Say, that was a great point. You really do have some deep insights for the things you see. Reflection for such a simple word. Yeah children need efforts too, not staying in one corner waiting for money to come around. They might as well <a href="http://www.greenhornmarketing.com/">learn internet marketing</a> for an instance.

"The only reason people fight to overturn it, " should say, "The only reason that people fight overturning it..." Man I must have been really tired when I wrote my last comment. More errors than just that, also. "Bosses" should have been "boss's." I have to start proofreading my comments.

Yeah, the tories are usually about as libertarian as the Republicans pretend to be. I've been reading up on your latest election in theeconomist magazine. I don't know how your national insurance works exactly, but ours is most deplorable. The taxes used to raise the money are payroll taxes. Basically, you and your boss both pay 7.5% of your income (your bosses share would have just gone towards your compensation, as it is a per employee cost) which hurts both the job creators and the lower class. Basically, your bosses payroll taxes encourage him to fire employees and use as few as possible. But the benefits are good right? No. Basically, in fifty years I will be able to receive a 900 dollar a month check (adjusted for inflation). I've done the math, and if somebody making even as little as 20,000 grand a year invested that same money into a modest 4% cd, over that same fifty year period, they would receive much more benefit than they do from SS and medicare combined. This program is an abject failure, as the only reason senior citizens even need it, is because the government absconded with 15% of their income their entire lives, leaving them with less in their golden years. The only reason people fight to overturn it, is that they believe that, since they have been putting money into the program for so long, they deserve something out of it. I sympathize with this position, but if we never ended any government program simply because "we have been paying into it for so long," the government would just expand to infinity.

And finally, I think, we pretty much agree, on the general principles at least!

We could easily argue 'til the cows come home over what constitutes "the worst programs that are causing more harm than good", and personally I doubt I could find enough of these to add up to 50% of the total budget (even if I was happy to piss off a few special interest groups on the way).

But on the principle, if not some of the detail, I'm with you twelge!

On a related subject, one of the principle arguements in the opening days of the British election campaign has been a Conservative proposal to (mostly) cancel an increase in National Insurance (a mis-leading name for what I believe is labelled Social Security tax in the US?) that is planned by Labour if they stay in power (which is unlikely). Gordon Brown continually refers to this plan as "taking £6bn out of the economy", and that doing so "threatens the economic recovery". I feel like SCREAMING at David Cameron (Conservative leader) that he should respond that it is the other way around, £6bn left in people's pockets will be spent on goods and services, which will stimulate the economy, taking that money in tax will remove it from the economy. I can't understand why he is not making this point in his defense - particularly as Labour previously arranged a short-term drop in VAT (equivalent to GST) to boost the economy, so before they claimed reducing tax boosted the economy, now they are trying to claim that raising tax will boost the economy.

I don't think that anybody is arguing for anarchy. We could all be getting along with a lot less government, and the government, in my opinion has produced much more screw ups than benefits, but it is a straw man to argue that just because libertarians want less government, they must want anarchy. It is by getting rid of the most unnecessary government that we are able to support the things that society needs the most.

The left seems to suffer from a willful ignorance that doesn't allow them to see that the government is wasting most of the 6 trillion dollars that it is spending. We don't need tax increases or massive spending cuts to necessary programs. We simply need to stop wasting money on the worst programs that are causing more harm than good. Of course, I could probably cut the government's expenditures in half, if I was suddenly dictator for a 4 year period, but it would be politically damaging when you are stuck between right wingers who refuse to cut military spending or SS and medicare for the elderly (as well as a fair amount of corporate welfare) and left wingers who actually believe that government spending creates jobs as if it were manna from heaven, which is a belief that, once it is accepted whole heartedly, creates a blissful delusion that NO government spending is bad (unless it is going towards the war machine and corporations who compete with the corporations that the left wants to give corporate welfare to). Several people in this comment section don't even believe that the government deprives the private sector of anything when it borrows money. Of course it does, it is pulling money out of the system that could be going towards private investments. Of course, the government can just counterfeit more money to keep this BS system going, but it is that just creates more malinvestment in the private sector to match the malinvestment created by government spending itself.

tkwelge - I think we may not be so far apart after all, when it comes down to it.

We both agree (I think) that the government should fund schooling, through taxation. I happen to agree with you that we should have the option for a government-funded voucher to buy education from wherever suits us, a government- or privately-run school (and I'll be voting Conservative in 3 weeks, they have this in their manifesto).

I agree that many government services are run in an inefficient and wasteful way. In some cases, I'd agree that the best solution is to hand the RUNNING over to the private sector, but they should still be FUNDED via taxation. I'm betting you'll disagree with me that Healthcare should be included in this funding, but we probably agree on most of the other big stuff.

I wouldn't argue that defense, and law & order, may not be working as well as they should be. No doubt they need reform in your country as much as in mine. But you don't seem to disagree with the principle that they should be run by the government (either federal or local), and funded by the taxpayer.

You don't seem happy for the government to pay for road-building, or street-cleaning, or public parks? Who the hell do you think is going to pay for these things then? In this country at least, road fuel tax funds road-building and maintenance (in fact it raises much more than is spent), so it doesn't distort the cost of driving. Do you think that litter should just be left to pile up in the streets, deeper and deeper? That our cities should have no parks? If your taxes don't pay for these things, that we all benefit from, nothing else is going to step in and pick up the funding.

I agree, I don't want someone to run my life either. I do want someone to run the services that empty my bins every week, that police the streets I live and work in, and the hospital that is currently treating a good friend for a brain aneurism. That all takes money, however painful it is too see it come out of my pocket.

I think the fundamental problem is that we all want to CHOOSE how to spend our own money. I know I do. We are all happy to pay for a service that we want, and that we can afford. I want to take my family swimming, I pay for the swimming pool entry (which by the way is owned, run, and subsidised by the local council; in this case I believe it shouldn't be, even if that meant it cost me twice as much to use). The problem is, that model just doesn't work for some services - we can't just opt out of being protected by the police, and opt out of paying for it. So, for some stuff, the only option is for the government to force us to hand money over, and spend it on these services. We may have a problem with how effectively and efficiently they go about spending it, but the principle stands.

"So, you truly honestly believe that you personally could run your country's school system better than the guy currently running it?"

Really? I have to prove that I personally could run a school system better than the current government apparatus to argue that we shouldn't continue lighting trillions of dollars on fire? We're spending twice as much money. There were barely slide rules in most classrooms 40 years ago, let alone computers. Now every school in the country is wired top to bottom and test scores are flat. I don't know if I could run a school system, but I do know that a few common sense reforms could at least be attempted, and yes, I believe that, if given a voucher, a parent will do a better job of setting their child up with the best teachers at the best schools than our current system can. Obama canceled a largely successful voucher program in DC grandfathering in the students who were already receiving vouchers. The government was spending less money per student on these kids who were receiving better grades than they did in the public system. True, a voucher system isn't perfect, and it is no guarantee of success at this point, but at least school choice would put parents in charge of their child's education, and it is proven to cost less money. I would also reform the teacher pension system, and LOWER requirements for teachers to create a larger supply of teachers.

"I hope in your case it's the last of these, but 99.5% of the population would not have the skills to run a government department. I know I don't."

That's the beautiful thing about the market. Nobody has to run a government department to make the market for refrigerators run smoothly. Decentralized management (much like open source operations) are usually MORE effective at creating a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The government often works in the opposite direction, creating less value than people could probably create separately. Plenty of things run just fine without anybody having to manage a government department. I haven't even gotten into the freedom and rights aspect of this discussion yet either. I'm talking purely from the point of view of a pragmatist. Yes, free individuals following their own self interest are capable of doing much more than a government program could ever accomplish.

"Defence, law enforcement and justice, education, healthcare, road-building, a minimal level of financial support for those unable to work (not enough for a lavish lifestyle, but enough so they don't starve), street-cleaning, public park maintence, etc. etc."

Defense, i get, but we could surely be spending half as much as what we are spending now and be just as safe. Law enforcement and justice? Yeah, the government does a great job taking our freedom away, but when somebody steals my car stereo in broad daylight, the police just shrug their shoulders. In probably the only SWAT audit in the country, in Pennsylvania, they discovered that Special Weapons And Tactics divisions were being used against non violent offenders in the majority of cases that SWAT was used. Healthcare? The government is already spending a ton on that and creating little benefit, plus the government basically prevents real competition in the medical field that would lead to much lower healthcare costs. Road building just perverts incentives and hides the true costs of driving an automobile. Financial support for the poor? I agree, but the government is spending very little of its money actually helping anybody. Street cleaning and public park maintenance? Why not throw pedicures on top of that?

"Is there any of it that you think you could run better than it's currently run, if only someone was visionary enough to offer you the job?"

That's just it. Many of us don't need somebody to run our lives. I live on the poor end of the scale yet receive little government benefits. However, most of the obstacles in my way are put there by the government. Read some F A Hayek. He discusses in great deal how planning rarely pleases society in the end. Widespread disagreement about economic issues is what causes planning to make a mockery of democracy. What you end up with is actually pluralistic elitism, as no true majority agreement can be reached on such complex issues. Of course, things differ culture to culture as to how much people can agree on planning, but there is no way you are going to create widespread agreement on economic issues in a country of 300 million people and a population as diverse as the USA.

" "But I would be first to admit that I don't know enough about them to be able to run them any better myself. So, yes, a public bureaucrat does probably better how to spend that money than I do."

Thanks for making this decision for the rest of us, we really appreciate it."

Hey tkwelge, glad I've stirred you up, enjoying this debate!!

So, you truly honestly believe that you personally could run your country's school system better than the guy currently running it? Or that you have the skills, knowledge, and experience to plan your country's transport infrastructure? Either they guys currently managing America's public services are in a job they have no idea how to do, or you are seriously deluded about your own management skills, or you are already the manager of a large and complex organisation and don't have the time or inclination to offer your skills to work for the government in the service of your country. I hope in your case it's the last of these, but 99.5% of the population would not have the skills to run a government department. I know I don't.

BTW, by British standards I am on the side of being a Libertarian and right-of-centre. I believe that private businesses could probably run many more publicly-funded enterprises better than they currently do. I think there's plenty our government does that it shouldn't do (e.g. subsidise public transport). But I still think there's plenty of stuff that should be funded, for the nation's benefit, through national taxation, whether or not the actual provision is made by a state- or privately-run organisation:

Defence, law enforcement and justice, education, healthcare, road-building, a minimal level of financial support for those unable to work (not enough for a lavish lifestyle, but enough so they don't starve), street-cleaning, public park maintence, etc. etc.

I know plenty of Americans with disagree on the healthcare side, but really, is there any of the rest of it that you think the government SHOULDN'T pay for? Is there any of it that you think you could run better than it's currently run, if only someone was visionary enough to offer you the job?

Personally, I don't believe that the debt itself is the end of the world. It doesn't mean that isn't bad, it just means that future generations will probably be better off in the future, but it will largely be due to the strength and innovation of the private sector. However, taxation is theft as is borrowing and counterfeiting at the fed level. The government is now spending 20,000 dollars per human being (if you include state, local, and federal spending), and I don't see any families of 4 that look like they are receiving 80,000 dollars a year in services from the government. The only segment of society that I see benefiting at all is government employees and old people. If you don't work for the government, you're not a senior citizen, and you aren't attending public school, you probably aren't receiving more than a pittance from the government, if anything. AND THAT MEANS EVEN POOR PEOPLE ARE BEING SCREWED BY THE SYSTEM.

"According to Sir Nicholas Stern, fighting global warming will cost us only $100 trillion, a very affordable sum because much of it will be paid by future generations, who will be much richer than we are. By 2050 or 2100, Americans will be earning several times what they do now. When even modest incomes are over $100,000, a trillion or so a year will be chump change."

Accept that you have to show that global warming will cause at least a 100 trillion dollars of damage to make it worth it. Most cost benefit analysis shows that global warming policy will cause more economic harm than global warming itself. The only estimates that say the opposite tend to combine the worst case scenario of global warming with overly rosy predictions of what the government can do without creating massive rent seeking opportunities as well as regular government waste that is apparent in almost every government program. 100 trillion is not chump change, especially since a lot of that cost will hit us now, when "green" technologies are at their most expensive. Green tech will probably be much more competitive with other technology in the future, so I would say that the biggest economic costs will be incurred now if we implement most "green" ideas ASAP. Yes, most economic costs will be incurred in the future, but you are ignoring the bad policy effects that will occur immediately if they are enacted. Unless you are arguing that we should wait before enacting any "green" programs, which I agree with.

"But I would be first to admit that I don't know enough about them to be able to run them any better myself. So, yes, a public bureaucrat does probably better how to spend that money than I do."

Thanks for making this decision for the rest of us, we really appreciate it.

"I just don't think most people are charitable enough to reach into their pockets and, voluntarily, donate the hundreds per year that would be required to feed, house, educate, and medically treat those who, for whatever reason, are unable to earn enough to pay for all that themselves."

So apparently mass theft is the superior choice? Wow, apparently two wrongs do make a right. I disagree, and I believe that many needs of children and the poor could be bet without the government. Even in the poorest countries with the least government benefits, people live longer and are healthier than they were a hundred years ago by a fairly wide margin. The market and charity are capable of great things.

As a libertarian, I want the government as small as possible, but as even Hayek believed, many services could be considered a necessary public good, but they have to meet quite strict criteria to even be worthy of mentioning. There are plenty of busy bodies who see inequality itself as a problem, not necessarily the desperation, who are more than willing to expand the government into all sorts of crazy areas.

"It's easy to dismiss these people when you've got a job, and health insurance, and earn enough to send your kids to a private school (and I do have all those things, BTW)."

I've been relatively poor much of my life, and I will tell you, that the government spends very little of the 6 trillion dollars a year that it spends on helping the poorest of poor. That's the problem with socialism, there are a million ways to screw it up and really no known way to make it work correctly.

I grew up poor, and still am poor, and I am still a libertarian. I would love it if the government got out of the way and allowed me to earn my proper share. It makes a lot of promises but most of the time it just sticks it to me. That's your government for you.

"I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Exactly how does government borrowing reduce the amount of money that private citizens have?"

THey are borrowing the money from the private sector, or they are inflating the money supply, which also has negative effects. If you can't understand how pulling money out of the private sector to fund government programs reduces the amount of money that private citizens have, there is no hope for you.

"I think future generations might like to have most of the things we're investing in, such as infrastructure, healthcare, schools, a clean environment, energy sources, and freedom, to name just a few. No one wants to inherit a country full of sickly, uneducated hobos, on the verge of being conquered by Cuba. "

WOrds can't describe how angry this statement makes me, Scott. You are assuming that the government is fantastic at all of these things, don't you. However, I have yet to see a single cost benefit analysis showing that any of these "infrastructure" programs will pay off in more wealth than the taxes destroy. Not one. You are assuming that the government does a good job of educating children and that they could do an even better job with more money. Hmmmm, except that we are spending twice as much per pupil as we were forty years ago, and test scores are flat or down. Hmmmmmmm. Apparently, many experiments with voucher systems show that much of the money currently in the public system is being wasted. Hmmmmmmmm. Latest research shows that the average public sector employee receives 1.45 times the compensation of equivalent private sector employees, so much of this money is actually going to compensate the people who were "wise" enough to get government jobs, not building the future. Hmmmmmmmmmm, interesting. You also suggest that the government does a great job of building a transportation infrastructure, except that all the government is doing is creating tragedies of the commons (public roadway congestion) while making automobile transportation artificially cheaper than alternatives such as living closer to where you work and shop. Hmmmmmmmmmm, interesting. You claim that the government does a good job of keeping our environment clean, except that in many cases pollution/resource exploitation is the result of bad or non existent private property laws, and much pollution comes out of countries with fairly large and intrusive governments. Hmmmmm, interesting.

You're expecting my generation to be alright with you saddling us with a debt that is mostly going to perverse incentives in a way that makes the economy worse, pay off large interest groups, and provide well connected types with a free lunch. Scott, just give up on logic itself already.....


I'm not arguing in favor of anarchy, but just assuming that the government is spending this "infrastructure" money in a way that is actually going to provide more economic benefits than is destroyed taxing or borrowing (or inflating) is wishful thinking at best. It's just more excuse making for theft at worse.

I don't see the government doing anything except cleaning up its own mistakes.

crogers23:

Your statement: "We may not be "borrowing" from our children, but we are in a very real sense passing less wealth on to them because of gov't spending, due to the fact that private citizens have less of their own money to invest."

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Exactly how does government borrowing reduce the amount of money that private citizens have?

Your statement: "But when government spends more than it takes in, it must compensate in the form of preventing citizens from spending (investing) what they normally would have."

How does that make any sense at all? Please explain in detail the why and how of that statement.

In order to have a sane discussion, you have to recognize there are different types of dept. Of concern here are foreign dept, and domestic dept. Money is much like baron number. "Baron number" is the total number of protons and quarks. Ordinary chemical reactions never change baron number, only nuclear reactions. Like wise, ordinary financial transactions do not create or destroy money, they just shift who is holding the money. So in a sense, money can never be wasted, because no matter what you buy with it, someone still has the money to spend it again.

However, the two trends we do need to worry about is increased foreign dept, and increased concentrations of wealth. Domestic dept, would not be concerned about at all, as that is really strictly an accounting number. Even some foreign dept is not too bad. In the end it is not like selling the Statue of Liberty to China, but rather it is like promising to help support their economy. The big problem though is the lost of control. It is very difficult to do sanctions or such against countries who own large portions of the US dept. But it is not our children who will suffer as a result, but it is the children in countries with poor human rights standards, as we won't be able to do anything to help them.

HumilityRocks: You posted this graph showing how US debt compares to other countries, and it appears quite favorably to many other countries in the world: http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

However, the number it quotes for US debt is 8.68 Trillion, whereas the current debt is like 12.8 trillion. This graph looks to be quite old -- like pre-Obama old.

this ain't related to ur post.. but on ur site's interface.. when we share the post through mail, it asks for 2 options.. was impressed.. as u've taken away the unnecessary clutter away and maintained simple 2 entry fields.. however, the name field says 'the name is optional'. however, if u don't enter the same, it doesn't send...

Not to be too selfish, but if I have no kids and do not plan to have any, is it evil to make bad fiscal decisions and force your kids to pay for it?