Wednesday, January 25, 2012

A Pig Farm in Beverly Hills and Downtown Tokyo Where Pigs Crap Diamonds - Government Laws Preventing it too!

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus


There are far too many people living in a fantasy world. There are far too many people who have been brought up under our socialist and nanny state environment for too long, or their entire lives, that they know no different. It reminds me of stories I heard about communist Poland or the Soviet Union in the 1960s: I was told that many people were happy and satisfied with a quarter cube of butter for an entire family once a month because they didn't know any better.


People in our society today think it is normal for people to expect handouts "from the government" or a "free education" or "free medical and health care" or "retirement income."


It's shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone, but, unfortunately it might; folks, few things in life are free anymore. And I don't mean that rhetorically. Not even the air we breathe is free. We get taxed even for that. But they don't call it that. They call it the Clean Air Act


Whatever the government can tax, it will. It's no joke to think that governments have considered how to tax even the act of sex


Of course, they wouldn't call it that. They'd call it something like "Protect the Babies Act" or something like that. When it comes to taxes and government boondoogles everything the government does is named the opposite of what it is actually designed to do. Rick Santelli had a funny rant the other day. He was talking about this very same subject. How about SOPA, the Anti-Piracy Bill? Who could possibly be against fighting piracy? Is there anybody out there who is for piracy? But the law was actually a law designed to curtail our rights of free speech. Or how about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? Who couldn't be for protecting the environment? Or the Consumer Protection Agency? Can anybody be against protecting American consumers?


Or how about when Reagan was president and the USA launched a new series of super high speed nuclear tipped missiles that could hit the Soviet Union within 5 minutes and called them, "Peace Keeper Missiles?" 


It's always a diversionary tactic and things are named for the opposite of what they are actually designed for because people are too stupid to put down the TV remote control and read a book to find out what's really going on.


Hey! Am I talking about books again? Yep. Do people read books anymore? No. So that brings me to my next question: What's the difference between a college graduate in the west who doesn't read books and, say, some native villager up in the mountains who is totally illiterate has never even seen a book their entire life? Nothing. Neither of them read books.


Back to that part a while back talking about the government care and "free" medical and education, etc. etc. Listen, like I said, nothing is free. Another big surprise that people in this day and age might find out is that, psst, don't tell anyone but the government doesn't have any of their own money! Yep. That's right. Every single penny the government has is from taxes taken from people like you and me. The government does not own any industry and has no way to create income so they get monies from taxing the working class (that's you and me). So whenever you say that people should, say, get free healthcare, what you are actually saying is that you think you should be taxed to pay for someone else's medical care.




Well, far be it from me to tell you how to spend your money. But, I, for one, have my hands full paying for myself and my family as it is without to paying for someone else's AND have a government office middleman taking a cut off the top for running and "organizing" (I use that term quite loosely) such services. 


It's very simple: the government functions by taking taxes from the working class. In most cases (like, for example, our trash collection services) the government doesn't even run that. It is an job assigned out to a private company, usually on a no-bid contract. Each municipality does it different, but you can bet your bottom dollar that, as no-bid contracts are wont to do, there are favors being handed out.


To think that the government hires and organizes our trash collection services and those guys picking up our trash cans are government employees is another fantasy world which many people seem to believe in... It is much "cheaper" for the government to hire a outside company with outside workers to do it (insurance, employee compensation problems, etc.) and then take a margin off the top for arranging the services. 


I mean, really, sitting at a desk and organizing is what government employees do best. Of course, everyone has seen that and knows it, right? Or has anyone seen that Clark Kent super government employee office worker jetting around town recently?


Yes. In the 1930s, even American students saluted the flag this way


In our modern society people have been so brainwashed by big government and so-called big society that, as I said, they gotten used to this nonsense and think it is normal.


Well, it wasn't normal not that long ago. In the USA, it started in the 1930's with FDR and got greatly expanded and completely out of hand with Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's in America's so-called "Great Society." Nowadays, through years of government run public education, people have come to believe that the state is our benevolent leader and is here to protect us from cradle to grave. 


I won't go into too many examples of how the government protects it's own populace excepting to mention that, in the 20th century alone government's of the world instituted wars that killed over 160 million people


As an aside please don't counter the above paragraph with "diseases killed more people than government!" Yes. That's true. Diseases did kill more. But consider the fact that the doctor who discovered the prevention for a disease like Smallpox, Dr. Edward Jenner, did so in the very late 1700's and he did not work for a government agency. Or French chemist Louis Pasteur who found the Germ Theory of disease and prevention for infectious diseases did not work for the government. In fact, I think you'll find that government employed scientists are usually involved in exploring science for military purposes; not disease and sickness prevention or cure.


But I digress.


Today. Over 1/2 of all American households receive some kind of government assistance. Over 45.8 million Americans are on food stamps. Over 25% of all American children are under the poverty level (Japan has a total poverty level of 15.7%). Both the USA and Japanese government to GDP debt levels are unsustainable and the governments of both countries just keep spending and spending...


Your tax dollars at work

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the government has no money of their own and that the money that they are spending is your money? That money  comes from your pocket? I did mention that? Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to make sure you understood that.


A while back, I had a discussion with a guy who was the typical brainwashed American. He thought that we needed more laws, more taxes and he thought that the government was benevolent and good.  


I told him to consider the notion that "Laws are the anti-thesis to freedom." He scrunched up his face and looked confused.


We were at his house in Den en Chofu overlooking the garden area. Den en Chofu is the ritzy part of Tokyo. Imagine Beverly Hills in Japan and you get the idea. As we looked out from the balcony, he insisted that we needed the government and more laws on the books. This really surprised me as I didn't expect that people who were living upper middle class would want more government control over their lives but I would find out that, to my surprise, he wasn't an independent businessman, he was a government employee and in a sort of public union!


He insisted that we needed the government to make laws like no smoking in restaurants and seat belt laws. I said we didn't. 


In the case of smoking laws, people need to understand the difference between a public building and a private building. A government owned building is a public building, the government can make laws about smoking and rights concerning what goes on inside that building. A privately owned building, like your house, is none of their business. If you want to smoke in your house, or allow others to do so - or not do so - that's your business. If people don't like it that you do or do not allow smoking in your building they can go somewhere else.


Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to enact laws pertaining to smoking in privately owned buildings or even that you have to buckle your seat belt (It doesn't say that in the Japanese Constitution either). In America, the individual states might. But the federal government does not. And those go for drug laws and smoking laws and laws concerning prohibition too!


Say your mom and dad work hard all their life and save enough money to quit their jobs and they use their saving to buy a building and open a restaurant. It is their building. They own it. The government has no right to tell them who they can and cannot serve to. If your dad wants to allow his customers to smoke in his restaurant, that is your father's right. The government should make no laws pertaining to that.   


But my friend would have no part of it. He insisted that we needed laws like smoking laws or helmet laws. Like I said, people are indoctrinated by public schooling and taught to not be able to think.


Folks we don't need laws like ones that prohibit smoking in privately owned buildings, or must wear a helmet or ones that say you can't build a pig farm in the middle of Beverly Hills. You know why? Well, I explained about public versus private buildings. Helmets? I think only stupid (or really cool and a tad bit crazy) people would ride a motorcycle without one. (I think I also mentioned something about trying to outlaw stupid.") And pig farms? Well, making a business like a pig farm is a huge investment. I don't think people do it to lose money. Pig farmers are not so stupid. People don't usually start businesses - any businesses - to lose money. 


The government cannot outlaw stupid (though sometimes I wish they'd try!)


Pig farms aren't such high income generating businesses, I suspect. The cost of land in Beverly Hills (or in Den en Chofu, Tokyo) run astronomical amounts. Last I heard Den en Chofu was $120 a square foot! Now, most pig farms are out in the country where land runs about a dollar a foot or so for a reason. It doesn't take much of a mathematician or rocket scientist to figure out that a pig farmer could never afford to make a pig farm in Beverly Hills profitable at those land prices unless those pigs were crapping diamonds.


In which case, the government would find a way to make even that unprofitable with a new tax by calling it something like the "Protect Romance and Precious Diamonds Act of 2012."


So, does anyone think we need laws to stop someone from attempting to make a pig farm in rich neighborhoods? I don't think so.


Things are quickly spinning out of control The biggest problem is most people are walking around like nothing is happening and are hoping for the best. Folks, "Hope" is not a very good business plan nor is it a good plan on how you are going to take care of your family. 


We need to cut down on government and government spending in order to get out of the mess we're in. In Japan's and the US government's case, increasing our debt is not the answer to our debt problems. If the average Joe Blow doesn't start to figure this out really soon, we are in for a world of hurt.


If that happens, then I might like to be a pig farmer and get away from the rat race. I read about pig farming in Charlotte's Web. Now, that fantasy world sounded wonderful.

17 comments:

Mr. Nobody said...

Hello Mike,

I believe it is a normal course for people in advanced industrial societies to expect certain things. Of course there is a cost in providing educations to all children, and universal health care. It asks the question, is it better or worse they weren't provided? How can an advanced industrial nation be competitive without some poorer students being subsidized in some way? It is possible for business to do it, but in history it doesn't seem that they have ever done so. Obviously, governments don't have to look at P&L statements, but I think a certifiably decent university education, is a wise investment, in terms of both society and economics.

The Clean Air Act no doubt costs businesses money. It is a problem of the 'tragedy of the commons.' For example, it is nearly impossible to attribute a specific health issue to one polluter, for shortening the lives or outright killing people, so all are regulated. I for one was amazed when reading the following entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution

I was amazed that the WHO estimates that 2.4 million die each year due to air pollution. It even states that in essence a "9-11" happens each year in Southern California alone.

Do people read books anymore? Yes, but they seem to be concentrated in Eastern Asia, and Northern Europe. The difference between the college graduate and the illiterate villager is that the graduate has the ability to read, but chooses not to do it, unless forced to do so.

Is it the case that the government doesn't have any of their own money? What were greenbacks? The cannot create money? What is a printing press? It can sometimes be either a boon or burden depending on different circumstances.

The government's money is the nation's money by law. The problem seems to begin when they either print it up faster than the commiserate expansion of the economy, or in our modern era, have to borrow it and pay it back at compounded interest. It is unfortunate that those who benefit the most rarely have to pay the price, it is usually the general public that pays.

It would be bad enough if the government took resources for its own current citizens. But it looks like in most instances it is taking more money from their own future citizens, and/or current foreign people.

The government doesn't own an industry? One can argue whether or not they should be owned by the government, but it seems that the government owns many things. What about the "coercive" industries? The military and the police? What about things like the postal service, the highways, etc.?

There is a cost to education and health care. One of the questions is, is it better to pay a little now, or a lot later? What does it cost an advanced industrial society to educate a poor child versus not educating them, and having to deal with their potential criminal behavior in the future? What does not medically caring for a beggar cost, if they develop resistant tuberculosis and infect a number of economically productive people?

It may be better for say, religious groups to run various services than governmental institutions. The main issue seems that for some reason, most people want the government to run things.

Is it better defined that governments function in taking lives and resources from the majority, to fund and protect, as I believed Adams called it, "the opulent minority?" Closer to home, look at what happened to the average Japanese from 1942-1945 versus what happened to the Emperor and assorted admirals or generals.

Maybe your countryman Carlin said it best: "You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Mr. Nobody said...

(cont'd)


Where I am currently, there are 6-8 different rubbish haulers. There are certain minimum standards they must abide by, but they are able to set their own prices. The prices are all within 10% of each other for residential hauling.

Our modern societies may indeed be brainwashed. If they have been brainwashed, it has been for quite some time. One only has to look and see that one of the main reason of the educational curriculum is the need to indoctrinate pupils for the future into not thinking and following orders, whether the orders be for good or ill.

I think it actually started before FDR. If one looks at Rockefeller, one can see his involvement in education and unsurprisingly, possibly tangentially related, the Federal Reserve.

One can argue what was more out of hand, the USA's exponentially increasing debts, the various spending on past, present, or future wars, or various social programs that in some cases, the cure being worse than the disease. Any which way, the politicians since WW2, seem to have painted themselves into a political and economic corner.

Governments' main job is protecting the wealth and health, of the wealthy it seems. It is the "sport" of governments to have the lower orders of one fight against the lower orders of the other, so that the lower orders don't attempt to "dethrone" the upper classes of both. Those are called "wars."

What happened to the Emperor? What happened to Krup? What happened to FDR? What happened to Stalin? Why is it that some Germans and Japanese from that time, are more angry at the Allied forces than their own governments who in no small way, helped perpetrate many of the results? Or is it a sort of case of, ""Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

Many advances have been born and borne by industrial societies. It seems that one of the few benefits, is the ability to let researchers and inventors find new things. That can range from the good like polio, to the ill like the atom bomb. It is also the case of advancing societies, that violence, until the 1960s, with the exception of war, kept on dropping. Whether that is a case of, or in spite of government, is hard to figure.

Mr. Nobody said...

(cont'd)


The benefits of governments may still currently outweigh their costs. The bigger question I think, is for how much longer will that be the case? One can look at the strides in health and wealth in advanced societies, but in many cases those advances seem to be slowing or even reversing themselves.

There are still many different types, and more importantly sizes of governments. What government is more in line with the needs of the people? A so-called democracy of 50+ million, or a constitutional monarchy of say 50k-5 million? Which is less likely to go to war, Switzerland or the UK? Norway or the USA? Liechtenstein or Japan? More importantly, which is able to better govern the needs of their people?

As to the troubling statistics, they are in no doubt bad. The more troubling figures in the USA IMHO, are when one looks at other things, such as ethics and morality.

Where would one rather be raised? A farmhouse without electricity, or running water in Kentucky, ca. 1950, but with ones entire extended family, and going to church each week, or subsidized housing in the Bronx ca. 2010, where one had a computer, video games, and satellite TV, being raised by a single mother, but not believing in anything, and where it was too dangerous almost anytime of day to leave the dwelling?
The government always has money, because they force the public to accept it and use it "for all debts public and private." If there were competing currencies that might be another story, but how popular would that idea be with politicians? It is the "coercive force" that gives them both their power, and legitimacy. Why is it governmental "public" debt is almost always considered safer than private debt?

I believe that the government is a tool, that can be used for good or ill. The problem is like the weather, especially around 1933-1945, in the view of an entire life, it can change in almost the blink of an eye.

As to smoking or not, on the whole scale of things, I think it is an issue that generates much heat, but little results.

Regarding seatbelts, wasn't it the federal government that threatened reduced highway funding if the respective states didn't mandate them? Similar to lower DWI/DUI limits, the raising of the drinking age to 21, etc...

About the restaurant story, the legislature and the courts has determined that they have some influence as to what goes on in establishments open to the public. One of the biggest ones was obviously the ending of prohibition. Another was during and after segregation.

There are certain things one should and shouldn't do, as to how one goes about it is another matter IMHO. In some places it is common sense, others laws, in some custom, other tradition.

As to the pig farmer, and laws, it is usually a case of developers and town planners imaging their speck of dirt being another Den en Chofu in the future. As an aside, the issue with the USA which I found quite surprising, is the rate of change, that an area can both grow and decline. One can see an area go from pig farmers to upperclass dwellings, to slums, in 20-30 years, in the South in particular.

Or for that matter, a neighbor having a grudge, I remember in HI, on Oahu I believe, someone bringing in the homeless, then later hogs to upset the person next-door.

Finally, what else can one do, if all that one has left is hope?

Anonymous said...

All governments are merely elected guardians of the people's money who have agreed to be taxed - for doing this, the people agree to pay them a salary with various other benefits (healthcare, maternity leave, guaranteed vacation, a pension and so forth.

Many "westernized" countries have spent tax money that has not been collected yet.. This debt must be collected (forget the whys or wherefores for now) at some point or all social and infrastructural programs will dramatically decline or even cease (pensions, health, policing, schools etc etc) and social problems will occur.


Does government create wealth ? No, that is not their mandate - they redistribute taxed wealth only and right now they don't have enough of it to pay down the debt and continue to provide social infrastructure at current levels.

Here comes more taxes coupled with more regulation to enforce them just at the moment when it would be better to have less regulation to encourage economic entrepreneurship and growth.

Still, at least the music scene should get a whole heap better (as it always does when economic times get real hard rather than the bubblegum tasteless dross we have had to suffer in boom times)

:)

Ryu Oni said...

""The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus"
- I would reply with "Everything in Moderation - Ancient Greek Proverb".

"People in our society today think it is normal for people to expect handouts "from the government" or a "free education" or "free medical and health care" or "retirement income."" - That really does depend on what you think the role of government should be.
For instance, I think the role of government should be to take care of the people, but not interfere with the people's lives. Under my interpretation, I would say 'Free' healthcare, 'free' education and a pension (of which we all pay into via taxes, so it isn't technically "Free") through the government.

On your part against SOPA. Glad to see you're against it. But I'm wondering- what is the problem with the EPA or CPA? They're just regulators to make sure companies don't do things like getting rid of waste irresponsibly and poisoning our waters (etc.) and making sure that asbestos isn't used as insulation [anymore].

Read books? A little difficult for me to read books on difficult subjects whilst in Japan...do eBooks count? (I'm not being fecetious, I'm honestly asking.)

"Every single penny the government has is from taxes taken from people like you and me. The government does not own any industry and has no way to create income so they get monies from taxing the working class (that's you and me). So whenever you say that people should, say, get free healthcare, what you are actually saying is that you think you should be taxed to pay for someone else's medical care." And also, everyone else helps pay for yours.

Also I just want to address the caption you used about the constitution. It insinuates that you think the founding fathers would be against taxation of any kind. Here's a quote from Jefferson; "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

I really do wonder how you think what role the government should play in the world? If any role at all. And if it didn't tax, how would it sustain itself? If you get rid of taxes, you get rid of government. If you get rid of government, you have a literal anarchic state.

"But, I, for one, have my hands full paying for myself and my family as it is without to paying for someone else's AND have a government office middleman taking a cut off the top for running and "organizing" (I use that term quite loosely) such services." Sooo....do you not have health insurance? Aren't health insurance agencies just the same?

From experience I've found that a 'free' healthcare system from the government, which covers medical costs regardless of status is a much better state of affairs than a health insurance company, in which you have to argue for them to pay your medical fees, more often than not.
[Continued]

Ryu Oni said...

[Continued]
"Well, it wasn't normal not that long ago. In the USA, it started in the 1930's with FDR and got greatly expanded and completely out of hand with Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's in America's so-called "Great Society." Nowadays, through years of government run public education, people have come to believe that the state is our benevolent leader and is here to protect us from cradle to grave. " - Yes, and what did you see with the results from that? A booming economy, the standard of living for the general populations continued to increase and it was generally good all around at an effective tax rate on companies and corporations of about 50% if not higher. Then you got reagan who cut it all down to 35% and things have been declining ever since. Except for when you had Clinton in office, he increased taxes again and you got a 200 billion surplus. Then Bush came in, gave a bunch of tax cuts to the rich and you get a HUGGGEEEE deficit.
Just saying.
"I won't go into too many examples of how the government protects it's own populace excepting to mention that, in the 20th century alone government's of the world instituted wars that killed over 160 million people. " - I'm quite sure most, if not all the wars started were through conservative administrations...
"In fact, I think you'll find that government employed scientists are usually involved in exploring science for military purposes" - Yes, something I find abhorrent. I think science SHOULD be funded by the government for the betterment of people's lives. Having them just make things for the military is disgusting and perverting science.

"A government owned building is a public building, the government can make laws about smoking and rights concerning what goes on inside that building. A privately owned building, like your house, is none of their business."- AGREED! 100% AGREED!!! Oh, out of curiosity, what is your stance on government's role in regards to recreational drugs? You briefly mentioned them, but I'd like more clarity. (Just to note, I don't take drugs).

"If your dad wants to allow his customers to smoke in his restaurant, that is your father's right. The government should make no laws pertaining to that. " - Agreed in regards to smoking, but what if your Dad was knowingly using out-of-date ingredients in his foodstuffs and his preparation area was wholly unhygenic? That would be where the Consumer Protection Agency comes in.

Again, I'd just like to mention- these aren't attacks against you or your political beliefs. I just wanna know your opinion on the points I raised. Particularly "The government should be a non-profit organization of people elected from their states/prefectures/locales that work to take care, but not control, the people in regards to health and education."

Anonymous said...

How many governments are legitimately elected? How about most voter turnouts being less than 50%? Or gerrymandering of ridings, especially Black districts pre-Civil Rights era, Kennedy in 1960, Bush in 2000, Choicepoint, Diebold, virtually unlimited "funding" from businesses, etc. As the saying goes, if voting changed anything, they would have made it illegal.

How have people "agreed" to be taxed? Or is it like the old gangsters, saying how someone "agreed" to pay for "protection?"

Does the public agree to pay for politicians, or do the politicians vote for what they believe they themselves should be paid?

In regards to debt in the USA & Japan, can the current debts actually be paid off? Or most likely, will it a be case of huge money printing or default?

What happens when a dollar is spent in the US? It recirculates and goes from one hand to the next in the US. What happens when the same dollar goes outside the US? Even without increasing taxes and regulation, how could there be increasing entrepreneurship and growth, when US monetary velocity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M2VelocityEMratioUS052009.png ) has been in decline for so long?

Anonymous said...

Two quick pictures. The money x charts of JP & US. In JP they dropped below 1 around 1987, in the US around 2008.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Gx8Zp5m5Ouc/TaWAHE4PcXI/AAAAAAAAAIM/E-pDsbA1hKU/s1600/VEL+JPN.bmp

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pKyLkmQsXi4/TaV_IYwRa3I/AAAAAAAAAIE/qJF-0YyGlTA/s1600/MULTMONY.bmp

Anonymous said...

How many governments are legitimately elected? How about most voter turnouts being less than 50%? Or gerrymandering of ridings, especially Black districts pre-Civil Rights era, Kennedy in 1960, Bush in 2000, Choicepoint, Diebold, virtually unlimited "funding" from businesses, etc. As the saying goes, if voting changed anything, they would have made it illegal.

How have people "agreed" to be taxed? Or is it like the old gangsters, saying how someone "agreed" to pay for "protection?"

Do the people agree to pay for politicians, or do the politicians vote for what they believe they themselves should be paid?

In regards to debt in the USA & Japan, can the current debts actually be paid off? Or most likely, will it a be case of huge money printing or default?

What happens when a dollar is spent in the US? It recirculates and goes from one hand to the next in the US. What happens when the same dollar goes outside the US?

Even without increasing taxes and regulation, how could there be increasing entrepreneurship and growth, when the US monetary multiplier & velocity ( http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pKyLkmQsXi4/TaV_IYwRa3I/AAAAAAAAAIE/qJF-0YyGlTA/s1600/MULTMONY.bmp ) have been in decline for so long?

Anonymous said...

Japan

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Gx8Zp5m5Ouc/TaWAHE4PcXI/AAAAAAAAAIM/E-pDsbA1hKU/s1600/VEL+JPN.bmp

mikeintokyorogers said...

Ryu, you wrote: ""Well, it wasn't normal not that long ago. In the USA, it started in the 1930's with FDR and got greatly expanded and completely out of hand with Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's in America's so-called "Great Society." Nowadays, through years of government run public education, people have come to believe that the state is our benevolent leader and is here to protect us from cradle to grave. " - Yes, and what did you see with the results from that? A booming economy, the standard of living for the general populations continued to increase and it was generally good all around at an effective tax rate on companies and corporations of about 50% if not higher." Seriously Ryu, you must read: Economics in One Lesson. What you write shows you do not understand the boom and bust cycle that is created by money printing and artificially easy credit that is a part of fractional reserve banking system. We DID have a boom in the 60's & 70's - We've been paying for it ever since. The booms were paid (are paid) by debt to future generations. The boom is caused by that and that only. Today the dollar is worth less than 5% of what it was worth in 1913. That's a key to where this boom cycle comes from. Here's another good place for you to study. This sort of thing is daily Topical: The Great Global Macro Experiment, BoomBust Cycles, and the Refusal to See the Truth: Bubble Economics in the Mainstream Media: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/great-global-macro-experiment-boombust-cycles-and-refusal-see-truth-bubble-economics-mainstr

mikeintokyorogers said...

Also Ryu, What you wrote is not true. Take the Hoover Dam example. Boom for the areas immediately around the dam. 30 years of recession and bad times for the areas that were taxed to pay for it who did not benefit form the increased traffic and tourism. THAT IS A FACT and is well documented in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Finally Ryu, the boom of the sixties. Yes. And today's 54 trillion + dollar underfunded USA debt. Where do you suppose this debt began? It certainly didn't have its beginnings in the last 12 years my friend. Even Clinton's so-called balanced budget did not take into account underfunded liabilities or tricks in accounting (like raping the Social Security coffiures to pay for the current debt structure).

mikeintokyorogers said...

Mr. Nobody, as always excellent food for thought. But one thing you wrote that I totally disagree with you: "I think a certifiably decent university education, is a wise investment, in terms of both society and economics."

Read this. Notable quote: "If you think about someone going to school to pursue a career in say social work, a noble career, is it really worth it to go into $100,000 to $150,000 in debt for a career that pays $30,000 to $40,000 a year?" http://www.mybudget360.com/does-a-college-degree-protect-your-career-unemployment-rate-for-college-graduates-highest-on-record/

Mr. Nobody said...

Hello Mike,

Nowhere did I say that university degrees in social work, or for that matter, in the USA would be considered certifiably good. In most countries outside of the USA, social work wouldn't qualify for a classical baccalaureate degree. I would also wager that most European countries wouldn't consider most American degrees at the same quality of European degrees.

I'm more referring to a classical degree from say, Heidelberg; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Heidelberg than say an American "diploma mill."

A German degree outside of law or medicine is ca. $5.000-10.000. Even with the government picking up 40-75% of the cost, the return both in economics and society I believe is still quite large.

Why is it a German can be educated at a prestigious university for less money than an American at a basic state college?

Why is it Germany can have a relativity successful economy with less than 10% having a university degree, vs. ca. 30% of Japanese with one, and why does the UK wish for 50%+ of the public to have one? Could it be possible, that the rigor and subsequently, the value of degrees in UK, USA, and even to some degree JP, have dropped precipitously?

I believe that there has been a substantial amount of both credit inflation, and credential inflation, especially in the UK, & USA, but even to some degree in JP. I don't believe that all the blame can be laid at the foot of the state, but the majority definitely can. Why does the state require someone to have a degree for being a social worker, and also why does it cost $100k+? Unless they want a substantial number of people preoccupied with both schoolwork and debt...

Obviously the universities love it, since they can charge such exorbitant costs, and the banks love it, since the earning are so high.

Finally, the direct pay of a social worker might be only $30-40k, but the problem is in many instances, the state will actually pay more in benefits than in actual income! When one factors in a pension of 80-100% of pay after 25-35 years, plus health insurance costs that in some cases surpass $10k per year, one can see why the state is in so much trouble, and also the reason that someone might still want a civil job with low pay.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Thanks Mr. N. Oh? OK. I get your meaning. You have so much to offer. I will say that, in the USA, degrees are so exhorbitantly expensive because the federal government guarantees student loans. This makes a situation where the universities can keep jacking up the prices and know they will always get paid because the federal government guarantees the loans. It's a scam!

Anonymous said...

Unless it is a hard science, yes generally I believe American degrees are a scam. Why do you think the government underwrites student loans? Why do you think it is impossible to declare bankruptcy on student loans? Is the USA a democracy, or more closely a "debt-slaveocracy?" Because once someone is in debt, the creditor in essence owns the debtor.