How about the 17 trillion principle?

You're more indoctrinated than I thought!

You're more indoctrinated than I thought!

So.... you have no problem with government serving banks and corporations on your dime.....

 

The Fed controls the interest rate. Interest rates will increase when the Fed wants to make borrowing money more expensive. This is usually a response to inflationary pressure. In the last few years, the Fed has been fight deflation.

$17 trillion isn't a "principal" in the traditional sense that you are implying. It is an accounting notation for the running number of outstanding treasury bills. The public debt is a liability that becomes an asset for the private sector. The concept is double entry accounting.

Your arguments on this topic are becoming more pathetic by the second. You don't have a shred of evidence to disprove the FACTS about how our banking system is run. You merely think your opinion is superior.

 

WOW! You even pulled out the groveling FED card!

Bernanke? Is that YOU!?!?

 

Investors are quite pleased with investing in U.S. Debt.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously. I'm sure a 4000% increase in the money supply or devaluation by 4000% would cause / be caused by hyperinflation... -___-

Your argument doesn't become more credible when you introduce hyperbole's.

The Eurozone has been in shambles. Germany hasn't been big a help from a policy perspective, since they have convinced half of Europe that Austerity is the key to success. Austerity has done nothing but invoking double dip recessions across the EU and make their debt problems worse. Europe's economy sucks, which further proves my point. A "strong" currency is not a reliable indicator of economic standing. Currencies are often under and overvalued.

 

Bernanke controlled the short term interest rates, correct.

 

I do not belong to any one party, but I would like to attempt to answer this great question... I believe if we unite behind a movement/party that does not accept donations/is not on the establishment media, and that party will come to power and eliminate completely money in political campaigns, what will happen is, it will pave a way for more self sustaining politicians to enter politics, and if they want to party, let them buy their own pizza, their own beer, and party at their own expense, their own time. when this will be the case, then all the free loaders will no longer be interested in politics to begin with, paving the way for more decent leadership, and reducing the government.

EXAMPLE: I would have loved to be a government official, but I have been discouraged through out my life by criminal industry that is politics. all about donations, all about money, all controlled by people at the top, the international bankers who control federal reserve.

Hope that answered it.

 

- - - Updated - - -

No they aren't, interest rates are puny and the fed is buying in order to keep price up. The ten year yields spiked up once tapering started.

do you ever tire of being so dense? YOU introduced it, this thread, post#72

Germany is not the entire Eurozone, and Germany is holding up the euro right now. If the euro dissolves, the Deutschmark would be a beast like the Swiss franc is now. Investors know that our economy is not very good, GDP growth has been less than deficits for 5 years, it's all a mirage. With that said, yes a currency can move around for several reasons, but the fact that we even need QE dispels your notion that we are some kind of powerhouse.

 

.....and U.S. Debt is still considered a very safe place to park your money.

I didn't say 4,000%, I said 4:1.

What works for Germany doesn't work for every country in the Eurozone.

You seem convinced the U.S. economy is very poor, which is simply not true. It may not be as robust as it was a decade ago but the rest of the world is doing comparatively worse. Your arguments are consistent with the right wing and conservatives around the globe. They continue to endorse Austerity, despite its obvious result of shrinking the economy. Republicans brought that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on us because they KNOW cutting deficits comes at the expense of economic growth.

 

My closet is safe, that doesn't make it desireable

and I said EUR/USD at 4.000, which is not 4000% higher, it's 300% higher than now

Then you should be for quadrupling the deficit. I mean if there is no economic price to pay for cranking out cash to keep GDP afloat, then why stop at this measly amount? The US economy is nowhere near trend growth, and it's pretty unnerving if you ask me. This is by far the weakest and longest recovery post WWII, I am not going to pretend.

 

If quadrupling the deficit funds enough infrastructure and projects to grow the GDP substantially, there is nothing wrong with it. Massive deficits are actually a result of recessions, not the other way around.

It is weak thanks to Republican induced Austerity and constant debt ceiling showdowns.

Fiscal contraction has never increased economic output.

 

The thing about a small government... is that you don't see it.

 

40% GDP total federal/state/local spending, and you call that austerity. You think handing out gov't cash is real growth. There simply is no reasoning with you psychopaths, we need 2 countries.

 

*facepalm*

I'm done with you.

Austerity is cutting the Federal deficit during a recession. It has proven to always fail. Cutting services, unemployment benefits, and firing public sector workers during a recessed economy makes the economy even worse. The only way to naturally cut the deficit is to receive more tax revenues relative to public sector spending.

For the record. Yes. Handing out government cash does cause economic growth. Those government workers you despise.. they spend their earnings in the private sector. That federally funded highway reconstruction project..? It puts private sector employees to work. It really is that simple. Economic stimulus does work when it isn't BLOCKED by Republicans.

 

The idea of a small government is nonsensical. The only purpose of a government is to preserve a given social and economic system.

Some day soon when the capitalists realize they have become too efficient for wealth to circulate through consumers capitalists will begin to support social democratic policies again. We'll probably all get an unconditional income from the government. It is the most rational and efficient way for capitalists to save the capitalist system from its own efficiency, thus government policies will soon reflect this.

 

Exactly. A government needs to be as large as the society and economy need it to be.

 

Not 'needs' to be, it will necessarily be or it will fail. Otherwise the social system will collapse or experience upheaval.

 

What does a "small government" look like?

Looks like, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

 

The question you are asking, when done in person, is the type that results in you receiving a glazed look over their face. Truth be told, the applicable ideology behind their "we want smaller government" doesn't extend beyond the slogan.

First of all, to answer such a question would mean that they understand the difference between the type of government they want smaller. Federal? State? Local? Often imbeciles advocating such positions are unaware that the federal government has remained largely unchanged (civilian personnel) since the mid 1960's--at roughly 2.7 million employees. What has grown substantially in this time, has been the state and local governments, of which there are more than 80,000 in the US. Though the functions of these entities demands growth as population has increased (increased police, fire protection, ect). "Expansion" in the federal government has occurred in the sense that it implements program responsibilities upon an otherwise--same--level of personnel resources. A changing world of course requires a flexible and changing government, there was no SEC in the 1850's, and there was no nuclear commission in 1900, NASA didn't exist in 1930, and so forth. Medical advantages have taken place largely in the last 100 years, as with labor reforms and worker's rights. But I digress!

The second caveat to the question you ask, is pinning down these "SMALL GOVERNMENT" parrots as to--smaller where? The federal government is of course not some monolithic singular entity, but rather an umbrella of smaller agencies and divisions each with their own missions, goals, and responsibilities. So to make the argument that something is "too large", implies that we A) understand exactly what they do and B) have drafted a comparison to something else. Want a good chuckle? As a "small government" government which federal government agencies are too large. More importantly, How are they too large? Are we talking about budgets (of which, discretionary spending is typically less than 5%)? Are responsibilities too broad? Are there too much personnel?

Is the Department of the Navy too big? How about the Department of Agriculture? Department of Interior? The Government Printing Office? Office of National AIDS Policy? National Nuclear Security Agency? Farm Service Agency? Bureau of Economic Analysis? The Power Marketing Administration? Queue crickets.

The reality is that the mindless parrots who want a "smaller government", truly have no idea what they are really arguing, as they don't even understand the intricacies to what what they demand be smaller!

This would be like me, with no experience in physics, nuclear technology, engineering, or anything else related to such fields, attempting to argue that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office are too large and should be shrunk in both personnel and budgets. As I'm not an expert in this field, it would be both foolish and ignorant for me to argue that it should be changed in X or Y manner.

But such is the way of conservativism and libertarianism.

 

It's not working because
Conservative republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to keep the government from working properly

They have offered no solution to any problems
With the exception of cut taxes for the rich
Repeal aca and of course cut benefits for the poor

 

simply put, a small government is one that is controlled by its people, rather than a people who are controlled by their government.

..and when I say people I do not mean a mere rule of majority, but rather as a power of each individual. Self ownership is an important principle for this..... having a state that arrests people for putting things in their own body, and has the biggest prison populous in the world both per capita and overall is an example of a big government policy

state policies should be for the benefit of its citizens, any policy that does not benefit the nation's citizens should be abolished or changed... for example, spending more money on our military than the next 20 countries combined, and declaring multiple wars at the same time that do not actually make us safer at home.

All policies should be examined for their unintended negative consequences vs their intended positive consequences

there are 4 main areas of government responsibility, these are:

1.Military and Police. To protect us from our enemies both internal and external

2. Administration of Justice. Government should provide the administration of justice, to establish courts that we can go to for reconciliation of conflicts/disagreements and validation of contracts, ect

3. Provision of goods/Negative externalities. Provision of goods includes the things that cannot be denied to citizens that the private sector is not as good at providing than the state (public sector goods, like our roads, schools, fire departments, ect)

Negative externalities, include interaction that may have negative consequences for third parties, for example, a company that provides a certain good may cause pollution that affect the people occupying the surrounding area, and thus there is a necessity for the state to control these negative externalities (pollution control). Poverty is another example of a negative externality, and thus is it is necessary for the government to provide some form of social safety net to protect people from falling into severe poverty

4. Protection of children and mentality handicapped. The protection of those we assume are not responsible to take care of themselves, primary example being children and the mentally challenged, normally we can rely on parents/guardians to take care of these people, but there is a necessity for the state to keep a watchful eye on these circumstances, for not all adults treat children properly, and there are some people who are mentally incapable of making decisions on their behalf, the government must make sure that their interests are protected


these are the 4 major roles of government according to libertarian thinker, and nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman

 

so now we are in a recession? right after you said 'You seem convinced the U.S. economy is very poor, which is simply not true. ' on the previous page. People like you, who can't logically connect your own thoughts and keep making spurious economic claims as demonstrated on this thread, seem to have no problem proceeding on as if you were right all along. Liberal- ignoring all the inconvenient truths so the religion can survive.

for the record, that's dumb, it's been tried over and over again, and if true, economics long ago would have become very simple, just hand out gov't cash and that would be the only policy ever needed

 

Since my position is that a PROPER government functions as a 'policeman' protecting rights, the only functions it should perform is:
The Police - to protect you from criminals
The Military - to protect you from foreign invaders
The Law Courts - to settle all legal disputes, particularly contractual disputes

I don't judge a government by it's size (although a government so limited would be quite a bit smaller than today's existing dinosaur) but by the actual powers it exercises. If our rights and liberties are maximized, all the better.

 

JooDee believes we need to examine what the government actually does. A government is basically a group of people with the authority to govern the entire country. The public has needs and the government tries to help the public achieve them. However, the government cannot help the public on all issues. This is where the size of the government needs to be considered. The more the government gets involved in public life the bigger it has to be. The less the government gets involved in public life the smaller it will be.

In the UK the government has a big role in public life. The government through public money arranges the public to be educated, to provide a safety net for vulnerable people, to ensure the public is healthy (NHS) and so on.

It is all about the needs of the public. If the government does not address public needs then some other entity will such as voluntary organisations and the private sector. So the size of the government will depend on entirely how much it gets involved in public life.

Peace,
JooDee,
Grand Secretary of Bar Sing Say.

 

there have been many specific proposals through the years from various sources on what and how to trim. What an absolutely inane post.

- - - Updated - - -

ah, the needs of the people, the battle cry of dictators everywhere