False - every fiat currency currently in existence has not totally collapsed. It's like saying "Everything dies of old age", then pointing to all organisms of species which have not been demonstrated to display senescence and saying, "That organism will eventually die of old age if nothing else kills it." It doesn't follow. You're saying that "All fiat currencies which have collapsed have collapsed, therefore the dollar will collapse" - but you're neglecting the fact that the dollar doesn't have the property which you're calling out, namely the property of having collapsed. "Has collapsed" isn't a property of being a fiat currency, it's a property of the particular set of fiat currencies you're pointing to.
It's funny you say this because every fiat currency in history has failed at some point in time or another. Just Google "fiat currency collapse" or something along those lines and you'll find numerous sites and sources that show how fiat currencies inevitably collapse. Fiat money is not backed by anything. The only way fiat currency has value is because it comes from trust by the federal government that the money has value in the first place. Just wait until we have a dollar collapse, or worse yet, a complete collapse of all current fiat money. Then you'll realize why fiat currency fails.
It is of course possible, even probable that the dollar will fall. You might have a good argument that you didn't spell out in this post. The fact that other fiat currencies have collapsed is not a proof that it will.
What makes the dollar different from other fiat currencies? Is it because the dollar is the world's reserve currency? If that is the answer, then I'm afraid to say that the dollar can't stay as the world's reserve currency forever. Eventually the rest of the world along with our creditors will realize that we will never, ever be able to repay our debts.
But then, if the fall of the dollar is 100 years from now and tied to a war in which America loses a substantial portion of its territory and has to accept Versailles-like terms in its unconditional surrender, even demonstrating that the dollar will eventually fall doesn't make that fact relevant to the current fiscal cliff discussion. You need to demonstrate that our actions now affect the fall of the dollar in such a way that matters to our decision-making here and now.
Our current actions to try to get the economy going again include ultra-low interest rates on treasuries, a 0% federal funds rate, and three rounds of the Fed monetizing debt. The fact that the Fed is printing so much money and won't stop is why a dollar collapse is inevitable. Ask the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe what good printing money was.
I am NOT saying "borrow recklessly", only "don't be afraid to borrow". I think I can make that point most starkly with a simple observation: at current interest rates, we could borrow a million dollars, put $994,000 of it in a box, spend the remaining $6,000 however we like, and then take the rest of the money out of the box to make our payments. This would of course be a silly idea, but where there are opportunities for the government to realize more than $1:$1 returns on investment after risk is factored in, borrowing money to pay for those opportunities makes financial sense.
This could only be possible if interest rates on treasuries continue to be as low as they are forever. They can't stay low for much longer.
This is only sort of true. The Republican party has a majority in the House despite the fact that more votes were cast for Democrat candidates; the reason is gerrymandering to disenfranchise as many probable Democrat voters as possible in a large number of states (by the way, I'm very sensitive to the false equivalencies frequently drawn between the Dems and the Republicans, but I'm well aware that gerrymandering is one of those actions indisputably practiced by both parties, so you don't have to point out that particular fact). The voters most certainly did NOT choose to keep a Republican House; the Republican lock at the state level of many states rigged the game so that even though more votes were cast for Democrats, Republicans would keep it. Not that they did anything illegal, mind, this is how the game is played in the US, but just dispelling the notion that the will of the people maintained this deadlock. The will of a minority of the people maintained this situation.
I would have to see where this happened, because it didn't in Oregon. We had the same four Democrats and the same one Republican re-elected to Congress.
This is only sort of true. The Republican party has a majority in the House despite the fact that more votes were cast for Democrat candidates; the reason is gerrymandering to disenfranchise as many probable Democrat voters as possible in a large number of states (by the way, I'm very sensitive to the false equivalencies frequently drawn between the Dems and the Republicans, but I'm well aware that gerrymandering is one of those actions indisputably practiced by both parties, so you don't have to point out that particular fact). The voters most certainly did NOT choose to keep a Republican House; the Republican lock at the state level of many states rigged the game so that even though more votes were cast for Democrats, Republicans would keep it. Not that they did anything illegal, mind, this is how the game is played in the US, but just dispelling the notion that the will of the people maintained this deadlock. The will of a minority of the people maintained this situation.
I would have to see where this happened, because it didn't in Oregon. We had the same four Democrats and the same one Republican re-elected to Congress.
Indeed, I would question what statistics you are looking at in your statement that Democratic votes outnumbered Republican votes with regards to house representatives. Keeping in mind that the number of democratic votes in New York or California is completely and utterly irrelevant to the number of Republican votes in Texas (just as examples).
For your statement to actually be true, it would have to be true at the state level -- where the democratic votes in a state outnumbered the republican votes in the same state.
About what? That's about personal spending and the myth of savings hasn't proven true in recent times - right now the corporations as a whole are sitting on historically high amounts (as a % of GDP) of money that they're not spending.
If saving was the end-all-be-all we'd be out right now, because savings right now is ridiculous. And isn't in convenient that better sales coincide perfectly in this recent market contraction with when it starts accelerating out of the pit finally?
There is one concept that the left leaning members of this forum cling to that annoys me. As long as people pay anything then it's "not free". Applying this logic to your possessions, how would you feel if I took everything you own and just left a handful of change? The differance in value is the "free" in free healthcare. Apply this to social nets people "paid for" and the fact that what they get out of it is many times greater then what they paid in and you can see why reforming SS, medicaid, and medicare is both smart and ethical.
Two of those three are only slightly "off" on the "paid for" theorem that you're talking about.
Medicare for personal practice (A) actually generates a profit from what people pay in (between their FICA contribution and otherwise) - hospital (B) in the equation only dips it slightly.
A big drain on Medicare is the subsidization applied to Medicare Advantage (C) but that's largely going the way of the dodo with ObamaCare. (i.e. "the 'raid on Medicare'" nonsense - that's what it was talking about)
Additionally for Social Security, 80% of people that get standard retirement Social Security actually claim LESS than they would've earned saving the money in the same bonds that Social Security puts its excess funds into. It's actually the subsections that screw up the math largely, SS Disability and SS Insurance. [Although for recent Disability, they're getting more and more strict about SS Disability claims for those that don't have a proper work record where the numbers would work out]
For the majority of people in both cases however - FICA + later life contributions in the case of Medicare actually do keep it pretty close to what would be projected doing the same exact thing privately - so yes, they're largely owed besides a few small adjustments in the calculations to close some holes.
The "welfare-ish" bits to each however are a much trickier ball of wax however - they do serve a sensible purpose (i.e. a parent going bankrupt because of a Down's child seems a stupid precedent to make unless you want to start approving eugenics on a government level) but at the same time, they're clearly note "owed" persay.
The issue with the deduction cap isn't a singular thing though, I do agree with the goal in the longrun. But the numbers coming out for how much revenue it would generate are INCREDIBLY hazy - seems to me to make more sense to "overdo revenue" for a little bit while getting out of the hole, then once we see the real world numbers for a few years, then adjust it down if it's too high. AKA we should start off with the rate adjustment AND deduction caps.
It would solve several issues at once.
1. It would lower tax rates which everyone likes to see. right now if obama tax plan would pass i would be paying more in taxes than i currently am due to the success that i have had in the past year.
i have basically seen my salary double in that time. which of course has moved me into a higher tax bracket.
my top marginal rate will be 25% this year. under my plan my tax rate would be 10%. so would everyone else making 500K (possibly 1m or less).
they have full access to any deductions and i would increase the standard deduction to 20k for families.
if you make over 500K/1m then your current marginal tax rate is about 35%. my plan would lower that to 20% however your deductions are capped at 10% of your gross income. so if someone makes 1m dollars. they can deduct up to 100k. they will then pay 20% on 900k.
which is better than paying 35% on 900k.
buffett won't be able to wipe out all of his income through charity donations, but can still donate to charity.
the same rules apply to capital gains except for home sales.
which encourages smarter investing. if you know that your capital gain losses are capped you are going to ensure better investments than risky speculation.
for corporations and small businesses. small businesses making less than 1m gross in a year will not be taxed at all.
if you make more than 1m in a year your corporate rate will be 10% tax with healthcare as the only deduction.
right now corporations spend millions of dollars in accounting rules to keep from paying as much tax as possible because our system is so messed up.
small business and corporations are the life blood of the economy. this plan makes it easy for them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Small business perhaps, but corporations absolutely not in the current environment - if they were we'd not see them saving historically high amounts while unemployment remains relatively high.
if they were we'd not see them saving historically high amounts while unemployment remains relatively high.
yes we would. companies aren't highering because obama has made it hostile for any large company to hire and expand their business.
their operating costs are skyrocketing under obama and it isn't worth hiring people.
as i posted before in not 1 but 2 articles companies are actually downsizing. smaller companies and minimum wage charged companies like Mcdonalds, and restruants are cutting worker hours to <25 so that they don't have to give them healthcare.
if i am a business i will employee less than 10 people if i can get away with it and not worry about obama as much as i can.
companies will continue to sit and save until they see pro-business coming out of washington.
plus they still don't know what the tax code is going to be next year that is going to have an impact on employment.
since they have to pay half of the payroll tax.
they could go from paying 5% to 7.5% per employee or more which is going to be devistating to some businesses.
now obama wants unlimited access to increase the debt ceiling. this guy thinks he is a king or something. you people voted for you you get what you vote for.
he said he wanted to fundimentally change america he is doing a good job of it and we are burning for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The healthcare thing has ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY - you're just hearing them whine about it now. Obamacare actually makes them have to kick in regardless of their hours, it's just a song and dance that they're making up for people that haven't read the law.
(Old law was at 30 [technically >29.5] hrs averaged over a quarter they were required to - Obamacare in 2014 removes the minimum, ANY worker has to be covered appropriately or you're fined - unless you're within the "small business" qualifications)
And for the healthcare changes under 50 employees they don't have to contribute a dime, the Fed covers the entire employer portion of healthcare - so your "10 person" theorem is seriously flawed if you actually read the damn law.
The only thing that has changed under Obama is the "private contracting" loophole that people have used to avoid the existing restrictions (that were put in place under Republican administration mind you) - and honestly, when you're spending your entire time working for the same employer with a longterm prospectus not an actual contract length, you're not a contracter - it was ridiculous that loophole existed. (See the 1099 loophole)
And what is required to be "pro-business" we've got the lowest effective corporate tax rates besides Ireland once you count deductions? (Something you and the some of the supposedly "pro-business" Republicans keep suggesting as a fix would likely raise their average substantially, since the average corporation has a ~23% deduction right now [average corporation paid 13% vs. the 36% they're taxed at])
And employers don't pay payroll taxes at all, if you're talking about FICA, not aware of any other payroll taxes. [Unless you mean paying TEMPORARILY until the end of the year, that does occur - but the business gets every penny of FICA they spent back at the end of the year as part of their business deductions - much like health care contribution, it's a 1:1 tax deduction for their contribution]
As for the debt ceiling, it's ludicrous that each budget requires TWO passings right now because of it - they're not allowed to vote on a debt ceiling raise as part of a budget, which makes the process ridiculous to do currently. Budgets should be a simple up and down vote that can include whether or not we raise the debt ceiling.
[After all, if you don't support a debt ceiling raise, and the budget will require one, you vote no to the budget - there's no logic to REQUIRING it to be two separate votes as it exists today]
About what? That's about personal spending and the myth of savings hasn't proven true in recent times - right now the corporations as a whole are sitting on historically high amounts (as a % of GDP) of money that they're not spending.
If saving was the end-all-be-all we'd be out right now, because savings right now is ridiculous. And isn't in convenient that better sales coincide perfectly in this recent market contraction with when it starts accelerating out of the pit finally?
If we take the Walrasian equilibrium into context, that the public and private sector can neither run a surplus over the other creates an interesting dynamic. The issue with corporations and centralization of wealth control versus the Jeffersonian bourgeoisie ideal would be to have small and medium sized firms retain cash holdings and be able to spend during a recession.
The problem is that the government took over corporate debt, and households ran up huge deficits as well. There's a tie betwixt corporate spending and economic growth, either way that's the world we live in where most of the trade is done by huge multinational corporations. However, that's also a matter of tax policy which favors the financial sector, regulations which favor the financial sector, and education (engineering and mathematics) that has favored the financial sector. Roughly 40% of corporate profits are in the financial field, which creates a problem whenever trying to pass merchandise.
If we consider say interest on consumer loans and credit cards, it slows down people's ability to buy future goods or to save money. Equally, the government's current "starve the beast" mantra doesn't work. It's sophistry, the best way to make sure spending doesn't get out of control is to add parliamentary rules that force tax increases for major spending increases.
The problem with the current economic framework is the same as the 1980's, these tax loopholes create business frontiers to exploit with capital. This goes back to the rise of trusts and corporations trying to get away from the king's taxes and the invention of double end book keeping. Today, however we have a huge population that is either unemployed or under employed with the household sector not able to keep the system down.
Tax breaks encourage certain businesses over the other, the difference between us and the Chinese is that they favor hard manufacturing and much of the Pacific Rim whereas we favored the service industry. The service industry policies do not have the intensive growth seen with manufacturing or small shops. Equally, the move towards more small time producers of things such as alcohol have been a small blessing. We now have as many breweries as prior to Prohibition. There are other good spots, but we do not have the means like the Germans to export that beer for small and medium sized firms.
For a "global economy" we have a rather antiquated system for trade. For instance the Germans, as said, you go to the consulate, get the paper work, and they help you do the leg work to trade in that country. The State Department frankly is one of the real friends of pro-capitalist business if we wanted it to be, rather than the teat sucking defense games.
So in totality, I agree with the Jeffersonian ideal about small entrepreneurs with a high savings rating. However, we need to address the social safety net and bring up the quality of life for many individuals. Capitalism is great, but exploits the weakest among us. Business takes frontiers to grow, and the governments have always been a major part of securing border security and other such institutions to keep secondary integration points along the frontier to make real capital. Frankly, the rich aren't generally in the frontier, it is the secondary integrator cities such as the midwest during the last continental expansion. Those "integrator cities" through out history have always massively increased GDP.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Capitalism is great, but exploits the weakest among us.
I'm going to preface this with my opinion that your writing style is cryptic and very difficult for me to understand. It's possible I'm just stupid though.
There is no justification for the quoted statement, people say stuff like this assuming it is common knowledge. Historically it is totally fallacious to make such an assertion. The reason we are already over the fiscal cliff is because the welfare and warfare states are unsustainable and will fall with our fiat currency just as every other has throughout history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
The reason we are already over the fiscal cliff is because the welfare and warfare states are unsustainable and will fall with our fiat currency just as every other has throughout history.
States do not fall. They change. Do you think that Rome does not exist? It is right there in Italy. Do you think that the Roman state was severed in some dramatic action? No roman history has ebbed and flowed changing with time just like the tectonic plates.
When you see the sun set do you exclaim everyday is doomed to end in darkness?
The healthcare thing has ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY - you're just hearing them whine about it now. Obamacare actually makes them have to kick in regardless of their hours, it's just a song and dance that they're making up for people that haven't read the law.
Nope wrong. if you work less than 25 hours a week then they do not have to pay for healthcare.
(Old law was at 30 [technically >29.5] hrs averaged over a quarter they were required to - Obamacare in 2014 removes the minimum, ANY worker has to be covered appropriately or you're fined - unless you're within the "small business" qualifications)
Small business includes people that are 50 employee's or less. people with 50 employee's or more work use to work their temp employee's 25-30 hours or inbetween there.
now they will work them 20 hours if that. if you would have read the article i posted companies are already doing this. so employee's are actually losing hours and money.
And for the healthcare changes under 50 employees they don't have to contribute a dime, the Fed covers the entire employer portion of healthcare - so your "10 person" theorem is seriously flawed if you actually read the damn law.
This is simply just false. Companies that have under 50 employee's can file for subsidies to help out with the costs.
please read this. it isn't simply a measure of having less than 50 employee's whatever gave you that notion is just false.
it explains exactly why coporate american and small businesses aren't expanding.
they can't afford to. if they do they have to add employee's which means huge increases in healthcare costs and unless they work people part time. Finding people to work part time is a problem. most people want full time employeement.
it hasn't helped that companies have really upped the requirements. it use to be if you could meet 80% of the requirements they would consider you. now unless you meet 90-100% of the requirements you are not even looked at.
the fact still remains that we are not going to tax our way out of this. we need concrete changes to the tax code and to get the economy back online.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
On topic, we're not going to go off the 'fiscal cliff'. Boehner is desperate to take any halfway decent deal he can get from the Democrats. It's not a cliff, per se, so much as it is a long gradient downwards.
Being able to make the deal is plan A for everyone involved. If it falls through, then there's blame to go around, uncertainty, etc. Worse for the Republicans is that includes a lot of tax increases for everyone, which is bad for Democrats too but it's higher up their priority list of very bad things. The absolute worst thing falls in the GOP's camp - if they can't pass an omnibus bill now, the Democrats can just present what they want piecemeal down the road, and if they don't, then the tax increases and sequester are hits that the GOP is going to have their base up in arms about. Democrats can either stall or defeat anything the GOP wants to pass in the Senate if they don't agree to play ball.
The healthcare thing has ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY - you're just hearing them whine about it now. Obamacare actually makes them have to kick in regardless of their hours, it's just a song and dance that they're making up for people that haven't read the law.
Nope wrong. if you work less than 25 hours a week then they do not have to pay for healthcare.
ACA in 2014 removes any lower limit, I do stand corrected however that 2013 it's dropping to 25 and 2014 it's dropping to 20 while it phases in for that part.
So technically speaking we're both right. Do note, I don't see reading it over what DAY in either year it starts for either, I'd presume Jan 1st - but it never states it outright, oddly.
now they will work them 20 hours if that. if you would have read the article i posted companies are already doing this. so employee's are actually losing hours and money.
For the next two years it appears you would be accurate - come 2014 it will be unavoidable however, which should encourage them to go back to having fulltime folks.
[Do note though, even at that point though, double employment rules might allow some gaming the system as well - not seeing anything clear that explains how it works with double employment - unless it's the employee's option of which employer he'd take for his healthcare]
And for the healthcare changes under 50 employees they don't have to contribute a dime, the Fed covers the entire employer portion of healthcare - so your "10 person" theorem is seriously flawed if you actually read the damn law.
This is simply just false. Companies that have under 50 employee's can file for subsidies to help out with the costs.
please read this. it isn't simply a measure of having less than 50 employee's whatever gave you that notion is just false.
That's the CURRENT subsidy, not the incoming one that starts in 2014 - and that subsidy will continue in addition for those 50+ person employers - the new thing that the ACA starts in 2014.
It's going to be a very irritating discussion if you keep responding with "this is the current response to X phasing in" or "the current response to something being replaced by ACA in the future" - because they're not the same.
The ACA program will not be fully in place until 2020 - and just like everything adoption of even "simple things" takes time. If we went single-payer it would've started up quickly since there wouldn't need to be all this rigamarole getting it in place while giving businesses and people time to adapt to the changes. Unfortunately we didn't, thus we've got to roll it out over time.
it explains exactly why coporate american and small businesses aren't expanding.
It neglects to mention that ONLY the current tax credit has a 25 person cap, next year it goes to 50, 2014 the cap is lifted with only total $ restrictions. (And at that point it tapers anyhow, so a "small business" would start to be able to take some)
ACA isn't going away at this point - and by the time Obama is gone it will be 60% rolled out (more than that as a portion of the bill - last 4 years are like one or two items each) - come back and see these things then, rather than one year snapshots of things being slightly goofy while it's changing our old goofy system into something less goofy but doing it SLOWLY so that everyone has time to adapt.
[Basically every step that has a new tax credit or new cost involved to it phases in over 2-3 years - and most them are starting NEXT year besides mandatory coverage (the tax credit/pre-subsidization for small business - yes, come 2014 it will be a "prebate" for truly small businesses) however - 80% of changes thusfar were to how the insurance companies are allowed to operate, starting next year the trickle of the first changes for the consumer and businesses start - 2014 we should be able to get a solid opinion (Note: I'm not saying WHEN in 2014 - because again, almost everything is listed by year, not date within a year - tax related stuff will be Jan 1 for obvious reasons, otherwise - I don't know)]
Has there been any real spending cuts on the table? Republicans would probably be more willing to vote for a plan if there were. I've been listening to c-span over the past week, and all I hear is that people paying roughly 50% of all taxes need to pay their fair share.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Capitalism is great, but exploits the weakest among us.
I'm going to preface this with my opinion that your writing style is cryptic and very difficult for me to understand. It's possible I'm just stupid though.
There is no justification for the quoted statement, people say stuff like this assuming it is common knowledge. Historically it is totally fallacious to make such an assertion. The reason we are already over the fiscal cliff is because the welfare and warfare states are unsustainable and will fall with our fiat currency just as every other has throughout history.
And the question is where the welfare state came from, as well as the control exerted by early corporations over peoples. Company towns in particular were fiefdoms with their own currency and so forth. Thus far, when we speak of "history" we must attenuate towards historiography and the essence that interpretation of history itself is an ongoing argument.
The point of exploitation was one of the major critiques from Marx, and whenever someone writes three volumes criticizing capitalism they get somethings wrong and other things right. Equally, the materialist tradition is a major stone with historiography. And thus far there has never been any economic model that has of yet not to have some forms of exploitation.
Thus far, your operating framework is philosophical. Cardfather, in one instance, was able to hand wave a significant part of your own argument about free markets, rail, versus the highway system. Whereas he added one factor not factored in; the airline industry. Again, with the record becomes more and more complex as you add in more factors.
One of the fundamental points with the works popularized by the Mises Institute have been people like Bastiat which saw the rise of militarized government under Napolean. Whereas Rothbard, a favorite of yours, was a Russian Jew expelled under communism. So let us return to your operating framework, a person whose life was in danger and severely disrupted by bad government would he necessarily have an "unbiased opinion" against government? Most certainly not, the same that Ayn Rand, another Russian American, had the same dislike.
Whereas others such as Roepke, Hayek, Keynes (yes Keynes was a conservative), and Erhard were more open to government because they saw the ravages that the market had on other institutions. The market is a wonderful mechanism, however there's a concept called the "double bottom line" that takes care of the human side of capital. Uniformity and stability allows for people to predict the future and gives the capacity to use belief to work hard. Belief in ownership and property rights is defended both by sword and by heart. From self-interest and altruism.
The NAP interpretation of history was what connotes "freedom" to do anything you want if it doesn't harm individuals. Where it becomes a philosophy is considering the historiographical record about violence in the Wild West, Middle Ages Iceland, and Ireland. Blinking Spirit had an excellent point to an article about the "peaceable Wild West" theory that either you or another poster had linked to, and considering the population density and rate of violence was higher in the Wild West than in modern cities which have more controls and bigger government.
Furthermore, what you're advocating is called the Frontier Thesis or the Turner Thesis (a good quick read for anyone, can be downloaded easily online). That is that the frontiersman was the main driver for economic growth, this has been contested with another thesis in The Urban Frontier by Richard C. Wade. Wade's thesis was basically it was not the big cities nor the frontiersman, but rather the cities in between of the expansion and the settled areas that made for the greatest economic growth. Hence merchants and soldiers also bringing back technologies and works from the Crusades, and the immigration of Byzantine scholars to Europe which also very much helped to spark a new age in learning.
Now where materialists argue from is often demographics and other such things, such as warfare increases during population booms as a very well documented example that has been supported over the years and taken as a major factor in military studies.
Now what Rothbard does is use a philosophical foundation to try and build around his own idea about "how people should live." I think what you will find is that conservative historians and economists who are "statists" like Blinking Spirit and so forth would come to argue is something more Burkean and Hobbesian than Rothbardian.
Now, people also often decide based on emotion. Whenever I had linked a speech given by Rothbard one of the major feelings was that he was "paranoid" to describe one poster's reaction to him. Which is essentially that, the fear of the government. For leftist scholars like Marx and others are more fearful of the market, particularly market failures.
Now, operating from your framework Rothbard is right and others like Bryan Caplan and ect. With that said, there are of course going to major disagreements with an operating thesis and narrative that goes counter to multiples yet does indeed dovetail with some major narratives at times and there have been synthesis attempts by men such as Reiseman. However, with that said doesn't always make them wrong, either.
During the last debate with Shining Blue Eyes multiple of us had hacked away at his defense of the South, which he referred to other historians like Beard who have been discredited over the years in favor of men such as WEB Dubois and more recent interpretations of First Reconstruction and Redemption.In particular, primary documents, to which Blinking Spirit had supplied many sub points to SBE's assertions, were extinguished.
Which thus far has yet to be stated that slavery continued well into 20th century through the prison system, while the current black market system uses different phraseology like "human trafficking" is still the same old slave trade. Under anarchism, all sorts of evils and villainy would exist and do exist where there is very little government.
Now, your assertion has been that we live in more "enlightened times" well flash mobs, modern sex slaves, and on bear witness to a world without morality rather depravity with both a market and a government. One of your supporting axioms is to eliminate the modern notion of government in favor of something else more similar to other primitive forms of government as well as other bodies like large companies in the modern sense.
Which, again, bodes not well for your intellectual tradition versus others who have tried to seek balance betwixt the state and the man. "Statist" isn't a communist, but anarchist is something that can and has been challenged to such an extent that it sees about as much daylight as Chartism. Meanwhile, the broader intellectual umbrella within even the Mises Institute is to limit government not eliminate government or reform it into something we have no true experimentation with or real sense of.
Humans exploit other humans.
Markets are made up of other humans.
Therefore markets exploit other humans.
That's my basic historical argument. Feel free to plug into anything there, because people don't function off of a utility model deigned from Newtonian physics. You can plug in about any other institution ranging from family to the church.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Boehner says the country is broke, yet still wont budge from his no raise in taxes stance.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The government is spending money at a rate that even a drunken sailor would be taken aback to. Democrats and Republicans can't agree on what to cut because they defend certain spending like a sacred cow. Democrats want to cut warfare but not welfare, and Republicans want to cut welfare but not warfare. In reality, both need to be cut, and drastically. If we don't balance the budget soon (and soon does not mean in 10 years), we will become insolvent and then we'll actually experience what a true fiscal cliff is.
Boehner says the country is broke, yet still wont budge from his no raise in taxes stance.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The government is spending money at a rate that even a drunken sailor would be taken aback to. Democrats and Republicans can't agree on what to cut because they defend certain spending like a sacred cow. Democrats want to cut warfare but not welfare, and Republicans want to cut welfare but not warfare. In reality, both need to be cut, and drastically. If we don't balance the budget soon (and soon does not mean in 10 years), we will become insolvent and then we'll actually experience what a true fiscal cliff is.
Republicans need to come off their sacred cow of Warfare spending so they can stand on a platform of reform. You can't have true reform if there are things that are untouchable, everything should be evenly and fairly examined and overhauled.
We have to cut everywhere, but the easier places are to cut things that should be handled by the states (education) and things that are just pointless (redundant programs).
Cut foreign aid until we get our own house in order and close overseas military bases and bring our soldiers home.
Stop paying 22% of the UN's budget. The UN is just a global mouthpiece to trash talk the US, let them pay for their own stuff. We have NATO for our multi-national to-dos, just pay what, say, China or Russia pay into the UN.
Please, for the love of god, put our R&D money into science projects that actually will help the way of life of people. We have all this great federal funding we can put into great works of science, and instead we get hand-outs to political cronies in fields they are pretty well developed (I am look at you, solar cells). I do applaud Obama trying to get more money to nuclear and high-energy physics sciences to apply to energy needs, but it doesn't really make up for the wasted dollars poured into solar recently.
I am okay with some added revenue from taxation, as it needs to happen regardless, but the tax code itself needs to be fixed, and should be issue 1b to spending cuts being issue 1a.
Boehner says the country is broke, yet still wont budge from his no raise in taxes stance.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The government is spending money at a rate that even a drunken sailor would be taken aback to. Democrats and Republicans can't agree on what to cut because they defend certain spending like a sacred cow. Democrats want to cut warfare but not welfare, and Republicans want to cut welfare but not warfare. In reality, both need to be cut, and drastically. If we don't balance the budget soon (and soon does not mean in 10 years), we will become insolvent and then we'll actually experience what a true fiscal cliff is.
It depends on how you look at tax deductions and credits. Are they a reduction in revenue or tax code spending?
For this argument I prefer to call them a reduction in revenue, but they are rather sacred because the vast majority of them go to poor people. (Notable exceptions are Capital Gains and the recent Estate tax breaks).
Honestly I support starting the tax code over with a clean slate, flatter with less deductions. (Like Romney's Plan). 20% top bracket is a good target, but given our debt right now it might need to be higher.
The big issue with asking the rich to pay more isn't the debt, its the deficit and the desire by politicians to keep spending more without regard to who's money they are spending.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Boehner says the country is broke, yet still wont budge from his no raise in taxes stance.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The government is spending money at a rate that even a drunken sailor would be taken aback to. Democrats and Republicans can't agree on what to cut because they defend certain spending like a sacred cow. Democrats want to cut warfare but not welfare, and Republicans want to cut welfare but not warfare. In reality, both need to be cut, and drastically. If we don't balance the budget soon (and soon does not mean in 10 years), we will become insolvent and then we'll actually experience what a true fiscal cliff is.
Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP has been the lowest over the past 4 years than it has been since 1950.
You realize spending is part of GDP?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's funny you say this because every fiat currency in history has failed at some point in time or another. Just Google "fiat currency collapse" or something along those lines and you'll find numerous sites and sources that show how fiat currencies inevitably collapse. Fiat money is not backed by anything. The only way fiat currency has value is because it comes from trust by the federal government that the money has value in the first place. Just wait until we have a dollar collapse, or worse yet, a complete collapse of all current fiat money. Then you'll realize why fiat currency fails.
Heck, even CNBC had an article about fiat currency collapse not too long ago.
What makes the dollar different from other fiat currencies? Is it because the dollar is the world's reserve currency? If that is the answer, then I'm afraid to say that the dollar can't stay as the world's reserve currency forever. Eventually the rest of the world along with our creditors will realize that we will never, ever be able to repay our debts.
Our current actions to try to get the economy going again include ultra-low interest rates on treasuries, a 0% federal funds rate, and three rounds of the Fed monetizing debt. The fact that the Fed is printing so much money and won't stop is why a dollar collapse is inevitable. Ask the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe what good printing money was.
This could only be possible if interest rates on treasuries continue to be as low as they are forever. They can't stay low for much longer.
I would have to see where this happened, because it didn't in Oregon. We had the same four Democrats and the same one Republican re-elected to Congress.
Indeed, I would question what statistics you are looking at in your statement that Democratic votes outnumbered Republican votes with regards to house representatives. Keeping in mind that the number of democratic votes in New York or California is completely and utterly irrelevant to the number of Republican votes in Texas (just as examples).
For your statement to actually be true, it would have to be true at the state level -- where the democratic votes in a state outnumbered the republican votes in the same state.
About what? That's about personal spending and the myth of savings hasn't proven true in recent times - right now the corporations as a whole are sitting on historically high amounts (as a % of GDP) of money that they're not spending.
If saving was the end-all-be-all we'd be out right now, because savings right now is ridiculous. And isn't in convenient that better sales coincide perfectly in this recent market contraction with when it starts accelerating out of the pit finally?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Medicare for personal practice (A) actually generates a profit from what people pay in (between their FICA contribution and otherwise) - hospital (B) in the equation only dips it slightly.
A big drain on Medicare is the subsidization applied to Medicare Advantage (C) but that's largely going the way of the dodo with ObamaCare. (i.e. "the 'raid on Medicare'" nonsense - that's what it was talking about)
Additionally for Social Security, 80% of people that get standard retirement Social Security actually claim LESS than they would've earned saving the money in the same bonds that Social Security puts its excess funds into. It's actually the subsections that screw up the math largely, SS Disability and SS Insurance. [Although for recent Disability, they're getting more and more strict about SS Disability claims for those that don't have a proper work record where the numbers would work out]
For the majority of people in both cases however - FICA + later life contributions in the case of Medicare actually do keep it pretty close to what would be projected doing the same exact thing privately - so yes, they're largely owed besides a few small adjustments in the calculations to close some holes.
The "welfare-ish" bits to each however are a much trickier ball of wax however - they do serve a sensible purpose (i.e. a parent going bankrupt because of a Down's child seems a stupid precedent to make unless you want to start approving eugenics on a government level) but at the same time, they're clearly note "owed" persay.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It would solve several issues at once.
1. It would lower tax rates which everyone likes to see. right now if obama tax plan would pass i would be paying more in taxes than i currently am due to the success that i have had in the past year.
i have basically seen my salary double in that time. which of course has moved me into a higher tax bracket.
my top marginal rate will be 25% this year. under my plan my tax rate would be 10%. so would everyone else making 500K (possibly 1m or less).
they have full access to any deductions and i would increase the standard deduction to 20k for families.
if you make over 500K/1m then your current marginal tax rate is about 35%. my plan would lower that to 20% however your deductions are capped at 10% of your gross income. so if someone makes 1m dollars. they can deduct up to 100k. they will then pay 20% on 900k.
which is better than paying 35% on 900k.
buffett won't be able to wipe out all of his income through charity donations, but can still donate to charity.
the same rules apply to capital gains except for home sales.
which encourages smarter investing. if you know that your capital gain losses are capped you are going to ensure better investments than risky speculation.
for corporations and small businesses. small businesses making less than 1m gross in a year will not be taxed at all.
if you make more than 1m in a year your corporate rate will be 10% tax with healthcare as the only deduction.
right now corporations spend millions of dollars in accounting rules to keep from paying as much tax as possible because our system is so messed up.
small business and corporations are the life blood of the economy. this plan makes it easy for them.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
yes we would. companies aren't highering because obama has made it hostile for any large company to hire and expand their business.
their operating costs are skyrocketing under obama and it isn't worth hiring people.
as i posted before in not 1 but 2 articles companies are actually downsizing. smaller companies and minimum wage charged companies like Mcdonalds, and restruants are cutting worker hours to <25 so that they don't have to give them healthcare.
if i am a business i will employee less than 10 people if i can get away with it and not worry about obama as much as i can.
companies will continue to sit and save until they see pro-business coming out of washington.
plus they still don't know what the tax code is going to be next year that is going to have an impact on employment.
since they have to pay half of the payroll tax.
they could go from paying 5% to 7.5% per employee or more which is going to be devistating to some businesses.
now obama wants unlimited access to increase the debt ceiling. this guy thinks he is a king or something. you people voted for you you get what you vote for.
he said he wanted to fundimentally change america he is doing a good job of it and we are burning for it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
(Old law was at 30 [technically >29.5] hrs averaged over a quarter they were required to - Obamacare in 2014 removes the minimum, ANY worker has to be covered appropriately or you're fined - unless you're within the "small business" qualifications)
And for the healthcare changes under 50 employees they don't have to contribute a dime, the Fed covers the entire employer portion of healthcare - so your "10 person" theorem is seriously flawed if you actually read the damn law.
The only thing that has changed under Obama is the "private contracting" loophole that people have used to avoid the existing restrictions (that were put in place under Republican administration mind you) - and honestly, when you're spending your entire time working for the same employer with a longterm prospectus not an actual contract length, you're not a contracter - it was ridiculous that loophole existed. (See the 1099 loophole)
And what is required to be "pro-business" we've got the lowest effective corporate tax rates besides Ireland once you count deductions? (Something you and the some of the supposedly "pro-business" Republicans keep suggesting as a fix would likely raise their average substantially, since the average corporation has a ~23% deduction right now [average corporation paid 13% vs. the 36% they're taxed at])
And employers don't pay payroll taxes at all, if you're talking about FICA, not aware of any other payroll taxes. [Unless you mean paying TEMPORARILY until the end of the year, that does occur - but the business gets every penny of FICA they spent back at the end of the year as part of their business deductions - much like health care contribution, it's a 1:1 tax deduction for their contribution]
As for the debt ceiling, it's ludicrous that each budget requires TWO passings right now because of it - they're not allowed to vote on a debt ceiling raise as part of a budget, which makes the process ridiculous to do currently. Budgets should be a simple up and down vote that can include whether or not we raise the debt ceiling.
[After all, if you don't support a debt ceiling raise, and the budget will require one, you vote no to the budget - there's no logic to REQUIRING it to be two separate votes as it exists today]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
You can't blame Obama because republicans refuse to work fairly and see reason. Well, you can, but any person wanting to be taken seriously can't.
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
Regarding some debt ceiling concepts - Mitch McConnell is now filibustering HIS OWN BILL.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/filibusterbating-watch-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster-his-own-bill/
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If we take the Walrasian equilibrium into context, that the public and private sector can neither run a surplus over the other creates an interesting dynamic. The issue with corporations and centralization of wealth control versus the Jeffersonian bourgeoisie ideal would be to have small and medium sized firms retain cash holdings and be able to spend during a recession.
The problem is that the government took over corporate debt, and households ran up huge deficits as well. There's a tie betwixt corporate spending and economic growth, either way that's the world we live in where most of the trade is done by huge multinational corporations. However, that's also a matter of tax policy which favors the financial sector, regulations which favor the financial sector, and education (engineering and mathematics) that has favored the financial sector. Roughly 40% of corporate profits are in the financial field, which creates a problem whenever trying to pass merchandise.
If we consider say interest on consumer loans and credit cards, it slows down people's ability to buy future goods or to save money. Equally, the government's current "starve the beast" mantra doesn't work. It's sophistry, the best way to make sure spending doesn't get out of control is to add parliamentary rules that force tax increases for major spending increases.
The problem with the current economic framework is the same as the 1980's, these tax loopholes create business frontiers to exploit with capital. This goes back to the rise of trusts and corporations trying to get away from the king's taxes and the invention of double end book keeping. Today, however we have a huge population that is either unemployed or under employed with the household sector not able to keep the system down.
Tax breaks encourage certain businesses over the other, the difference between us and the Chinese is that they favor hard manufacturing and much of the Pacific Rim whereas we favored the service industry. The service industry policies do not have the intensive growth seen with manufacturing or small shops. Equally, the move towards more small time producers of things such as alcohol have been a small blessing. We now have as many breweries as prior to Prohibition. There are other good spots, but we do not have the means like the Germans to export that beer for small and medium sized firms.
For a "global economy" we have a rather antiquated system for trade. For instance the Germans, as said, you go to the consulate, get the paper work, and they help you do the leg work to trade in that country. The State Department frankly is one of the real friends of pro-capitalist business if we wanted it to be, rather than the teat sucking defense games.
So in totality, I agree with the Jeffersonian ideal about small entrepreneurs with a high savings rating. However, we need to address the social safety net and bring up the quality of life for many individuals. Capitalism is great, but exploits the weakest among us. Business takes frontiers to grow, and the governments have always been a major part of securing border security and other such institutions to keep secondary integration points along the frontier to make real capital. Frankly, the rich aren't generally in the frontier, it is the secondary integrator cities such as the midwest during the last continental expansion. Those "integrator cities" through out history have always massively increased GDP.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm going to preface this with my opinion that your writing style is cryptic and very difficult for me to understand. It's possible I'm just stupid though.
There is no justification for the quoted statement, people say stuff like this assuming it is common knowledge. Historically it is totally fallacious to make such an assertion. The reason we are already over the fiscal cliff is because the welfare and warfare states are unsustainable and will fall with our fiat currency just as every other has throughout history.
States do not fall. They change. Do you think that Rome does not exist? It is right there in Italy. Do you think that the Roman state was severed in some dramatic action? No roman history has ebbed and flowed changing with time just like the tectonic plates.
When you see the sun set do you exclaim everyday is doomed to end in darkness?
Nope wrong. if you work less than 25 hours a week then they do not have to pay for healthcare.
Small business includes people that are 50 employee's or less. people with 50 employee's or more work use to work their temp employee's 25-30 hours or inbetween there.
now they will work them 20 hours if that. if you would have read the article i posted companies are already doing this. so employee's are actually losing hours and money.
This is simply just false. Companies that have under 50 employee's can file for subsidies to help out with the costs.
http://centerforhealthreporting.org/article/small-businesses-shun-health-subsidies916
please read this. it isn't simply a measure of having less than 50 employee's whatever gave you that notion is just false.
it explains exactly why coporate american and small businesses aren't expanding.
they can't afford to. if they do they have to add employee's which means huge increases in healthcare costs and unless they work people part time. Finding people to work part time is a problem. most people want full time employeement.
it hasn't helped that companies have really upped the requirements. it use to be if you could meet 80% of the requirements they would consider you. now unless you meet 90-100% of the requirements you are not even looked at.
the fact still remains that we are not going to tax our way out of this. we need concrete changes to the tax code and to get the economy back online.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Being able to make the deal is plan A for everyone involved. If it falls through, then there's blame to go around, uncertainty, etc. Worse for the Republicans is that includes a lot of tax increases for everyone, which is bad for Democrats too but it's higher up their priority list of very bad things. The absolute worst thing falls in the GOP's camp - if they can't pass an omnibus bill now, the Democrats can just present what they want piecemeal down the road, and if they don't, then the tax increases and sequester are hits that the GOP is going to have their base up in arms about. Democrats can either stall or defeat anything the GOP wants to pass in the Senate if they don't agree to play ball.
ACA in 2014 removes any lower limit, I do stand corrected however that 2013 it's dropping to 25 and 2014 it's dropping to 20 while it phases in for that part.
So technically speaking we're both right. Do note, I don't see reading it over what DAY in either year it starts for either, I'd presume Jan 1st - but it never states it outright, oddly.
For the next two years it appears you would be accurate - come 2014 it will be unavoidable however, which should encourage them to go back to having fulltime folks.
[Do note though, even at that point though, double employment rules might allow some gaming the system as well - not seeing anything clear that explains how it works with double employment - unless it's the employee's option of which employer he'd take for his healthcare]
That's the CURRENT subsidy, not the incoming one that starts in 2014 - and that subsidy will continue in addition for those 50+ person employers - the new thing that the ACA starts in 2014.
It's going to be a very irritating discussion if you keep responding with "this is the current response to X phasing in" or "the current response to something being replaced by ACA in the future" - because they're not the same.
The ACA program will not be fully in place until 2020 - and just like everything adoption of even "simple things" takes time. If we went single-payer it would've started up quickly since there wouldn't need to be all this rigamarole getting it in place while giving businesses and people time to adapt to the changes. Unfortunately we didn't, thus we've got to roll it out over time.
It neglects to mention that ONLY the current tax credit has a 25 person cap, next year it goes to 50, 2014 the cap is lifted with only total $ restrictions. (And at that point it tapers anyhow, so a "small business" would start to be able to take some)
ACA isn't going away at this point - and by the time Obama is gone it will be 60% rolled out (more than that as a portion of the bill - last 4 years are like one or two items each) - come back and see these things then, rather than one year snapshots of things being slightly goofy while it's changing our old goofy system into something less goofy but doing it SLOWLY so that everyone has time to adapt.
[Basically every step that has a new tax credit or new cost involved to it phases in over 2-3 years - and most them are starting NEXT year besides mandatory coverage (the tax credit/pre-subsidization for small business - yes, come 2014 it will be a "prebate" for truly small businesses) however - 80% of changes thusfar were to how the insurance companies are allowed to operate, starting next year the trickle of the first changes for the consumer and businesses start - 2014 we should be able to get a solid opinion (Note: I'm not saying WHEN in 2014 - because again, almost everything is listed by year, not date within a year - tax related stuff will be Jan 1 for obvious reasons, otherwise - I don't know)]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
And the question is where the welfare state came from, as well as the control exerted by early corporations over peoples. Company towns in particular were fiefdoms with their own currency and so forth. Thus far, when we speak of "history" we must attenuate towards historiography and the essence that interpretation of history itself is an ongoing argument.
The point of exploitation was one of the major critiques from Marx, and whenever someone writes three volumes criticizing capitalism they get somethings wrong and other things right. Equally, the materialist tradition is a major stone with historiography. And thus far there has never been any economic model that has of yet not to have some forms of exploitation.
Thus far, your operating framework is philosophical. Cardfather, in one instance, was able to hand wave a significant part of your own argument about free markets, rail, versus the highway system. Whereas he added one factor not factored in; the airline industry. Again, with the record becomes more and more complex as you add in more factors.
One of the fundamental points with the works popularized by the Mises Institute have been people like Bastiat which saw the rise of militarized government under Napolean. Whereas Rothbard, a favorite of yours, was a Russian Jew expelled under communism. So let us return to your operating framework, a person whose life was in danger and severely disrupted by bad government would he necessarily have an "unbiased opinion" against government? Most certainly not, the same that Ayn Rand, another Russian American, had the same dislike.
Whereas others such as Roepke, Hayek, Keynes (yes Keynes was a conservative), and Erhard were more open to government because they saw the ravages that the market had on other institutions. The market is a wonderful mechanism, however there's a concept called the "double bottom line" that takes care of the human side of capital. Uniformity and stability allows for people to predict the future and gives the capacity to use belief to work hard. Belief in ownership and property rights is defended both by sword and by heart. From self-interest and altruism.
The NAP interpretation of history was what connotes "freedom" to do anything you want if it doesn't harm individuals. Where it becomes a philosophy is considering the historiographical record about violence in the Wild West, Middle Ages Iceland, and Ireland. Blinking Spirit had an excellent point to an article about the "peaceable Wild West" theory that either you or another poster had linked to, and considering the population density and rate of violence was higher in the Wild West than in modern cities which have more controls and bigger government.
Furthermore, what you're advocating is called the Frontier Thesis or the Turner Thesis (a good quick read for anyone, can be downloaded easily online). That is that the frontiersman was the main driver for economic growth, this has been contested with another thesis in The Urban Frontier by Richard C. Wade. Wade's thesis was basically it was not the big cities nor the frontiersman, but rather the cities in between of the expansion and the settled areas that made for the greatest economic growth. Hence merchants and soldiers also bringing back technologies and works from the Crusades, and the immigration of Byzantine scholars to Europe which also very much helped to spark a new age in learning.
Now where materialists argue from is often demographics and other such things, such as warfare increases during population booms as a very well documented example that has been supported over the years and taken as a major factor in military studies.
Now what Rothbard does is use a philosophical foundation to try and build around his own idea about "how people should live." I think what you will find is that conservative historians and economists who are "statists" like Blinking Spirit and so forth would come to argue is something more Burkean and Hobbesian than Rothbardian.
Now, people also often decide based on emotion. Whenever I had linked a speech given by Rothbard one of the major feelings was that he was "paranoid" to describe one poster's reaction to him. Which is essentially that, the fear of the government. For leftist scholars like Marx and others are more fearful of the market, particularly market failures.
Now, operating from your framework Rothbard is right and others like Bryan Caplan and ect. With that said, there are of course going to major disagreements with an operating thesis and narrative that goes counter to multiples yet does indeed dovetail with some major narratives at times and there have been synthesis attempts by men such as Reiseman. However, with that said doesn't always make them wrong, either.
During the last debate with Shining Blue Eyes multiple of us had hacked away at his defense of the South, which he referred to other historians like Beard who have been discredited over the years in favor of men such as WEB Dubois and more recent interpretations of First Reconstruction and Redemption.In particular, primary documents, to which Blinking Spirit had supplied many sub points to SBE's assertions, were extinguished.
Which thus far has yet to be stated that slavery continued well into 20th century through the prison system, while the current black market system uses different phraseology like "human trafficking" is still the same old slave trade. Under anarchism, all sorts of evils and villainy would exist and do exist where there is very little government.
Now, your assertion has been that we live in more "enlightened times" well flash mobs, modern sex slaves, and on bear witness to a world without morality rather depravity with both a market and a government. One of your supporting axioms is to eliminate the modern notion of government in favor of something else more similar to other primitive forms of government as well as other bodies like large companies in the modern sense.
Which, again, bodes not well for your intellectual tradition versus others who have tried to seek balance betwixt the state and the man. "Statist" isn't a communist, but anarchist is something that can and has been challenged to such an extent that it sees about as much daylight as Chartism. Meanwhile, the broader intellectual umbrella within even the Mises Institute is to limit government not eliminate government or reform it into something we have no true experimentation with or real sense of.
Humans exploit other humans.
Markets are made up of other humans.
Therefore markets exploit other humans.
That's my basic historical argument. Feel free to plug into anything there, because people don't function off of a utility model deigned from Newtonian physics. You can plug in about any other institution ranging from family to the church.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
http://news.yahoo.com/gops-boehner-says-obama-slow-walking-cliff-talks-180429101.html
Boehner says the country is broke, yet still wont budge from his no raise in taxes stance.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The government is spending money at a rate that even a drunken sailor would be taken aback to. Democrats and Republicans can't agree on what to cut because they defend certain spending like a sacred cow. Democrats want to cut warfare but not welfare, and Republicans want to cut welfare but not warfare. In reality, both need to be cut, and drastically. If we don't balance the budget soon (and soon does not mean in 10 years), we will become insolvent and then we'll actually experience what a true fiscal cliff is.
Republicans need to come off their sacred cow of Warfare spending so they can stand on a platform of reform. You can't have true reform if there are things that are untouchable, everything should be evenly and fairly examined and overhauled.
We have to cut everywhere, but the easier places are to cut things that should be handled by the states (education) and things that are just pointless (redundant programs).
Cut foreign aid until we get our own house in order and close overseas military bases and bring our soldiers home.
Stop paying 22% of the UN's budget. The UN is just a global mouthpiece to trash talk the US, let them pay for their own stuff. We have NATO for our multi-national to-dos, just pay what, say, China or Russia pay into the UN.
Please, for the love of god, put our R&D money into science projects that actually will help the way of life of people. We have all this great federal funding we can put into great works of science, and instead we get hand-outs to political cronies in fields they are pretty well developed (I am look at you, solar cells). I do applaud Obama trying to get more money to nuclear and high-energy physics sciences to apply to energy needs, but it doesn't really make up for the wasted dollars poured into solar recently.
Also on the topic of science, can someone please give NASA something to do. With Bush's yearly goals gone, Dr. Star Trek seems to be the only one doing anything in actual research over there as far as space travel is concerned. http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive
I am okay with some added revenue from taxation, as it needs to happen regardless, but the tax code itself needs to be fixed, and should be issue 1b to spending cuts being issue 1a.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP has been the lowest over the past 4 years than it has been since 1950.
For this argument I prefer to call them a reduction in revenue, but they are rather sacred because the vast majority of them go to poor people. (Notable exceptions are Capital Gains and the recent Estate tax breaks).
Honestly I support starting the tax code over with a clean slate, flatter with less deductions. (Like Romney's Plan). 20% top bracket is a good target, but given our debt right now it might need to be higher.
The big issue with asking the rich to pay more isn't the debt, its the deficit and the desire by politicians to keep spending more without regard to who's money they are spending.
You realize spending is part of GDP?