Ron Paul: No More Bailouts! Banks Should Be Allowed to Fail

[DA60]

For the record:

'Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market'

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Cardinal Fang]

That's a flawed definition that doesn't apply to the public sector, currently a too small 20-25% of the economy. Capitalism is the worship and single-minded pursuit of capital. That is its purpose. Capital accumulation is the path to economic growth. Ergo, profits over people. And over the environment and anything else you could think of as well.

 

[imagep]

That's a flawed definition that doesn't apply to the public sector, currently a too small 20-25% of the economy. Capitalism is the worship and single-minded pursuit of capital. That is its purpose. Capital accumulation is the path to economic growth. Ergo, profits over people. And over the environment and anything else you could think of as well.

Just out of curiosity, what % of our economy do you think that the public sector should be, and what do you base your estimate on? To the relatively uninformed person like me, 20-25% sounds about right or maybe eve a little on the high side.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Just out of curiosity, what % of our economy do you think that the public sector should be, and what do you base your estimate on? To the relatively uninformed person like me, 20-25% sounds about right or maybe eve a little on the high side.

The descripotor was relative. Too small. And once again, here is how we stack up against other economically successful countries...

In these countries, spending at the national-level is at least 50% of GDP:
France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom.

In these countries, spending at the national-level is 40-50% of GDP:
Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia.

In these countries, spending at the national-level is 30-40% of GDP:
Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates

In these countries, spending at the national-level is 20-30% of GDP:
India, Russia, China, Poland

In this country, spending at the national-level is less than 20% of GDP:
United States of America

These are OECD/UN data from 2007. Everything since then has been scrambled to pieces by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession. That we have been so far out of line with the rest of the well-to-do world suggests very powerfully that we seriously undervalue the public sector resulting in perhaps trillions of dollars worth of MALINVESTMENT in the private sector.

 

[imagep]

The descripotor was relative. Too small. And once again, here is how we stack up against other economically successful countries...

In these countries, spending at the national-level is at least 50% of GDP:
France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom.

In these countries, spending at the national-level is 40-50% of GDP:
Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia.

In these countries, spending at the national-level is 30-40% of GDP:
Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates

In these countries, spending at the national-level is 20-30% of GDP:
India, Russia, China, Poland

In this country, spending at the national-level is less than 20% of GDP:
United States of America

These are OECD/UN data from 2007. Everything since then has been scrambled to pieces by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession. That we have been so far out of line with the rest of the well-to-do world suggests very powerfully that we seriously undervalue the public sector resulting in perhaps trillions of dollars worth of MALINVESTMENT in the private sector.

On the surface, it does appear that our federal gov is too small when compared to other "economically successful countries".

However, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), that in the US we delegate out a lot of public sector responsibilities and expenditures to state and local governments, I dunno if that is a good thing or a bad thing. But I have to wonder if we looked at all expenditures and services provided by all levels of government if we wouldn't find that the US spends as much or more as most of those countries. Wouldn't total government benefits/expenditures at all levels of government be a better metric to look at?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

On the surface, it does appear that our federal gov is too small when compared to other "economically successful countries".

However, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), that in the US we delegate out a lot of public sector responsibilities and expenditures to state and local governments, I dunno if that is a good thing or a bad thing. But I have to wonder if we looked at all expenditures and services provided by all levels of government if we wouldn't find that the US spends as much or more as most of those countries. Wouldn't total government benefits/expenditures at all levels of government be a better metric to look at?

Unfortunately, expenditure data for subnational levels of government are not universally available, hence they cannot be published. If they were included, the US would reach the low to mid 30's in terms of the share of GDP spent through the public sector as a whole, but it isn't clear that such a boost would allow us to surpass anyone. as virtually every country on the list also has cantons, states. provinces, districts, counties, municipalities and the like that also exact fees and taxes and then spend them. We are not at all unique in that matter.

 

[Kushinator]

Unfortunately, expenditure data for subnational levels of government are not universally available, hence they cannot be published. If they were included, the US would reach the low to mid 30's in terms of the share of GDP spent through the public sector as a whole, but it isn't clear that such a boost would allow us to surpass anyone. as virtually every country on the list also has cantons, states. provinces, districts, counties, municipalities and the like that also exact fees and taxes and then spend them. We are not at all unique in that matter.

The OCED database (you will have to select the U.S.) lists aggregate public spending to be $6.25 trillion (41% of GDP in 2011). It is difficult to find adequate data for Scandanavia, Canada, Japan, and Australia. Also, without a significant amount of research time, it would be difficult to ensure cross country comparisons are equally measured across the board.

 

[imagep]

The OCED database (you will have to select the U.S.) lists aggregate public spending to be $6.25 trillion (41% of GDP in 2011). It is difficult to find adequate data for Scandanavia, Canada, Japan, and Australia. Also, without a significant amount of research time, it would be difficult to ensure cross country comparisons are equally measured across the board.

Thats more like what I would expect in total gov spending.

That probably still puts us at less public spending than the top to categories that CF listed, if not the top three. I kinda see his point.

 

[head of joaquin]

I want a large strong robust federal government to counteract the deleterious activities of large corporations. That's what it's there for -- to keep a balance between the public interest and self-interest. And in the modern context, the federal government must be large and robust to do so.

 

[imagep]

I want a large strong robust federal government to counteract the deleterious activities of large corporations. That's what it's there for -- to keep a balance between the public interest and self-interest. And in the modern context, the federal government must be large and robust to do so.

Anything specific in mind?

More gov healthcare?
More means tested welfare?
More education?
More military spending?
More infrastructure?
More bureaucrats, regulations and red tape?
More turtle tunnels or roads to nowhere?

 

[head of joaquin]

Anything specific in mind?

More gov healthcare?
More means tested welfare?
More education?
More military spending?
More infrastructure?
More bureaucrats, regulations and red tape?
More turtle tunnels or roads to nowhere?

Single payer healthcare, yes -- it's the only system that works.

More investment in public infrastructure -- roads, bullet trains, water treatment, scientific institutions. It's infrastructure that makes the difference between us and Afghanistan.

Less military -- almost total debt weight that produces hardly any jobs. Cut the military to the bone; it's an anachronism in a global economy. You can always build a military to face threats that arise, if you have a thriving economy. If you don't have a thriving economy, military power is useless and doomed.

More regulation, especially anti-trust (virtually destroyed by Reagan) -- regulation solves problems and produces benefits to a society. Underregulated economies almost alway have major crises, as we did under Bush.

Vast amounts spent on education. If necessary two teachers in every classroom (which most teachers will tell you would solve most of our education problems). Retraining for any unemployed person for free. A federal college of medicine to train doctors, again for free or at low repayment rates over many years. Similarly, a federal engineering college, same terms.

TANF is a minor problem, only about 5M Americans on it, 4.5M being kids average age 8. It's a nonissue pumped up by the rightwing noise machine. I would probably have special schools built in high poverty areas that would provide the best education for poor kids at no cost.

Convert to natural gas and solar by having the federal government make the conversion and thus produce economies of scale. Subsidies the crossover.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The OCED database (you will have to select the U.S.) lists aggregate public spending to be $6.25 trillion (41% of GDP in 2011). It is difficult to find adequate data for Scandanavia, Canada, Japan, and Australia. Also, without a significant amount of research time, it would be difficult to ensure cross country comparisons are equally measured across the board.

Sufficiently consistent data at the national level are available from the OECD for OECD members and from the UN for those that are not. Detail for spending at subnational levels of government is not available on such a basis. As noted earlier, all data after 2007 are heavily skewed by the effects of and responses to the Great Bush Recession. To one degree or another, GDP slumped while public sector spending expanded, but those effects were not experienced evenly. And the point of the listing is evident at a gross enough level that nitpicking around its edges isn't going to change anything anyway.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Thats more like what I would expect in total gov spending.

The 41% is actually an aberration brought on by the fact that GDP increased by just 7.5% between 2007 and 2011 while general government spending increased by 22.5%. That's the Great Bush Recession talking and muddying up the data. If the question is whether there was a Great Bush Recession or not, the answer is yes, there was.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I want a large strong robust federal government to counteract the deleterious activities of large corporations. That's what it's there for -- to keep a balance between the public interest and self-interest. And in the modern context, the federal government must be large and robust to do so.

People don't seem to have a handle on the fact that if national governments are not able to control transnational corporations, there will be no one left who is able to. We would literally be at their mercy. Exemptions and bypasses of state and municipal law are already commonmplace. Smaller countries and their economies cannot stand up against them. There is really no potential impetus or looming threat toward the dreaded monster of WORLD GOVERNMENT than continued expansion in corporate power, but the vision of a lot of people won't be sufficient to grasp that.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

More turtle tunnels or roads to nowhere?

How about less deceptive and undocumented propaganda being published by Tom Coburn? Those are taxpayer dollars he wastes on paying his staff to make up lies for people to swallow, you know.



The Gravina Island Bridge should have been built as well. The people of Ketchikan had only been begging for it for 20 years. Although more expensive than most, this was exactly the sort of project that earmarks deal with so efficiently. Large benefit for a relatively small region and number of people. Costs beyond the scope of what local or state funders could provide by themselves. This is precisely the sort of thing that people everywhere ask their Senators and Congressperson for help with. And that help should be forthcoming in a great many cases.

 

[head of joaquin]

People don't seem to have a handle on the fact that if national governments are not able to control transnational corporations, there will be no one left who is able to. We would literally be at their mercy. Exemptions and bypasses of state and municipal law are already commonmplace. Smaller countries and their economies cannot stand up against them. There is really no potential impetus or looming threat toward the dreaded monster of WORLD GOVERNMENT than continued expansion in corporate power, but the vision of a lot of people won't be sufficient to grasp that.

Of course that's exactly the conservative agenda -- to deliver workers over to corporate power. And the meme they use is that we are made free if we diminish Big Gummit.

It's 1984 with these guys: war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery to the Koch Brothers.

 

[RGacky3]

For the record:

'Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market'

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm inlcuding the Capitalist mode of production in the way I use Capitalism and the profit motive ... But my point still stand.