Government Debt

[Bob Maxey]

Hard to find news outside the tech sector (scratch that, anymore you find mostly rumors) and when it comes to the media, I remember when we had news.

Now all we have is infotainment and all of it is inflammatory - either by design or because the producers themselves may actually believe that they're offering news.

I agree, Early. It seems the more outrageous you are, the more cash you make until something worse comes along. Programs like TMZ and The Soup arrived to make fun of these people and created a second genre of programming.

I remember the good old days, when 8088s ruled the world and there were several years between the next big thing. Far fewer rumors because there was not an Internet as we know it/hate it today. I think my old 486 laptop was top of the line for a few years. I anxiously awaited news of the next big thing.

Do you recall the columnist for BYTE Magazine that was accused of giving favorable reviews to those that provided free samples and test units, and less than stellar reviews for stuff he had to pay for? I forget his name.

Think Payola for the Tech Industry.

I participate in Big News: Megahertz started out selling a device called a Turbo Switch. This was a chip socket with a faster crystal and an 80880 chip encapsulated in polymers. I recall it was a big deal.

I fondly recall the old Computer Shopper Magazine; an inch thick and tabloid size. Remember that? Or the Tiger Direct catalogs filled with parts and cool crap and a large size?

 

[lordofthereef]

Woah woah woah. Family Ties star? I think Back to the Future is far more widely know, sir!

 

[EarlyMon]

I remember the good old days, when 8088s ruled the world and there were several years between the next big thing. Far fewer rumors because there was not an Internet as we know it/hate it today. I think my old 486 laptop was top of the line for a few years. I anxiously awaited news of the next big thing.

Of course, you're talking to an 8086 snob who needed none of that 8088 addressing nonsense. Liked that I could run several segments of 8080 code and segregate that by user - and far preferred the Z-80.

Do you recall the columnist for BYTE Magazine that was accused of giving favorable reviews to those that provided free samples and test units, and less than stellar reviews for stuff he had to pay for? I forget his name.

Think Payola for the Tech Industry.

I remember Jerry Pournelle and Real Soon Now, does that count?

I participate in Big News: Megahertz started out selling a device called a Turbo Switch. This was a chip socket with a faster crystal and an 80880 chip encapsulated in polymers. I recall it was a big deal.

DTACK Grounded made a 68000 kit that you outboard to an Apple ][+ and that was fast, for its day. Used it to offload high order transform calculations. And I remember a few 80186 projects. Trying to remember if the first addressing circuit I designed and implemented was for that - it was either that or the 8086.

I fondly recall the old Computer Shopper Magazine; an inch thick and tabloid size. Remember that? Or the Tiger Direct catalogs filled with parts and cool crap and a large size?

Used the old ones to hold boards to make shelves for the new ones. Tiger Direct was my favorite, watched them grow and got all my nichrome burning goodies from them.


Government debt, in my opinion, is the result of people, who only understand services, practicing economics. I think a lot of understanding is lost when one cannot relate the hard truths that economies grow via manufacturing and relate commodities to what numbers their brokers give them.

That's probably too abstract and wrong though.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Of course, you're talking to an 8086 snob who needed none of that 8088 addressing nonsense. Liked that I could run several segments of 8080 code and segregate that by user - and far preferred the Z-80.

I remember Jerry Pournelle and Real Soon Now, does that count?

DTACK Grounded made a 68000 kit that you outboard to an Apple ][+ and that was fast, for its day. Used it to offload high order transform calculations. And I remember a few 80186 projects. Trying to remember if the first addressing circuit I designed and implemented was for that - it was either that or the 8086.

Used the old ones to hold boards to make shelves for the new ones. Tiger Direct was my favorite, watched them grow and got all my nichrome burning goodies from them.

Government debt, in my opinion, is the result of people, who only understand services, practicing economics. I think a lot of understanding is lost when one cannot relate the hard truths that economies grow via manufacturing and relate commodities to what numbers their brokers give them.

That's probably too abstract and wrong though.

Jerry was likely the one. Something like Chaos Manor if Wikipedia serves me correctly.

I never designed much computer crap. My big fat huge thing was using Bucket Brigade devices to create music delay lines. I was quite interested in sound related stuff. Mechanical delay lines were cool, but too hard to make in my shop.

PAIA was a good friend for cheap filters and 555 related timer stuff.

What bothers me is I saw the computer revolution coming and simply forget to become involved. In a general life review, I can see lots of 'could have beens.'

Perhaps you all would be discussing Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Bob Maxey in the same light.

 

[RiverOfIce]

I am honestly going to go home early from work after this one, headache is going from bad to worst.

When something the administration does is clearly unconstitutional, you do not hear about it.

What exactly is unconstitutional and please label the exact wording in the constitution that makes it unconstitutional.

Like the estimated $2500.00 it will cost everyone of us and collected by the IRS, so avoiding it might be dangerous.

$2,500 dollars a year is a FREAKING steal. If it is only 2,500 a person, then my personal insurance, and how much my company pays per employee would take care of 4 people. That is right, for full healthcare coverage, medical, dental, and other it is more then $28,000 dollars a year per family. Which covers 3 people. Out of that, we pay only $3,000 dollars per year. Having to pay 2,500 dollars a person is a freaking steal. Right now, the average, not good, but average insurance on the open market cost 4,000 dollars a person 13,000 dollars a family. You are saying that we can cover every body in the united states for 2,500 dollars a person, wow, that a good plan. I am in

But ignoring all of that. It cost the tax payer 40 billion dollars a year to cover medical cost of the uninsured. Yes 40 billion a year. $266 dollars out of your pocket up front. Would you like to have the uninsured pay something or have you pay all of it?

You read about how low the taxes are on the wealthy and why they should pay higher taxes, yet they do not mention that almost half of the people in this country do not pay ANY taxes.

This is going to hurt. Ok.
The bottom 50% make less then 33,000 dollars a year, which is 10,000 dollars a year from being in poverty line. Where I live, 33,000 dollars is way below poverty, way way way below.

About 13 to 17% of all Americans are permanently under the poverty line. Which means up to 17% of family of 4 make less the 22,000 dollars a year. Are you seriously saying that a family of 4 making less then 22,000 dollars a year should pay just the same amount of taxes as a banker making 100,000 dollars a year?

Furthermore, 40% of the population of the united states will fall under the poverty line with in a 10 year period. Which means, by your definition, 7% of people that are living barely above the poverty line is getting away with paying no taxes. And ignoring the fact that the top .1% of the top tax payers that make on average 6 million dollars a year, but only pay 1.3 million in taxes. Which is the same for a person making more then 33,000 dollars a year. Are those two people equal to you? A family making 6 million and a family making 33,000?


Ignoring all that. They still pay taxes. When you get gas, you are taxed. By milk to feed your kids, tax. Drive a car, tax. State taxes, sales tax, property tax, ect... They are still taxed.

You should read more before you comment on people you have never listened to and read history, so you will understand what you read.

Sigh, I really don't know what to say, well...if I was honest...I know what to say but it would get me banned again. Bottom line, even if they don't pay as much in taxes as the a person that making 6 million dollars a year, the bottom 50% have it pretty bad. If you are saying that we should start to tax the bottom 50% expect 50% of the population to be on welfare with in a year.

*You is being used as just a 3rd person, not directed at anyone.

 

[noah way]

Please explain in detail how media is "leftist".

Also, now that Glen Beck is off the air, what sources do you "study" - townhall.com and Rush Limbaugh?

As for Rush, he is deadly accurate and I guarantee you will be hard pressed to discover a Limbaugh Lie. He reports what the Left is up to and some of what he says scares me. Beck is still with us by the way.

Looks like I nailed it. Let's try another one. One of your most substantive policy books is Going Rogue: An American Life.

US media ownership is predominantly corporate. So according to you, GE, Rupert Murdoch, COMCAST and ClearChannel Communications are leftists.

Oh, and I wasn't hard pressed at all:

"Not one Republican voted for the TARP bailout"
-- The Rush Limbaugh Show, March 18, 2009

House Vote On Passage: H.R. 384 [111th]: TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009

 

[Tommy78]

Looks like I nailed it.

What are you trying to prove, that a Republican listens to Rush? Is that supposed to be a secret or something not well known?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Actaully, a moderate debt is a good thing. Moderate. The government should never break even or turn a surplus, ever. The governments job is to redistribute resources and wealth. The redistribution is done by taxes, laws, fees, and regulations.

With out moderate debt the government doesn't issue bonds. Government bonds are considered "risk free", and pretty much sets the bottom on the interest rates and helps either prop up for bring down rates that are too high or low. The rate interest helps the exchange of currency in private spending/lending.

Debt is a good thing. Even private debt is a good thing, just a moderate amount of debt, not excessive.

If you have a credit card with no debt, it is actually lowering your credit rating, every month it is empty. If you just apply 50 or more dollars to your credit cards a month, and pay it off each month, your credit rating improves.

Does a surplus have to be money, i.e. a medium of exchange ? Government surplus is a means to dampen current demand and provide the means to pay for future demand stimulus. So what else can be used to "store" a surplus ? Could an investment in human capital be a means to dampen current demand and store wealth ?

 

[RiverOfIce]

Does a surplus have to be money, i.e. a medium of exchange? Government surplus is a means to dampen current demand and provide the means to pay for future demand stimulus. So what else can be used to "store" a surplus ? Could an investment in human capital be a means to dampen current demand and store wealth ?

Yes, we can. A surplus can be used as a kick back or rainy day fund, to a limited extent. A across the board tax break always will increase the monetary return 1 to 1. The best way to use the surplus is to increase government spending to increase productivity. Right now, every government agency is horribly understaffed, but using the surplus to hire you increase productivity. You can also use the money to buy foreign debt which would be considered risk free.

For example. If you take out a loan at 3.14% and then hand the money to a start up business at 4% you can increase the gpd directly and make the .86% profit. There is a thousand ways to "store" the surplus.

If you are running on up a bubble and know you are going to get a recession in the next few years, you could just store the money, and spend like mad to reduce the effects of the recession. But you should always run a moderate debt over a period of 20 years.

 

[noah way]

A across the board tax break always will increase the monetary return 1 to 1.

Categorically false. Assumes that every penny of a tax break will be productively spent or reinvested. The reality is that at lower levels, every penny of tax break is spent, but at upper levels (the vast majority of all revenue - the top 10% received 42% of all income way back in 2007) it is saved or invested in economically non-productive strategies like tax free foreign investment.

This is the result of tax policy that "rewards" foreign investment by not taxing it. Thus trillions in taxpayer funded stimulus money is now used to build Ford plants in Vietnam and for a multitude of other foreign investments, resulting in fewer jobs in the US and no US tax revenue. The parts of the world that are experiencing economic booms now are doing it largely because of investment by banks and investment houses directly funded by US taxpayers.

The bailout is the biggest social welfare system in history, and it's directed entirely at those who don't need a penny of it.

 

[OutofDate1980]

....

Government debt, in my opinion, is the result of people, who only understand services, practicing economics. I think a lot of understanding is lost when one cannot relate the hard truths that economies grow via manufacturing and relate commodities to what numbers their brokers give them.

That's probably too abstract and wrong though.

Another example, for folks like me, that believe there are other factors that cause economic growth besides manufacturing and related commodities.

Breakthrough in quantum computing: Researchers develop system that resists 'quantum bug'

 

[RiverOfIce]

Categorically false. Assumes that every penny of a tax break will be productively spent or reinvested. The reality is that at lower levels, every penny of tax break is spent, but at upper levels (the vast majority of all revenue - the top 10% received 42% of all income way back in 2007) it is saved or invested in economically non-productive strategies like tax free foreign investment.

Not to nick-pick but to be categorically false, it has to be false in every category. The other problem with you statement is over all, there is a 1 to 1 ratio, the lower ranks usually spend about 1.5 to 2 times the amount given. The tax break helps them get a new tv, it does not actually give them a new tv, they have to use other money to make up the difference.

But you are right the top 50% usually store the money. But out of that money, the 25% directly invest it into companies, which offers a 1 to .25, for every dollar spent, you get about 25 cents back.

Now when you add up the bottom usually spending about 1.5 to 2 times the amount of return with the rich returning about 1/4 of the amount, you usually get about 1 to 1 ratio back to the over all economy, but it does depend on how much and what the current economy is doing.

 

[EarlyMon]

Another example, for folks like me, that believe there are other factors that cause economic growth besides manufacturing and related commodities.

Breakthrough in quantum computing: Researchers develop system that resists 'quantum bug'

No argument that that will have positive benefits to some segments of the economy, but where did the money come from? Not trade in that case, it came from taxes (or grants that sheltered income or both).

If and when it leads to products (or marketable services outside our nation) then it will create a base to offset the expenses.

I'm never knocking pure research - not everything fits on a balance sheet (the very reason that arts and sciences are often associated). But I don't think that example showed the counterpoint to manufactured goods.

Neither do I want to say that it all has to be one-sided. Rather, I was expressing concerns that perhaps if it is one-sided in some policy makers' minds, perhaps they've chosen the wrong side.

 

[noah way]

Not to nick-pick but to be categorically false, it has to be false in every category. The other problem with you statement is over all, there is a 1 to 1 ratio, the lower ranks usually spend about 1.5 to 2 times the amount given. The tax break helps them get a new tv, it does not actually give them a new tv, they have to use other money to make up the difference.

But you are right the top 50% usually store the money. But out of that money, the 25% directly invest it into companies, which offers a 1 to .25, for every dollar spent, you get about 25 cents back.

Now when you add up the bottom usually spending about 1.5 to 2 times the amount of return with the rich returning about 1/4 of the amount, you usually get about 1 to 1 ratio back to the over all economy, but it does depend on how much and what the current economy is doing.

Semantic qualification accepted.

But as to the return on money invested by the top 20%, I'd like to see some data supporting your supposition. There is no apparent evidence in the job market or in tax revenue that supports this.

Tax policy that rewards foreign investment prevents investment in the US.

The United States now has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. In 2009, the top 20% received 50.3% of all income; the top 5% received 21.7%.

Historical Income Tables - Income Inequality - U.S Census Bureau

 

[OutofDate1980]

Of course, you're talking to an 8086 snob who needed none of that 8088 addressing nonsense. Liked that I could run several segments of 8080 code and segregate that by user - and far preferred the Z-80.



I remember Jerry Pournelle and Real Soon Now, does that count?



DTACK Grounded made a 68000 kit that you outboard to an Apple ][+ and that was fast, for its day. Used it to offload high order transform calculations. And I remember a few 80186 projects. Trying to remember if the first addressing circuit I designed and implemented was for that - it was either that or the 8086.



Used the old ones to hold boards to make shelves for the new ones. Tiger Direct was my favorite, watched them grow and got all my nichrome burning goodies from them.


Government debt, in my opinion, is the result of people, who only understand services, practicing economics. I think a lot of understanding is lost when one cannot relate the hard truths that economies grow via manufacturing and relate commodities to what numbers their brokers give them.

That's probably too abstract and wrong though.

No argument that that will have positive benefits to some segments of the economy, but where did the money come from? Not trade in that case, it came from taxes (or grants that sheltered income or both).

If and when it leads to products (or marketable services outside our nation) then it will create a base to offset the expenses.

I'm never knocking pure research - not everything fits on a balance sheet (the very reason that arts and sciences are often associated). But I don't think that example showed the counterpoint to manufactured goods.

Neither do I want to say that it all has to be one-sided. Rather, I was expressing concerns that perhaps if it is one-sided in some policy makers' minds, perhaps they've chosen the wrong side.

I believe economic growth based on manufacturing & commodities is too narrow. R&D, engineering, product development, etc. offers higher margins, thus requiring more investment in human capital, i.e., social investment, as the private sector can't provide this investment as returns can not be captured by specific company or industry, thus requiring macroeconomic policy to provide investments for returns which will be captured by society/community.

 

[Bob Maxey]

$2,500 dollars a year is a FREAKING steal. If it is only 2,500 a person, then my personal insurance, and how much my company pays per employee would take care of 4 people. That is right, for full healthcare coverage, medical, dental, and other it is more then $28,000 dollars a year per family. Which covers 3 people. Out of that, we pay only $3,000 dollars per year. Having to pay 2,500 dollars a person is a freaking steal. Right now, the average, not good, but average insurance on the open market cost 4,000 dollars a person 13,000 dollars a family. You are saying that we can cover every body in the united states for 2,500 dollars a person, wow, that a good plan.

You assume your employer will still offer insurance. And you assume you will be able to purchase private insurance at a good and fair price. And you assume the government plan will cover what you now get privately. And you assume you will be cared for if there is a problem. What is paid for is not up to you to decide but a small group of bureaucrats in DC.

Did you know your employer or you cannot make a change to the plan they offer you? If they do, you loose insurance?

I wont ask you if you read it because it is more than two thousand five hundred pages long and not one person that voted for it actually read it.

As for it being unconstitutional, please do a little reading. The courts are striking down (or getting ready to) OC at every turn. It deprives individuals of choice and it forces us to purchase the coverage.

"The Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate."

You can go to jail if you do not accept OC. Or face huge fines.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The United States now has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. In 2009, the top 20% received 50.3% of all income; the top 5% received 21.7%.

So what? It is not caused by us, it is because the leaders in those countries are greedy fools that do not give a rat's pink arse about their people. We have historically done much for every country on God's green earth.

 

[Lowrider1]

He has ruined the U.S. Of course, u must bankrupt the system b4 u start a socialist government. LOOK to the Messiah! LMAO

 

[RiverOfIce]

You assume your employer will still offer insurance. And you assume you will be able to purchase private insurance at a good and fair price. And you assume the government plan will cover what you now get privately. And you assume you will be cared for if there is a problem. What is paid for is not up to you to decide but a small group of bureaucrats in DC.

Did you know your employer or you cannot make a change to the plan they offer you? If they do, you loose insurance?

According to the 20 human resource people we have in the basement here, I asked them this same question about a month ago, what you just said is 100% wrong. They buy the insurance, so I am going to have to go with them on this. In fact, they said under the current obamacare, not only do we get to keep the current insurance, but they see it dropping in price by 32% over the next 10 years. They also said that under the current obamacare the quality of care will go up, not down. Since, they are doing this for a living, I am going to trust them.

I wont ask you if you read it because it is more than two thousand five hundred pages long and not one person that voted for it actually read it.

Not to be a pain about this, but 1000 pages in the legal document are random words written by the spaghetti monster?

As for it being unconstitutional, please do a little reading. The courts are striking down (or getting ready to) OC at every turn. It deprives individuals of choice and it forces us to purchase the coverage.

But I can say that about gay marriage. Taxes. Gun registration. Airport security. FBI. CIA. A quick read says that there that it is a contresal issue but has just as many judges saying yes it is legal then judges saying it is not.

"Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. "

I was simply going to ignore you until this, the consistution set up a government and spoke very little on what the government should put into order and constructed. You are referring to the bill of rights, I think. The bill of rights states you have the right to bear arms. The united states government says, not with out a tax, fees, papers, and there will be some guns that will be 100% illegal for you to have. If you break on of our laws you will go to jail and have fines. Moving on, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

es

 

[noah way]

The United States now has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. In 2009, the top 20% received 50.3% of all income; the top 5% received 21.7%.

So what? It is not caused by us, it is because the leaders in those countries are greedy fools that do not give a rat's pink arse about their people.

So we're in a agreement, then. The leaders in the US are greedy fools who do not give a rat's pink arse about their people. I knew we'd find some common ground. Even Limbaugh can't be wrong 100% of the time.

 

[EarlyMon]

I believe economic growth based on manufacturing & commodities is too narrow. R&D, engineering, product development, etc. offers higher margins, thus requiring more investment in human capital, i.e., social investment, as the private sector can't provide this investment as returns can not be captured by specific company or industry, thus requiring macroeconomic policy to provide investments for returns which will be captured by society/community.

I would agree that this is the state we find ourselves in.

I never said growth based on manufacturing alone - I've said people expecting growth based on services alone is a problem.

I don't think that's been clear, despite attempts to clarify.

 

[Bob Maxey]

According to the 20 human resource people we have in the basement here, I asked them this same question about a month ago, what you just said is 100% wrong. They buy the insurance, so I am going to have to go with them on this. In fact, they said under the current obamacare, not only do we get to keep the current insurance, but they see it dropping in price by 32% over the next 10 years. They also said that under the current obamacare the quality of care will go up, not down. Since, they are doing this for a living, I am going to trust them.
Yes, we need to ban some firearms, a 50 caliber gun is really cool, but I dont want my neighbor cleaning a loaded one. Yes, we have to pay taxes, they make this country work. Yes, we have to fund and support religion, religion does a a lot of great things. Yes, we have to help those that can not help themselves, which means we have to have obamacare.

I snipped the odd stuff.

Read this (link below) and then find some new HR people that actually know what they are talking about.

I was once told by our HR person that if a supervisor does not want to promote or hire white people because he does not like white people, it is fine. So much for HR being smart.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/examiner-editorial-obamacare-even-worse-critics-thought

I absolutely know your HR people have NOT read the HC plan. This is a fact.

 

[nlsme]

I snipped the odd stuff.

Read this (link below) and then find some new HR people that actually know what they are talking about.

I was once told by our HR person that if a supervisor does not want to promote or hire white people because he does not like white people, it is fine. So much for HR being smart.

Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought | Examiner Editorial | Opinion | Washington Examiner

I absolutely know your HR people have NOT read the HC plan. This is a fact.

I am willing to bet, neither have you.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... Government debt, in my opinion, is the result of people, who only understand services, practicing economics. I think a lot of understanding is lost when one cannot relate the hard truths that economies grow via manufacturing and relate commodities to what numbers their brokers give them.

That's probably too abstract and wrong though.

I would agree that this is the state we find ourselves in.

I never said growth based on manufacturing alone - I've said people expecting growth based on services alone is a problem.

I don't think that's been clear, despite attempts to clarify.

OK, I concentrated on your statement "...the hard truths that economies grow via manufacturing and relate commodities..." It appears we agree there are many factors which contribute to economic growth.

Somewhat related is the recent paper (Entrepreneurs, chance, and the deterministic concentration of wealth, July 20 issue of the journal PLoS ONE). Is all our planning and hard work for naught ? A short extract is here Chance favors the concentration of wealth, study shows; New model isolates the effects of chance in an investment-based economy

 

[RiverOfIce]

\ I absolutely know your HR people have NOT read the HC plan. This is a fact.

'

But I love terms "likely".

I could post an editorial on anything, human-alien hybrids, a sheep ate my dog, and lose weight on 300 hotdogs a month. But hey, you linked to an opinion section on a right wing newspaper, I could find worst.


The human resources people are in charge with finding us healthcare. They said costs will go down and the amount of coverage will go up.