Broken Politics, Broken Economics

[Chris]

Many people believe in the idea of a government, just not the reality.

"Then I realized that they want a kind of unicorn, a State that has the properties, motivations, knowledge, and abilities that they can imagine for it. When I finally realized that we were talking past each other, I felt kind of dumb. Because essentially this very realization—that people who favor expansion of government imagine a State different from the one possible in the physical world—has been a core part of the argument made by classical liberals for at least three hundred years...." --Michael Munger, The "State" As A Unicorn (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/08/michael-munger-the-state-as-a-unicorn.html)


Jeff Deist, Mises Institute, Broken Politics, Broken Economics (https://mises.org/blog/broken-politics-broken-economics)


...Because no matter who wins, millions of people — maybe 40 percent of the country — are going to view the winner as illegitimate and irredeemable.

...Trump vs. Hillary represents something much bigger: what we might call the end of politics, or at least the limits of politics. Americans, and Europeans too, are witnessing the end of the myth of democratic consensus. Democratic voting, so called, doesn’t yield some noble compromise between Left and Right, but only an entrenched political class and its system of patronage.

We know this already — but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality.

There’s simply no political will or political consensus to address these big picture problems. Politics is broken.

There’s something profoundly healthy about witnessing this. The understanding that political solutions don’t exist, that our grade-school view of government is a sham — is a profound opportunity. Angry voters, populism, nationalism, anti-globalism, anti-elitism — these are all symptoms of healthy hostility toward politics. We can turn up our noses at these movements, and dismiss them as anti-intellectual or illiberal. Or we can embrace the opportunity they present.

That opportunity — to make the case for a fully free society, one not organized around politics and the state....

[exploited]

I believe in the reality of government. Major alterations should be made, and politics should be decentralized, but at the end of the day, I believe the rule of law is necessary, and that it requires a state to enforce the law.

[Chris]

Yes, I understand many people put great faith in the state and being able to fix it. I'm curious what successes, miracles if you will, have been accomplished.

[exploited]

Yes, I understand many people put great faith in the state and being able to fix it. I'm curious what successes, miracles if you will, have been accomplished.

One such thing I consider a miracle is the exportation of agricultural technology and techniques by governments, resulting in a massive and ultimately necessary increase in crop yields, on a global level. For instance, the Green Revolution was a partnership between private and public entities, and the result was being able to feed a booming population. Had these private entities not invented the technology, government couldn't have distributed it. Had government not distributed it, it wouldn't have been rolled out so quickly (and in the agricultural world, "quickly" refers to within a decade or two), because those private entities simply did not have the resources to do that. This was the difference between millions starving and millions not starving, and it is a prime example of how I think government and private entities can work together to achieve things that either is unable to achieve on their own.

Another example would be the good work done by the CDC to control, monitor and treat lethal contagions across the globe. There really isn't any profit motive for such a thing - nobody is going to pay good money for you to keep an eye on what diseases are impacting people 11,000 miles away. And yet in this global economy, the services provided by the CDC are absolutely essential, and play an absolutely critical role in keeping people safe.

[Chris]

One such thing I consider a miracle is the exportation of agricultural technology and techniques by governments, resulting in a massive and ultimately necessary increase in crop yields, on a global level. For instance, the Green Revolution was a partnership between private and public entities, and the result was being able to feed a booming population. Had these private entities not invented the technology, government couldn't have distributed it. Had government not distributed it, it wouldn't have been rolled out so quickly (and in the agricultural world, "quickly" refers to within a decade or two), because those private entities simply did not have the resources to do that. This was the difference between millions starving and millions not starving, and it is a prime example of how I think government and private entities can work together to achieve things that either is unable to achieve on their own.

Another example would be the good work done by the CDC to control, monitor and treat lethal contagions across the globe. There really isn't any profit motive for such a thing - nobody is going to pay good money for you to keep an eye on what diseases are impacting people 11,000 miles away. And yet in this global economy, the services provided by the CDC are absolutely essential, and play an absolutely critical role in keeping people safe.


Sorry, those successes, and successes they are, are technological successes, not political or governmental ones. And just because some governmental agency like the CDC employs technological advances does not imply it must be the CDC or any governmental agency rather than some private, market based solution.

So, what are the political, the governmental successes?

[exploited]

Sorry, those successes, and successes they are, are technological successes, not political or governmental ones. And just because some governmental agency like the CDC employs technological advances does not imply it must be the CDC or any governmental agency rather than some private, market based solution.

So, what are the political, the governmental successes?

Another example is the eradication of disease and the widespread use of vaccinations. For instance, the World Health Organization coordinated and funded the eradication of smallpox. They have also very nearly defeated polio, a crippling disease that previously maimed and killed millions. Further, governments have been instrumental in educating the public about vaccinations, and providing them for a reduced or even non-existent cost. Due to the nature of herd immunity, these actions have resulted in the preservation of millions of lives.

[Chris]

Another example is the eradication of disease and the widespread use of vaccinations. For instance, the World Health Organization coordinated and funded the eradication of smallpox. They have also very nearly defeated polio, a crippling disease that previously maimed and killed millions. Further, governments have been instrumental in educating the public about vaccinations, and providing them for a reduced or even non-existent cost. Due to the nature of herd immunity, these actions have resulted in the preservation of millions of lives.

Another great technological advance. No doubt about it.

The topic is politics, or economics. Not technology.

[Newpublius]

Many people believe in the idea of a government, just not the reality.

"Then I realized that they want a kind of unicorn, a State that has the properties, motivations, knowledge, and abilities that they can imagine for it. When I finally realized that we were talking past each other, I felt kind of dumb. Because essentially this very realization—that people who favor expansion of government imagine a State different from the one possible in the physical world—has been a core part of the argument made by classical liberals for at least three hundred years...." --Michael Munger, The "State" As A Unicorn (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/08/michael-munger-the-state-as-a-unicorn.html)


Jeff Deist, Mises Institute, Broken Politics, Broken Economics (https://mises.org/blog/broken-politics-broken-economics)

I am going to blatantly plagiarize that thought ad nauseam

[Newpublius]

Another example is the eradication of disease and the widespread use of vaccinations. For instance, the World Health Organization coordinated and funded the eradication of smallpox. They have also very nearly defeated polio, a crippling disease that previously maimed and killed millions. Further, governments have been instrumental in educating the public about vaccinations, and providing them for a reduced or even non-existent cost. Due to the nature of herd immunity, these actions have resulted in the preservation of millions of lives.

If you lived in East Germany you likely wouldn't be able to fathom auto production without government.

Health issues exist and so too do governments. But make no mistake about it, the necessity of government is the necessity of government, but even the stuff that is necessary is still a Trabant. They have likely set back the progress of world health by a century.

[exploited]

Another great technological advance. No doubt about it.

The topic is politics, or economics. Not technology.

The World Health Organization is a political organization that is solely responsible for distributing the technology that saved millions of lives. I don't really understand your objection to these examples.

[Chris]

I am going to blatantly plagiarize that thought ad nauseam

Munger? Not being a consequentialist I don't follow him much but do agree generally with public choice theory.

[Chris]

The World Health Organization is a political organization that is solely responsible for distributing the technology that saved millions of lives. I don't really understand your objection to these examples.

As with the CDC, just because the WHO does something doesn't imply it must or that the market/society can't do it. So while the technology is an advance, the bureaucracy is not.

I suppose, and this addresses Newpublius's second post, belief in the necessity of the government is so entrenched no matter what people look at they praise the Lord, er, the government for it.

[exploited]

As with the CDC, just because the WHO does something doesn't imply it must or that the market/society can't do it. So while the technology is an advance, the bureaucracy is not.

I suppose, and this addresses @Newpublius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=685)'s second post, belief in the necessity of the government is so entrenched no matter what people look at they praise the Lord, er, the government for it.

I see. In that case, I wonder why you asked for examples of government success, because these are indeed successes that were done by government. Perhaps a better question would have been "What is something that only government can do, that private market forces cannot?"

[Chris]

I see. In that case, I wonder why you asked for examples of government success, because these are indeed successes that were done by government. Perhaps a better question would have been "What is something that only government can do, that private market forces cannot?"

They are tech...never mind....

[exploited]

They are tech...never mind....

Yes, they are technological developments. Just like going to the Moon was a technological development. But it was a technological development done by government. Now, you could argue that private forces can do the same thing. But they didn't. Like I said, it seems clear that a better question would be "What is something that only the government can do, and private corporations cannot?"

[Chris]

exploited has been thread banned at the request of the OP, Chris. Please do not respond to exploited any further in this thread. If you have questions contact the OP of this tPF thread in a PM.

[Chris]

If you think, folks, that the government is great then explain how in terms of advances in politics and government. One might, for instance point to democracy, though democracy has been around since the classical Greeks. One might, for another instance, point to the US Constitution, but if you read the Federalist Papers alone you can see where all these ideas behind our government were found in the past. I just don't see that much advancement.

And as the OP says "but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality." SO it seems politics creates problems rather than solving them.

[Newpublius]

Yes, they are technological developments. Just like going to the Moon was a technological development. But it was a technological development done by government. Now, you could argue that private forces can do the same thing. But they didn't. Like I said, it seems clear that a better question would be "What is something that only the government can do, and private corporations cannot?"

And the moon is a great example, the government, without consider private pricing, went to the moon, and with that decision rhe government alllcated funds that could've and would've been allocated elsewhere. The 'success' pointed to is always tempered by the opportunity cost. There's just no avoiding it.

[Chris]

And the moon is a great example, the government, without consider private pricing, went to the moon, and with that decision rhe government alllcated funds that could've and would've been allocated elsewhere. The 'success' pointed to is always tempered by the opportunity cost. There's just no avoiding it.


And the only way success price < opportunity cost is if the Keynesian multiplier effect if real and not magic, the magic of computer programs program to multiply.

That and Bezos and Musk now advancing the technology at their own cost, well, with some help from government, subsudies, contracts.

[nic34]

@exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808) has been thread banned at the request of the OP, @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). Please do not respond to exploited any further in this thread. If you have questions contact the OP of this tPF thread in a PM.

Really? Sheesh.

[AZ Jim]

@exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808) has been thread banned at the request of the OP, @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). Please do not respond to exploited any further in this thread. If you have questions contact the OP of this tPF thread in a PM.WOW! Nothing like being chickenshit in a debate.

[del]

The World Health Organization is a political organization that is solely responsible for distributing the technology that saved millions of lives. I don't really understand your objection to these examples.

when all you have is a hammer...

[del]

@exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808) has been thread banned at the request of the OP, @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). Please do not respond to exploited any further in this thread. If you have questions contact the OP of this tPF thread in a PM.

lame

[Safety]

Really? Sheesh.


WOW! Nothing like being chickenshit in a debate.


lame

@nic34 @AZJim and del have been served walking papers from the OP Chris. Please do not respond to these member's post

[Bethere]

Munger? Not being a consequentialist I don't follow him much but do agree generally with public choice theory.

Way to lead by example, Chris.

You just banned your opposition just because you could.

This forum can be no better than you and pete are.

[Safety]

Way to lead by example, Chris.

You just banned your opposition just because you could.

This forum can be no better than you and pete are.

@bethere has joined the cast from survivor and left the island per request of the OP Chris

[Chris]

If you think, folks, that the government is great then explain how in terms of advances in politics and government. One might, for instance point to democracy, though democracy has been around since the classical Greeks. One might, for another instance, point to the US Constitution, but if you read the Federalist Papers alone you can see where all these ideas behind our government were found in the past. I just don't see that much advancement.

And as the OP says "but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality." SO it seems politics creates problems rather than solving them.


Bump, topic.

[Mac-7]

One such thing I consider a miracle is the exportation of agricultural technology and techniques by governments, resulting in a massive and ultimately necessary increase in crop yields, on a global level. For instance, the Green Revolution was a partnership between private and public entities, and the result was being able to feed a booming population. Had these private entities not invented the technology, government couldn't have distributed it. Had government not distributed it, it wouldn't have been rolled out so quickly (and in the agricultural world, "quickly" refers to within a decade or two), because those private entities simply did not have the resources to do that. This was the difference between millions starving and millions not starving, and it is a prime example of how I think government and private entities can work together to achieve things that either is unable to achieve on their own.

Another example would be the good work done by the CDC to control, monitor and treat lethal contagions across the globe. There really isn't any profit motive for such a thing - nobody is going to pay good money for you to keep an eye on what diseases are impacting people 11,000 miles away. And yet in this global economy, the services provided by the CDC are absolutely essential, and play an absolutely critical role in keeping people safe.

A VA hospital being built in colorado was supposed to cost $700 million and is now $1.7 billion and counting

there are so many stories like this that it boggles the mind

[Mac-7]

@bethere has joined the cast from survivor and left the island per request of the OP @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)

Not very clever or funny

[Mac-7]

lame

No kidding

talk about abuse of a feature that never should have existed in the first place

[Dr. Who]

Another great technological advance. No doubt about it.

The topic is politics, or economics. Not technology.
If government is funding research into whatever, including technology, it is still government funded development. The internet exists because the government funded the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network which was involved in scientific research. The funding of scientific research is political, since the funds need to be approved by politicians and directed through appropriations. There are many things that were developed on the government dime - cell phone technology, Google's algorithm, hard drives (DARPA), SIRI (DARPA), lithium-ion batteries (DOE and the NSF), LCD Display (US Army & DARPA), TCP/IP ( CERN, DARPA, and the NSF). GPS would not exist if the government didn't spend millions on satellites every year though military spending. How about all of the Nasa Spin-off Technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

NASA, the Military, DARPA and the NSF are definitely government departments/agencies and funded through the political process just as much as any other aspect of the government. You can't excise the successes because they are practical and say they don't count. Nuclear technology would probably not even exist, if governments were not interested in a better bomb. Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere.

[Safety]

No kidding

talk about abuse of a feature that never should have existed in the first place

Mac-7 Was asked to step out of the thread by the OP Chris Bon voyage

[Dr. Who]

If you think, folks, that the government is great then explain how in terms of advances in politics and government. One might, for instance point to democracy, though democracy has been around since the classical Greeks. One might, for another instance, point to the US Constitution, but if you read the Federalist Papers alone you can see where all these ideas behind our government were found in the past. I just don't see that much advancement.

And as the OP says "but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality." SO it seems politics creates problems rather than solving them.
And the alternative is what? Zomia? A place with trade, but no inventions, few paved roads on the side of a mountain, inhabited by agrarian people who generally live a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle.

[Chris]

If government is funding research into whatever, including technology, it is still government funded development. The internet exists because the government funded the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network which was involved in scientific research. The funding of scientific research is political, since the funds need to be approved by politicians and directed through appropriations. There are many things that were developed on the government dime - cell phone technology, Google's algorithm, hard drives (DARPA), SIRI (DARPA), lithium-ion batteries (DOE and the NSF), LCD Display (US Army & DARPA), TCP/IP ( CERN, DARPA, and the NSF). GPS would not exist if the government didn't spend millions on satellites every year though military spending. How about all of the Nasa Spin-off Technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

NASA, the Military, DARPA and the NSF are definitely government departments/agencies and funded through the political process just as much as any other aspect of the government. You can't excise the successes because they are practical and say they don't count. Nuclear technology would probably not even exist, if governments were not interested in a better bomb. Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere.


Yes, I'm aware of the history. Here's the thing though, all the government is doing is taking wealth from the people, and then picking winners and losers to redistribute or not too. As NewPublius explains there's a cost to that. One cost is you take wealth away from people who know better, in their time and place and values, how they want that wealth used, and you're giving it to a few elites who can't possibly know what the people do. So there's a loss. Another cost is the administration of the redistribution. A third is the ones it picks as winner are always the winners. Fourth, if you'e ever worked a government-run and -funded project you know the aim is not efficiency but to spend more so you're funded more net year. And gains? But there would have been gains anyhow, remember the wealth you took from people would have been spent on investing in new technology. Finally, how has this advanced over time? From the beginning of centralized states, this has been the process, take from some and give to others at a net loss to society.

That addressed "Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere."

And I am not saying the advances don't count, they do, but they are scientific, they are technological. Politically, economically, we haven't advance since feudal times.


Nuclear technology would probably not even exist, if governments were not interested in a better bomb.

That's progress? Man has learned how to destroy himself. And you want to praise the State for that? "...but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality."


All you and others are doing is claiming everything is the government. From Plato, to Hegel, to Marx, following Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, your claims are old.

[Chris]

And the alternative is what? Zomia? A place with trade, but no inventions, few paved roads on the side of a mountain, inhabited by agrarian people who generally live a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle.

Man from his earliest times engaged in division of labor, specialization and trade. Trade is the source of invention. The government doesn't contribute to that, it only tries to manage it, and only ends up mismanaging it.

[Chris]

I'm starting to think people just aren't ready to face how badly broken politics and economics is.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, I'm aware of the history. Here's the thing though, all the government is doing is taking wealth from the people, and then picking winners and losers to redistribute or not too. As NewPublius explains there's a cost to that. One cost is you take wealth away from people who know better, in their time and place and values, how they want that wealth used, and you're giving it to a few elites who can't possibly know what the people do. So there's a loss. Another cost is the administration of the redistribution. A third is the ones it picks as winner are always the winners. Fourth, if you'e ever worked a government-run and -funded project you know the aim is not efficiency but to spend more so you're funded more net year. And gains? But there would have been gains anyhow, remember the wealth you took from people would have been spent on investing in new technology. Finally, how has this advanced over time? From the beginning of centralized states, this has been the process, take from some and give to others at a net loss to society.

That addressed "Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere."

And I am not saying the advances don't count, they do, but they are scientific, they are technological. Politically, economically, we haven't advance since feudal times.



That's progress? Man has learned how to destroy himself. And you want to praise the State for that? "...but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality."


All you and others are doing is claiming everything is the government. From Plato, to Hegel, to Marx, following Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, your claims are old.
Perhaps because the permutations of politics and economics are not that vastly varied. You are still dealing with human beings and you either have human beings in small, medium or large groups. The greater the population density, the more that government is required to maintain peace and order. That is the history of the planet. The more people live close to each other, the greater the opportunities for negative interactions, the more competition for food, jobs, mates, property - everything that humans, by nature or culture, need or want. The State has many shortcomings simply because it is run by people who are inclined to egotistical empire building within any organization, government or not. Take away the state, or most of it and these same types will find some other way to empire build. It's in their nature.

[Dr. Who]

Man from his earliest times engaged in division of labor, specialization and trade. Trade is the source of invention. The government doesn't contribute to that, it only tries to manage it, and only ends up mismanaging it.
Traders are not inventors, they simply exploit the talent of others. Any rational society must also create an environment for invention or the traders will have nothing new to trade. Invention often requires financial support. Major invention requires major financial support and more often than not, investors will not get involved until most of the R&D has been done. So you are left with Universities, Government or private corporations to make all of the breakthrough scientific research. Corporations will only invest in research that they believe will pay off in significant financial reward. Apart from one or two wealthy eccentrics on the planet, almost all research into space travel is being funded by governments. Yet it is very likely that humanity will ultimately exhaust our mineral resources on this planet and population pressures will necessitate that we find new places to live.

[Newpublius]

"Corporations will only invest in research that they believe will pay off in significant financial reward."

Responding to this price signal is exactly how R&D resources SHOULD be allocated.

"Apart from one or two wealthy eccentrics on the planet, almost all research into space travel is being funded by governments."

And every dollar they decide to spend, by dictat, or democratic socialism, are dollars not being used to fund say......any other good cause you might think of. And that's why its bad method to allocate these resources BECAUSE the government doesn't respond well to price signals and ultimately, particularly in more democratically minded nations, the R&D budget becomes a tool motivated by reelection desires.

[Chris]

Perhaps because the permutations of politics and economics are not that vastly varied. You are still dealing with human beings and you either have human beings in small, medium or large groups. The greater the population density, the more that government is required to maintain peace and order. That is the history of the planet. The more people live close to each other, the greater the opportunities for negative interactions, the more competition for food, jobs, mates, property - everything that humans, by nature or culture, need or want. The State has many shortcomings simply because it is run by people who are inclined to egotistical empire building within any organization, government or not. Take away the state, or most of it and these same types will find some other way to empire build. It's in their nature.

Ever think that overcrowding and overpopulation are the effect and bigger government the cause? It certainly makes sense that big government provides the security many seek and that people would tend to gather where the government is strong. Historically governments have sought large concentrated populations to pay taxes to fund and serve their military forces to force more and more under control.

But overcrowding and overpopulation are major problems.

Moreover, and you raised innovation, control, while it provides security, deprives people of liberty and thereby the ability to innovate. If everyone wears brown shirts and steps together smothering difference and diversity, why there goes even the progress you and others look to the state to provide.

[Chris]

Traders are not inventors, they simply exploit the talent of others. Any rational society must also create an environment for invention or the traders will have nothing new to trade. Invention often requires financial support. Major invention requires major financial support and more often than not, investors will not get involved until most of the R&D has been done. So you are left with Universities, Government or private corporations to make all of the breakthrough scientific research. Corporations will only invest in research that they believe will pay off in significant financial reward. Apart from one or two wealthy eccentrics on the planet, almost all research into space travel is being funded by governments. Yet it is very likely that humanity will ultimately exhaust our mineral resources on this planet and population pressures will necessitate that we find new places to live.

Trade introduced both diversity and competition and those spur innovation. It happens naturally. As I just argued your big government control sniffles innovation.

We could well exhaust resources given the overcrowding and overpopulation made possible by big government.

[Chris]

Where are the advances in politics to innovate solutions of major problems we face?

[Chris]

I posted this 5 moths ago and i t went unnoticed but it explains why economics, or better, the economy is broken and unfixable: Why The Great Stagnation Thesis is the Most Subversive Libertarian Argument of Our Age (http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2011/07/why-the-great-stagnation-thesis-is-the-most-subversive-libertarian-argument-of-our-age.html) is a review of Tyler Cowen's The Great Stagnation. The book presents an argument for the stagnation of wages. It's also an argument against automation singularity.


...Cowen is a cultural optimist, a champion of the free trade in ideas, goods, services and all artifacts of mankind. But he is also an economic realist in the age of economic illusion.

What do I mean by the economics of illusion? Government policies since WWII have created an illusion that irresponsible fiscal policy, the manipulation of money and credit, and expansion of the regulation of the economy is consistent with rising standards of living. This was made possible because of the “low hanging” technological fruit that Cowen identifies as being plucked in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the US, and in spite of the government policies pursued. An accumulated economic surplus was created by the age of innovation, which the age of economic illusion spent down. We are now coming to the end of that accumulated surplus and thus the full weight of government inefficiencies are starting to be felt throughout the economy. Our politicians promised too much, our government spends too much in an apparent chase after the promises made, and our population has come to accustomed to both government guarantees and government largess.

Cowen’s work is a subversive track in radical libertarianism because he identifies that government growth (both measured in terms of scale and scope) was possible only because of the rate of technological improvements made in the late 19th and early 20th century. We realized the gains from trade (Smithian growth) and we realized the gains from innovation (Schumpeterian growth), and we fought off (in the West as least) totalitarian government (Stupidity). As long as Smithian growth and Schumpeterian growth outpace Stupidity, tomorrow’s trough will still be higher than today’s peak. It will appear that we can afford more Stupidity than we can actually can because the power of self-interest expressed through the market off-sets that negative consequences. But IF and WHEN Stupidity is allowed to outpace the Smithian gains from trade and the Schumpeterian gains from innovation, then we will first stagnate and then enter a period of economic backwardness unless we curtail Stupidity, explore new trading opportunities, or discover new and better technologies.

In Cowen’s narrative, the rate of discovery had slowed, all the new trading opportunities had been exploited, and yet government continued to grow both in terms of scale and scope. And when he examines the 3 sectors in the US economy – government services, education and health care – he finds little improvement since 1980 in the production and distribution of the services. In fact, there is evidence that performance has gotten worse over time, especially as government’s role in health care and education has continued.

...This is where we stand in our current debt ceiling debate. Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?...

[Dr. Who]

Trade introduced both diversity and competition and those spur innovation. It happens naturally. As I just argued your big government control sniffles innovation.

We could well exhaust resources given the overcrowding and overpopulation made possible by big government.
If not for the state in some form, there would never have been universities or any form of higher education. Even those institutions created by religious orders were largely funded by monarchies. Places without any state developed nothing - their peoples lived primitive lifestyles. Large cities developed as a nexus point for trade as much as anything else. Trade brought goods, goods created business, business created employment. All of the largest cities in the world are points of trade and shipping. If you have points of trade and shipping, people will come. It's no coincidence that the largest cities in America started out as major shipping ports and the rest of the cities grew because of the railroad. America did not embark on a pattern of immigration because it wanted diversity, it's because the major cities needed employees to work for the growing industries. The government acted to enable business. Absent that activity, America would have remained an economic backwater chiefly dependent on an agrarian economy.

[Chris]

If not for the state in some form, there would never have been universities or any form of higher education. Even those institutions created by religious orders were largely funded by monarchies. Places without any state developed nothing - their peoples lived primitive lifestyles. Large cities developed as a nexus point for trade as much as anything else. Trade brought goods, goods created business, business created employment. All of the largest cities in the world are points of trade and shipping. If you have points of trade and shipping, people will come. It's no coincidence that the largest cities in America started out as major shipping ports and the rest of the cities grew because of the railroad. America did not embark on a pattern of immigration because it wanted diversity, it's because the major cities needed employees to work for the growing industries. The government acted to enable business. Absent that activity, America would have remained an economic backwater chiefly dependent on an agrarian economy.

The earliest European universities were run by the Church.

Once again just because the government does something is not an argument only it can do it or that it does it better.

All you're really saying about places people gather is they are geographically favorable. The government didn't create that. And it makes sense those locations were centers of trade. The government didn't create that. In everything you say the government came later.

You are like others in your haste to defend your beloved believed state missing the point that politics and economy are failing us, failing to solve problems, failing to even sustain itself but with phony fiat money.

[Dr. Who]

The earliest European universities were run by the Church.

Once again just because the government does something is not an argument only it can do it or that it does it better.

All you're really saying about places people gather is they are geographically favorable. The government didn't create that. And it makes sense those locations were centers of trade. The government didn't create that. In everything you say the government came later.

You are like others in your haste to defend your beloved believed state missing the point that politics and economy are failing us, failing to solve problems, failing to even sustain itself but with phony fiat money.
I am arguing that you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The state evolved out of necessity and that most of our best accomplishments, those things that truly advance us as a species would not have happened without the state. If it's dysfunctional, fix it because no state at all would be far worse - a return to the dark ages.

[Newpublius]

"Traders are not inventors, they simply exploit the talent of others"

When you see the word 'exploit' you know what school that comes.

Each consumer is free, on his or her own, to visit farms and factories and processing plants in order to purchase items directly from producers. But, of course, such visits would be enormously time consuming and would cost quite a lot in airfare and other travel expenses. We know that retailers and other middlemen perform valuable services because we observe consumers, everyday, voluntarily paying for these services.

[Chris]

"Traders are not inventors, they simply exploit the talent of others"

When you see the word 'exploit' you know what school that comes.

Each consumer is free, on his or her own, to visit farms and factories and processing plants in order to purchase items directly from producers. But, of course, such visits would be enormously time consuming and would cost quite a lot in airfare and other travel expenses. We know that retailers and other middlemen perform valuable services because we observe consumers, everyday, voluntarily paying for these services.

Adam Smith's woolen coat, Leonard Reed's I, Pencil. Great networks of trade and exchange and transportation and production, an economy, the market, man's greatest innovation, emerging though action but not design.

The government tries to manage it and ends up mismanaging it. And that, a system that has not changed, has seen no innovation, people put faith in?

[Newpublius]

Adam Smith's woolen coat, Leonard Reed's I, Pencil. Great networks of trade and exchange and transportation and production, an economy, the market, man's greatest innovation, emerging though action but not design.

The government tries to manage it and ends up mismanaging it. And that, a system that has not changed, has seen no innovation, people put faith in?

And always remember 'their' way is the pre-revilutionary regressive way to do it.

[Chris]

I am arguing that you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The state evolved out of necessity and that most of our best accomplishments, those things that truly advance us as a species would not have happened without the state. If it's dysfunctional, fix it because no state at all would be far worse - a return to the dark ages.

I understand you claim those things for the state, for politics. But you need to do more than merely claim it. Demonstrate it. And, no, don't reach for technological advance, as others have off topic, demonstrate how government is solving real world problems, how government/politics has advanced to do so. Take for example war, another problem, like overcrowding and overpopulation, caused by the very nature of government. War over history has only gotten worse. If politics was advancing, where's the solution?

From the OP: "We know this already — but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality."

[Dr. Who]

I understand you claim those things for the state, for politics. But you need to do more than merely claim it. Demonstrate it. And, no, don't reach for technological advance, as others have off topic, demonstrate how government is solving real world problems, how government/politics has advanced to do so. Take for example war, another problem, like overcrowding and overpopulation, caused by the very nature of government. War over history has only gotten worse. If politics was advancing, where's the solution?

From the OP: "We know this already — but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality."
Consider this:

"Compared to prehistoric, pre-state, and even Medieval man, Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker argues, the world has become incredibly peaceful. "Violence has been in decline for thousands of years," Pinker said in the Wall Street Journal, "and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species."


"The rate of documented direct deaths from political violence (war, terrorism, genocide and militias) in the past decade is an unprecedented few hundredths of a percentage point."


In his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Pinker attributes our species’ decline in violence to the creation of states, trade interests, the Enlightenment and the dearth of major interstate war since World War II."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/

[Newpublius]

Consider this:

"Compared to prehistoric, pre-state, and even Medieval man, Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker argues, the world has become incredibly peaceful. "Violence has been in decline for thousands of years," Pinker said in the Wall Street Journal, "and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species."


"The rate of documented direct deaths from political violence (war, terrorism, genocide and militias) in the past decade is an unprecedented few hundredths of a percentage point."


In his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Pinker attributes our species’ decline in violence to the creation of states, trade interests, the Enlightenment and the dearth of major interstate war since World War II."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/

Its an interesting tangent. The size of armies was always dependent on the ability of the society to supply them, or on a conquered area to be pillages. An army actually does march on its stomach.

The interesting historical tie in to English property law is the fee simple. If you buy property today good chance you buy the parcel in 'fee simple' which is the vestigial remain of a feudal system where a 'fee' meaning estate was conflated with a knight's fee. A 'fee' was a quantity of land thought to ve sufficient to pay for one knight.

Medieval armies were relatively small.

Enter gunpowder and the dawn of industrialization and all of a sudden coubtries like France had enormous field armies and people like Napoleon wielded those armies and from 1800-1945 the industrial era produced societies capable of disgustingly destructive warfare.

This culminates in WWII complete with mass murder and then of course whay happens? The atomic bombs are dropped and all of a sudden an entire continent, Europe, that hadn't really been known for peace becomes, absent some notable exceptions lole Yugoslavia, peaceful.

The atomic age and the WMD that came with it fundamentally altered the perceived cost/benefit ratio to a point where a war aimed at conquest with a nuclear power or a coubtry aligned with nuclear allies (NATO) is basically foolhardy (it was always foolish just now more obviously so).

[Dr. Who]

Its an interesting tangent. The size of armies was always dependent on the ability of the society to supply them, or on a conquered area to be pillages. An army actually does march on its stomach.

The interesting historical tie in to English property law is the fee simple. If you buy property today good chance you buy the parcel in 'fee simple' which is the vestigial remain of a feudal system where a 'fee' meaning estate was conflated with a knight's fee. A 'fee' was a quantity of land thought to ve sufficient to pay for one knight.

Medieval armies were relatively small.

Enter gunpowder and the dawn of industrialization and all of a sudden coubtries like France had enormous field armies and people like Napoleon wielded those armies and from 1800-1945 the industrial era produced societies capable of disgustingly destructive warfare.

This culminates in WWII complete with mass murder and then of course whay happens? The atomic bombs are dropped and all of a sudden an entire continent, Europe, that hadn't really been known for peace becomes, absent some notable exceptions lole Yugoslavia, peaceful.

The atomic age and the WMD that came with it fundamentally altered the perceived cost/benefit ratio to a point where a war aimed at conquest with a nuclear power or a coubtry aligned with nuclear allies (NATO) is basically foolhardy (it was always foolish just now more obviously so).
Still, there is no question that the development of WMDs of the nuclear variety was never private, but at the initiative of the state. Its use against Japan was horrific, but still a sneak preview of the utter futility of any further interstate war between great powers. It's a kind of left-handed compliment to large states that they virtually eliminated interstate war by funding and researching a weapon that could wipe out humanity. If we further consider that the history of humanity was a serious of thousands or even millions of wars, eliminating gratuitous wars over possession of lands is an accomplishment.

[Chloe]

Lol is there anybody left to post here?

[Chris]

Consider this:

"Compared to prehistoric, pre-state, and even Medieval man, Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker argues, the world has become incredibly peaceful. "Violence has been in decline for thousands of years," Pinker said in the Wall Street Journal, "and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species."


"The rate of documented direct deaths from political violence (war, terrorism, genocide and militias) in the past decade is an unprecedented few hundredths of a percentage point."


In his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Pinker attributes our species’ decline in violence to the creation of states, trade interests, the Enlightenment and the dearth of major interstate war since World War II."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/


The centralized state emerged some time during the 13th century modeled more or less on the structure of the Church. It took time for the modern state to develop but certainly WWI and WWII were witness to the full brutality of it.

Pinker is looking at merely a decade. He ignores the fact we're capable of destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons. It may be that recognition of that high, extremely high cost of ruling the world has forced governments to step back from the brink.

Pinker's main point however is not that these peaceful times are the results of the state but of enlightenment ideas.

Steven Pinker explains how capitalism is killing war (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism)


Zack Beauchamp: One story you hear from political scientists for why there's been less war recently that it's just less profitable —countries don't gain very much, economically or politically, from taking over new land anymore. Does that seem right to you?

Steven Pinker: Yes, it's one of the causes. It's the theory of the capitalist peace: when it's cheaper to buy things than to steal them, people don't steal them. Also, if other people are more valuable to you alive than dead, you're less likely to kill them. You don't kill your customers or your lenders, so the arrival of the infrastructure of trade and commerce reduces some of the sheer exploitative incentives of conquest.

This is an idea that goes back to the Enlightenment. Adam Smith and Montesquieu extolled it; it was on the minds of the founders when they built incentives for free trade into the Constitution.

I don't think it's the entire story of the decline in war. But I do think it's part of the story. There was a well-known study from Bruce Russett and John Oneal showing statistically that countries that engage in more trade are less likely to get into militarized disputes, and countries that are more integrated into the world economy are less likely to get into trouble with their neighbors.

So your witness has turn hostile. It's not the state that brings peace, it brings force, violence, war. But trade has tempered it.

The problem is the once easy pickings and fast growth of capitalism are getting cannot be sustained if you listen to Tyler Cowen's The Great Stagnation--see post 43 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/70526-Broken-Politics-Broken-Economics?p=1735985&viewfull=1#post1735985) above.


In order for what you claim to be true, that the current relatively peaceful times are the result of advances in politics, you would have to explain what those advances are. How has statecraft advanced?

[Chris]

Lol is there anybody left to post here?

Give it a shot. You recognize the great problems we have with preserving the environment. What advance, no, not in technology, no, not in scientific knowledge, but advances in politics do you see solving environmental problems?

[Chris]

Still, there is no question that the development of WMDs of the nuclear variety was never private, but at the initiative of the state. Its use against Japan was horrific, but still a sneak preview of the utter futility of any further interstate war between great powers. It's a kind of left-handed compliment to large states that they virtually eliminated interstate war by funding and researching a weapon that could wipe out humanity. If we further consider that the history of humanity was a serious of thousands or even millions of wars, eliminating gratuitous wars over possession of lands is an accomplishment.

So you still worship the state for creating a weapon that could, in the wrong hands, wipe us off the face of the earth? Pinker who you muster in support says it wasn't politics but economics that brought us back from the brink.

[Chloe]

Give it a shot. You recognize the great problems we have with preserving the environment. What advance, no, not in technology, no, not in scientific knowledge, but advances in politics do you see solving environmental problems?

I don't know. Reading through the past few pages it makes me realize how much smarter you guys are than I am. I think this is above my pay grade.

[Chris]

I don't know. Reading through the past few pages it makes me realize how much smarter you guys are than I am. I think this is above my pay grade.

Not true. I'd welcome your thoughts, generally on whether we're witnessing the end of politics, and economics. You might address that in terms of the environment where you know more than most.

[Dr. Who]

The centralized state emerged some time during the 13th century modeled more or less on the structure of the Church. It took time for the modern state to develop but certainly WWI and WWII were witness to the full brutality of it.

Pinker is looking at merely a decade. He ignores the fact we're capable of destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons. It may be that recognition of that high, extremely high cost of ruling the world has forced governments to step back from the brink.

Pinker's main point however is not that these peaceful times are the results of the state but of enlightenment ideas.

Steven Pinker explains how capitalism is killing war (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism)



So your witness has turn hostile. It's not the state that brings peace, it brings force, violence, war. But trade has tempered it.

The problem is the once easy pickings and fast growth of capitalism are getting cannot be sustained if you listen to Tyler Cowen's The Great Stagnation--see post 43 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/70526-Broken-Politics-Broken-Economics?p=1735985&viewfull=1#post1735985) above.


In order for what you claim to be true, that the current relatively peaceful times are the result of advances in politics, you would have to explain what those advances are. How has statecraft advanced?
I don't think it is politics per se, but the development of the state that has allowed an infrastructure that enables peaceful trade and co-existence.

Anyone who really knows me on this forum is aware that I am a fair weather endorser of the capitalistic system, which has artificial scarcity built into its definition. Politics, from my perspective, enables capitalism, which I see as a temporary measure on our journey to an entirely different paradigm where our currency as a species is not material wealth. (It is not Marxist communism either.) Our advances in politics are soft, in that they involve concern for human life in general and concern for the environment. As time goes on our concerns about destroying ourselves and our environment become more acute. We fight about what is progressive and what is conservative, but even our conservatives of today would be yesterday's progressives.

[Dr. Who]

So you still worship the state for creating a weapon that could, in the wrong hands, wipe us off the face of the earth? Pinker who you muster in support says it wasn't politics but economics that brought us back from the brink.
He suggested that it was both the state and economics. I would suggest that the latter was supported by the former.

[ripmeister]

Yes, I understand many people put great faith in the state and being able to fix it. I'm curious what successes, miracles if you will, have been accomplished.

Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner. Just a couple.

[ripmeister]

If government is funding research into whatever, including technology, it is still government funded development. The internet exists because the government funded the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network which was involved in scientific research. The funding of scientific research is political, since the funds need to be approved by politicians and directed through appropriations. There are many things that were developed on the government dime - cell phone technology, Google's algorithm, hard drives (DARPA), SIRI (DARPA), lithium-ion batteries (DOE and the NSF), LCD Display (US Army & DARPA), TCP/IP (CERN, DARPA, and the NSF). GPS would not exist if the government didn't spend millions on satellites every year though military spending. How about all of the Nasa Spin-off Technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

NASA, the Military, DARPA and the NSF are definitely government departments/agencies and funded through the political process just as much as any other aspect of the government. You can't excise the successes because they are practical and say they don't count. Nuclear technology would probably not even exist, if governments were not interested in a better bomb. Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere.

well said.

[Newpublius]

If government is funding research into whatever, including technology, it is still government funded development. The internet exists because the government funded the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network which was involved in scientific research. The funding of scientific research is political, since the funds need to be approved by politicians and directed through appropriations. There are many things that were developed on the government dime - cell phone technology, Google's algorithm, hard drives (DARPA), SIRI (DARPA), lithium-ion batteries (DOE and the NSF), LCD Display (US Army & DARPA), TCP/IP (CERN, DARPA, and the NSF). GPS would not exist if the government didn't spend millions on satellites every year though military spending. How about all of the Nasa Spin-off Technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

NASA, the Military, DARPA and the NSF are definitely government departments/agencies and funded through the political process just as much as any other aspect of the government. You can't excise the successes because they are practical and say they don't count. Nuclear technology would probably not even exist, if governments were not interested in a better bomb. Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere.

And all of this comes with a very severe opportunity cost. Government is simply not a necessary agency here. Its successes seem to be successes in the face of circumstances where the opportunity cost remains invisible to you. If you were alone in East Germany and saw the auto industry, you'd tout it as a success until you took a broader view and saw that the success touted isn't quite what it seems.

Everything that they do, including their successes is, at best, a Trabant.

Your point is that, "Gee, because the government has achieved x,y,z, these are unequivocal successes"

Unfortunately that is coming along with the cost, as you note, "Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere."

These are investments that shouldn't be made. You are limiting your success actually. You should have x,y,z AND a,b,c.

We know that this is happening because we see societies whose investments were primarily made centrally. We saw how they were completely off the mark.

They had 'successes' too....

[Common Sense]

If not for government investment into technologies like medicine, energy, communications and aerospace, we wouldn't be living in this modern world. Nor we would we even be talking to each other instantly over vast distances.

I don't think people realize the investment and payoff we have all made. Interstate highway systems facilitating trade and modern commerce. The internet and all that it has created. The public investment in universities and the money poured into life sciences that have made huge medical breakthroughs. Without these investments that didn't have immediate financial payoffs, we probably wouldn't have these things. These sorts of investments are a legitimate and necessary part of government in out modern world. It's idealistic and naive to think these things would happen without it.

[Newpublius]

If not for government investment into technologies like medicine, energy, communications and aerospace, we wouldn't be living in this modern world. Nor we would we even be talking to each other instantly over vast distances.

I don't think people realize the investment and payoff we have all made. Interstate highway systems facilitating trade and modern commerce. The internet and all that it has created. The public investment in universities and the money poured into life sciences that have made huge medical breakthroughs. Without these investments that didn't have immediate financial payoffs, we probably wouldn't have these things. These sorts of investments are a legitimate and necessary part of government in out modern world. It's idealistic and naive to think these things would happen without it.

Behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness. If cancer research deserves government support, should not the fight against Zika also be assisted, as well as other vital areas of medical research? The situation develops onward and outward, embracing ever more causes, redistributing ever more resources, hence stimulating more new demands – rather than the other way round. Indeed, for every dollar the government decides should be spent on cancer research, that's one dollar that isn't spent on heart disease. In fact if the government weren't involved in these endeavors, we would actually be much further ahead.

[Dr. Who]

"Corporations will only invest in research that they believe will pay off in significant financial reward."

Responding to this price signal is exactly how R&D resources SHOULD be allocated.

"Apart from one or two wealthy eccentrics on the planet, almost all research into space travel is being funded by governments."

And every dollar they decide to spend, by dictat, or democratic socialism, are dollars not being used to fund say......any other good cause you might think of. And that's why its bad method to allocate these resources BECAUSE the government doesn't respond well to price signals and ultimately, particularly in more democratically minded nations, the R&D budget becomes a tool motivated by reelection desires.
There is a place for practical research and a place for research that advances our knowledge. The former tends to build on the work of others who are invested in less immediate applications of science. The latter seeks to unravel the secrets of the universe. No corporation would fund the latter, however, most of the technology that we take for granted today, owes its existence theoretical science. Theoretical science has no practical goals in mind. Who but universities and governments would fund pure science?

[Common Sense]

Behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness. If cancer research deserves government support, should not the fight against Zika also be assisted, as well as other vital areas of medical research? The situation develops onward and outward, embracing ever more causes, redistributing ever more resources, hence stimulating more new demands – rather than the other way round. Indeed, for every dollar the government decides should be spent on cancer research, that's one dollar that isn't spent on heart disease. In fact if the government weren't involved in these endeavors, we would actually be much further ahead.


If the government wasn't involved, many of these things would never be addressed. These resources (money) would never be focused on these issues because the cost benefit ratio would prevent it. Companies aren't interested in wild goose chases or technologies that would take years to reap financial rewards because it doesn't make financial sense. The government does because profit isn't the motivation.

That's not to say that government holds all the answers, but it does provide a means to explore new technology without worrying what the stock holders think.

The facts speak for themselves. Without government funded R&D, we wouldn't have nuclear energy, satellites, the internet, passenger jets, the vast array of tech brought to us by NASA and countless innovations in medical science.

You can speculate, but there is no evidence that we would be farther ahead.

[Newpublius]

There is a place for practical research and a place for research that advances our knowledge. The former tends to build on the work of others who are invested in less immediate applications of science. The latter seeks to unravel the secrets of the universe. No corporation would fund the latter, however, most of the technology that we take for granted today, owes its existence theoretical science. Theoretical science has no practical goals in mind. Who but universities and governments would fund pure science?

Really? IBM, DuPont, J&J, Merck, Bell Labs, GM, Chrysler, Ford, Microsoft, Google, Coca Cola, Monsanto....I could keep going with thousands and thousands of them.

"The overall rate of return to R&D is very large, perhaps 25 percent as a private return and a total of 65 percent for social returns. However, these returns apply only to privately financed R&D in industry. Returns to many forms of publicly financed R&D are near zero." - http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec070070.pdf

That's the BLS, not Breitbart.

[Newpublius]

If the government wasn't involved, many of these things would never be addressed.

This is false, the things that the government decides to address must necessarily come at the expense of other things that now aren't addressed. There's no free lunch.


You can speculate, but there is no evidence that we would be farther ahead.

Yes, there is, its called Eastern Europe. We see exactly what happens when societies invest from central authority, we see the tendency to make eggregiously bad investments. Its all Trabants. The fact that you live in a society where far less investment decisions are made by the government doesn't change the principle, to the extent that those R&D expenditures are directed by governments, you're still getting 'Trabants'

The very mode of investing is inherently bad, ab initio. The more a society invests in this manner the less well off it will be.

You imagine government to be something it isn't.

As previously, behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness, the government is incapable of efficiently allocating between them.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, I'm aware of the history. Here's the thing though, all the government is doing is taking wealth from the people, and then picking winners and losers to redistribute or not too. As NewPublius explains there's a cost to that. One cost is you take wealth away from people who know better, in their time and place and values, how they want that wealth used, and you're giving it to a few elites who can't possibly know what the people do. So there's a loss. Another cost is the administration of the redistribution. A third is the ones it picks as winner are always the winners. Fourth, if you'e ever worked a government-run and -funded project you know the aim is not efficiency but to spend more so you're funded more net year. And gains? But there would have been gains anyhow, remember the wealth you took from people would have been spent on investing in new technology. Finally, how has this advanced over time? From the beginning of centralized states, this has been the process, take from some and give to others at a net loss to society.

That addressed "Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere."

And I am not saying the advances don't count, they do, but they are scientific, they are technological. Politically, economically, we haven't advance since feudal times.



That's progress? Man has learned how to destroy himself. And you want to praise the State for that? "...but now millions of ordinary people are waking up to see that our problems — with government debt, with wars, with currencies, with entitlements, with taxes and regulations, with intractable social issues — cannot be solved politically. It’s not necessarily an ideological awakening, but simply a recognition of reality."


All you and others are doing is claiming everything is the government. From Plato, to Hegel, to Marx, following Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, your claims are old.

Neither economics or politics are specific to the state. The OP does not actually initially ask a question, but posts an editorial piece, but later asks the question: "many people put great faith in the state and being able to fix it. I'm curious what successes, miracles if you will, have been accomplished." and later suggests that the topic is " politics, or economics. Not technology".

So, what exactly is politics? While attempting to obtain the definition I discovered that the word politics is intrinsic to its own definition. Hardly explanatory. So I looked up politic. It is defined as: shrewd or prudent in practical matters; tactful; diplomatic. So politics is really the art of shrewdness and practicality. If you add government and partisanship then it is the art of shrewdness and practicality while maintaining a partisan agenda. Politics in and of itself is really essentially meaningless except where it seeks to harm others. It will never in and of itself advance mankind other than perhaps by advancing civility. So, we move on to part 2, economics. Economics is defined as: the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. Wait, that's just another aspect of science that governments utilize - basically just another tool at its disposal. Why is it more special than the science of physics, chemistry or biology that underscore its political decisions on various aspects of the society that it governs?

None of these things point to any inherent flaws in the concept of the state nor do any of these things specifically define the state.


A state is defined as: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. So a state is a collection of people, living within defined borders who have a similar agenda, no more and no less. Realistically, you cannot have a large number of people who agree on everything. You can't even find family units that agree on everything, so the best that you can hope for is that most people agree on the most important issues.

If a state is broken, dysfunctional or unresponsive to its people, it's because of its internal processes, organizational structure and oversight, not because the state is by definition wrong. It is certainly better placed to fund and take advantage of research and developing knowledge than random small collections of people living in segregated groups based upon on narrow ideology or ethnicity. Modern states have as part of their mandate the idea of advancing humanity, not just survival. We are an integrated global society and we depend on those economies of scale.

What happens across the planet has an impact everywhere else. We no longer have the luxury of isolation, nor do we as a species really seek that utter isolation. There are no major achievements on the planet, since the invention of the wheel, in terms of the advancement of mankind that don't owe their success in some fashion to the existence of the state. Personal material success does not contribute to the advancement of the species unless the individual chooses to advance science in some fashion or chooses to contribute to the betterment of others. The existence of America itself is the result of the funding of exploration by a state.

[Dr. Who]

Behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness. If cancer research deserves government support, should not the fight against Zika also be assisted, as well as other vital areas of medical research? The situation develops onward and outward, embracing ever more causes, redistributing ever more resources, hence stimulating more new demands – rather than the other way round. Indeed, for every dollar the government decides should be spent on cancer research, that's one dollar that isn't spent on heart disease. In fact if the government weren't involved in these endeavors, we would actually be much further ahead.
And a lot more people would be dead. It really comes down to your value system. Money vs people.

[Dr. Who]

This is false, the things that the government decides to address must necessarily come at the expense of other things that now aren't addressed. There's no free lunch.



Yes, there is, its called Eastern Europe. We see exactly what happens when societies invest from central authority, we see the tendency to make eggregiously bad investments. Its all Trabants. The fact that you live in a society where far less investment decisions are made by the government doesn't change the principle, to the extent that those R&D expenditures are directed by governments, you're still getting 'Trabants'

The very mode of investing is inherently bad, ab initio. The more a society invests in this manner the less well off it will be.

You imagine government to be something it isn't.

As previously, behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness, the government is incapable of efficiently allocating between them.
If your objection is the other causes not being funded, how would they be more funded absent government. Anyone can fund anything that they want to fund. No government would just mean that many things would not be funded. In fact the only things that would be funded would be those things that could generate a profit.

[Newpublius]

If a state is broken, dysfunctional or unresponsive to its people, it's because of its internal processes, organizational structure and oversight, not because the state is by definition wrong.

Its economic decisions are always sub-optimal. Even the things that must be done are still done inefficiently. This is why government is a minimization principle. It is unresponsive to the people because, at its best, it can only be an approximation of the people.


It is certainly better placed to fund and take advantage of research and developing knowledge than random small collections of people living in segregated groups based upon on narrow ideology or ethnicity.

Government is poorly positioned. Those people form small groups who in turn form corporations and they pool their capital all by their lonesome. Trust me, if you have a dollar to invest, I really suggest you give it to Warren Buffet vs Paul Ryan. Now if you bought a share in Berkshire Hathaway (very expensive share price by the way), Warren Buffet's own money would be on the line, he would care about the result. With the government, its not Paul Ryan's money. Its the government's money and he's going to try to find a way to invest it somewhere in WI to please some special interest or constituency.

[Dr. Who]

Really? IBM, DuPont, J&J, Merck, Bell Labs, GM, Chrysler, Ford, Microsoft, Google, Coca Cola, Monsanto....I could keep going with thousands and thousands of them.

"The overall rate of return to R&D is very large, perhaps 25 percent as a private return and a total of 65 percent for social returns. However, these returns apply only to privately financed R&D in industry. Returns to many forms of publicly financed R&D are near zero." - http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec070070.pdf

That's the BLS, not Breitbart.
Most science being funded by corporations begins not at those corporate research facilities, but in universities and governments. I said before, corporations are not interested in black boxes. They need evidence of something that could potentially turn a profit before they will drop a dime into the research. The possible exception is the pharmaceutical industry.

[Newpublius]

If your objection is the other causes not being funded, how would they be more funded absent government.

Resources are in fact finite. Whatever you decide to fund precludes something else from being funded. Absent the government funding, something else will be funded.


Anyone can fund anything that they want to fund.

No, they cannot. The money taken from you by taxation is money you are incapable of investing.


No government would just mean that many things would not be funded.

No, it would mean you fund things and Paul Ryan wouldn't.


In fact the only things that would be funded would be those things that could generate a profit.

And that is how it SHOULD be done, the profit is an objective measure of economic utility.

[Newpublius]

Most science being funded by corporations begins not at those corporate research facilities, but in universities and governments. I said before, corporations are not interested in black boxes. They need evidence of something that could potentially turn a profit before they will drop a dime into the research. The possible exception is the pharmaceutical industry.

You're wrong, they do, they do it all the time. Google and Tesla are the latest examples too, but aside from that, if profits are what you ignore, Eastern Europe is what you will get. I don't care if its 5%, 10%, 50% or 95%, the more you invest in this manner, the worse off your society will be, its 'Trabants all the way down'

[Newpublius]

And a lot more people would be dead. It really comes down to your value system. Money vs people.

No, it wouldn't, fewer people would be dead because you're misallocating the R&D budget, emphasizing certain ailments, that you think deserve priority. Meanwhile, other things aren't getting funded because governments are incapable of prioritizing efficiently.

[Dr. Who]

Its economic decisions are always sub-optimal. Even the things that must be done are still done inefficiently. This is why government is a minimization principle. It is unresponsive to the people because, at its best, it can only be an approximation of the people.



Government is poorly positioned. Those people form small groups who in turn form corporations and they pool their capital all by their lonesome. Trust me, if you have a dollar to invest, I really suggest you give it to Warren Buffet vs Paul Ryan. Now if you bought a share in Berkshire Hathaway (very expensive share price by the way), Warren Buffet's own money would be on the line, he would care about the result. With the government, its not Paul Ryan's money. Its the government's money and he's going to try to find a way to invest it somewhere in WI to please some special interest or constituency.
From what other dimensional society are you speaking? There are no successful societies on this planet that are not operating within a state. Warren Buffet operates within a state, not on an isolated independent island. He takes advantage of the existing infrastructure, laws and loopholes to those laws. He uses banks and stock exchanges that are regulated and protect his interests.

[Dr. Who]

No, it wouldn't, fewer people would be dead because you're misallocating the R&D budget, emphasizing certain ailments, that you think deserve priority. Meanwhile, other things aren't getting funded because governments are incapable of prioritizing efficiently.
So, do you think tiny populations of segregationists would be able to fund research? I think not. In terms of medical research, it is directed at those ailments that claim the most victims.

[Newpublius]

From what other dimensional society are you speaking? There are no successful societies on this planet that are not operating within a state. Warren Buffet operates within a state, not on an isolated independent island. He takes advantage of the existing infrastructure, laws and loopholes to those laws. He uses banks and stock exchanges that are regulated and protect his interests.

Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.

[Dr. Who]

Resources are in fact finite. Whatever you decide to fund precludes something else from being funded. Absent the government funding, something else will be funded.



No, they cannot. The money taken from you by taxation is money you are incapable of investing.



No, it would mean you fund things and Paul Ryan wouldn't.



And that is how it SHOULD be done, the profit is an objective measure of economic utility.
I disagree. If corporations don't see initial research that shows promise in an area that will result in some relatively short-term economic benefit, they are disinterested. It is too hard to sell a pig in a poke to investors who are no longer in it for the long haul, but rather for short-term gain.

[Newpublius]

So, do you think tiny populations of segregationists would be able to fund research?

Individual curiosity abounds no less. Necessity is the mother of invention in societies large and small.


it is directed at those ailments that claim the most victims.

Its how NOT to do it and by the way they don't do it that way.

For instance the people who support funding for prostate cancer will often say that funding for prostate cancer pales in comparison to support for breast cancer. Likewise the pancreatic cancer lobby says that pancreatic cancers doesn't get its due vz lung cancer or colon cancer.....

As stated above: "Behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness. If cancer research deserves government support, should not the fight against Zika also be assisted, as well as other vital areas of medical research? The situation develops onward and outward, embracing ever more causes, redistributing ever more resources, hence stimulating more new demands – rather than the other way round."

[Dr. Who]

Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.

That really doesn't address my response or the topic, which is not what the Constitutional role of government was in 1787.

[Dr. Who]

Individual curiosity abounds no less. Necessity is the mother of invention in societies large and small.



Its how NOT to do it and by the way they don't do it that way.

For instance the people who support funding for prostate cancer will often say that funding for prostate cancer pales in comparison to support for breast cancer. Likewise the pancreatic cancer lobby says that pancreatic cancers doesn't get its due vz lung cancer or colon cancer.....

As stated above: "Behind every worthy cause there are other causes of comparable worthiness. If cancer research deserves government support, should not the fight against Zika also be assisted, as well as other vital areas of medical research? The situation develops onward and outward, embracing ever more causes, redistributing ever more resources, hence stimulating more new demands – rather than the other way round."
The thing about an integrated planet is that what isn't being researched in America is being researched in Germany or France, England or Canada. Everyone doesn't have to research the same thing at the same time.

[Newpublius]

That really doesn't address my response or the topic, which is not what the Constitutional role of government was in 1787.

Yeah, that's great, but actually the constitutional question is 'can' or 'can't' and we're not discussing that we're discussing the 'should' or 'shouldn't' GIVEN that they 'can' do these things. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do something and fact is they shouldn't be doing these things because frankly, they suck at it.

[Newpublius]

The thing about an integrated planet is that what isn't being researched in America is being researched in Germany or France, England or Canada. Everyone doesn't have to research the same thing at the same time.

It doesn't matter, its still a function of our time, labor and capital whether that is looked at locally, regionally, nationally or globally. The existence or non-existence of political borders here isn't a distinction that makes a difference here.

[Dr. Who]

Yeah, that's great, but actually the constitutional question is 'can' or 'can't' and we're not discussing that we're discussing the 'should' or 'shouldn't' GIVEN that they 'can' do these things. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do something and fact is they shouldn't be doing these things because frankly, they suck at it.
Yes, but based on my interpretation of the question posed by the OP, I am defending the state i.e. what good works it is responsible for (that wouldn't otherwise exist) which I think is impossible to restrict to pure political rhetoric, and the economy, but I have been doing my best to confine my responses accordingly.

[Dr. Who]

It doesn't matter, its still a function of our time, labor and capital whether that is looked at locally, regionally, nationally or globally. The existence or non-existence of political borders here isn't a distinction that makes a difference here.
There is no question that we are on opposite sides of this argument, but I appreciate the discussion. I will table it for the moment because it is getting very late. Have a good night. Perhaps we can pick this up tomorrow.

[Chris]

He suggested that it was both the state and economics. I would suggest that the latter was supported by the former.

Actually, he doesn't. He puts the blame squarely on the state and sees economics are negating the state's power for the simple reason today engaging in war is too destructive and costly.

[Chris]

Our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner. Just a couple.


OK, now as should be plainly evident, I am a stickler for sticking to the topic. That topic is politics and economics and whether we're witnessing an end to both. So the question to you is what specifically has advanced to arrive at cleaner air and water? Has it been advances in technology or advances in politics or economics? From my perspective politics hasn't changed much since the state replaced the family as the center of authority, and the state is modeled on the family anyway so the only change is politics has become abstracted from time and place. Economics, well, the earliest anthropological records show man engaged in division of labor, specialization and trade. Not much has changed there either, other than technological products.

[Chris]

And all of this comes with a very severe opportunity cost. Government is simply not a necessary agency here. Its successes seem to be successes in the face of circumstances where the opportunity cost remains invisible to you. If you were alone in East Germany and saw the auto industry, you'd tout it as a success until you took a broader view and saw that the success touted isn't quite what it seems.

Everything that they do, including their successes is, at best, a Trabant.

Your point is that, "Gee, because the government has achieved x,y,z, these are unequivocal successes"

Unfortunately that is coming along with the cost, as you note, "Governments are positioned to spend money on research that would not otherwise attract investment in the private sphere."

These are investments that shouldn't be made. You are limiting your success actually. You should have x,y,z AND a,b,c.

We know that this is happening because we see societies whose investments were primarily made centrally. We saw how they were completely off the mark.

They had 'successes' too....


The single advantage of the government is concentrated benefits and distributed costs. Roads, bridges, dams, levees and the like used to be built by the rich who benefited: concentrated benefits and concentrated costs--until the rich found it could rent seek favors from the government, exchange a little wealth with a few politicians who then made the people pay the cost of infrastructure which benefited mainly the rich--concentrated benefits, distributed costs.

It cost me pennies people think, but in fact those pennies are taken from the purchase and production of goods and services people want.

The enlightened liberalism Pinker talks about became corrupt. A regression back to robber barons.

[Chris]

If not for government investment into technologies like medicine, energy, communications and aerospace, we wouldn't be living in this modern world. Nor we would we even be talking to each other instantly over vast distances.

I don't think people realize the investment and payoff we have all made. Interstate highway systems facilitating trade and modern commerce. The internet and all that it has created. The public investment in universities and the money poured into life sciences that have made huge medical breakthroughs. Without these investments that didn't have immediate financial payoffs, we probably wouldn't have these things. These sorts of investments are a legitimate and necessary part of government in out modern world. It's idealistic and naive to think these things would happen without it.


Again, the simple fact the government invested in new technology does not support it must have to achieve those technological advances. The Internet was built on top of advancing technology already taking place.

All you can claim is the government picked winners and losers. Newpublius explains the cost of that. I point to its corruption.


What you all defenders of the state need to do is show advances in politics.

[Chris]

Neither economics or politics are specific to the state. The OP does not actually initially ask a question, but posts an editorial piece, but later asks the question: "many people put great faith in the state and being able to fix it. I'm curious what successes, miracles if you will, have been accomplished." and later suggests that the topic is " politics, or economics. Not technology".

So, what exactly is politics? While attempting to obtain the definition I discovered that the word politics is intrinsic to its own definition. Hardly explanatory. So I looked up politic. It is defined as: shrewd or prudent in practical matters; tactful; diplomatic. So politics is really the art of shrewdness and practicality. If you add government and partisanship then it is the art of shrewdness and practicality while maintaining a partisan agenda. Politics in and of itself is really essentially meaningless except where it seeks to harm others. It will never in and of itself advance mankind other than perhaps by advancing civility. So, we move on to part 2, economics. Economics is defined as: the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. Wait, that's just another aspect of science that governments utilize - basically just another tool at its disposal. Why is it more special than the science of physics, chemistry or biology that underscore its political decisions on various aspects of the society that it governs?

None of these things point to any inherent flaws in the concept of the state nor do any of these things specifically define the state.


A state is defined as: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. So a state is a collection of people, living within defined borders who have a similar agenda, no more and no less. Realistically, you cannot have a large number of people who agree on everything. You can't even find family units that agree on everything, so the best that you can hope for is that most people agree on the most important issues.

If a state is broken, dysfunctional or unresponsive to its people, it's because of its internal processes, organizational structure and oversight, not because the state is by definition wrong. It is certainly better placed to fund and take advantage of research and developing knowledge than random small collections of people living in segregated groups based upon on narrow ideology or ethnicity. Modern states have as part of their mandate the idea of advancing humanity, not just survival. We are an integrated global society and we depend on those economies of scale.

What happens across the planet has an impact everywhere else. We no longer have the luxury of isolation, nor do we as a species really seek that utter isolation. There are no major achievements on the planet, since the invention of the wheel, in terms of the advancement of mankind that don't owe their success in some fashion to the existence of the state. Personal material success does not contribute to the advancement of the species unless the individual chooses to advance science in some fashion or chooses to contribute to the betterment of others. The existence of America itself is the result of the funding of exploration by a state.


The point, and topic, of the OP is we're at the end of politics and economics as solutions. A natural extension of that is to ask when have they ever been solutions to man's problems. You raised Pinker who actually sees the state as a problem and economics as a solution. But actually the fact war is too costly is an economic problem the state cannot through politics get around. The state is stuck.

Aristotle said man was political, by which he meant social. Thus man creates social institutions. Some come about by man's actions in society, like the market based on division of labor, specialization and trade. Some come about by design, like the state. I think here the simple definition of politics of the state takes three basic forms, which variations under each: Monarchy, democracy and anarchy (rules without rulers).

It could well be that the politics of the state are broken because they never were a solution. They were designed by man but man while he can imagine a state is incapable of creating a successful one. Man's been around for 200,000 years and the longest any state has lasted is 300 some years.

We can discuss why further but I think the onus is on the champions of the state to show its successes, to show how advances in the politics of state have advanced to create new solutions, and that it will continue to do what no one seems able to show.

What happens anywhere on the planet has always had a butterfly effect. Man, remember, is a social animal.

You say "There are no major achievements on the planet, since the invention of the wheel, in terms of the advancement of mankind that don't owe their success in some fashion to the existence of the state" and defeat yourself by mentioning the wheel invented so far before man ever imagined the state.

From the OP: "Then I realized that they want a kind of unicorn, a State that has the properties, motivations, knowledge, and abilities that they can imagine for it. When I finally realized that we were talking past each other, I felt kind of dumb. Because essentially this very realization—that people who favor expansion of government imagine a State different from the one possible in the physical world—has been a core part of the argument made by classical liberals for at least three hundred years...." --Michael Munger, The "State" As A Unicorn

[Tahuyaman]

Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.



I do not disagree with that, but now days the majority believes the purpose of government is to provide an abundance of services to the public. The more services one promises to provide, the more support he or she receives.

[Chris]

I do not disagree with that, but now days the majority believes the purpose of government is to provide an abundance of services to the public. The more services one promises to provide, the more support he or she receives.

And that is why politics and the economics to support that sort of politics is coming to an end. The opportunity cost is exceeding the ability of the economic system to sustain it.

[Tahuyaman]

And that is why politics and the economics to support that sort of politics is coming to an end. The opportunity cost is exceeding the ability of the economic system to sustain it.

I don't believe that people expecting an abundance of government services is coming to an end.

[Chris]

I don't believe that people expecting an abundance of government services is coming to an end.

But government being able to provide it is for the simple reason those expectations, those wants are unlimited, but resources are limited. Basic economic problem.

About the only advance in politics in centuries has been fiat money. But printing more money increases supply and lowers the value, the purchasing power of money--inflation. Creating treasury bonds to sell our debt may be coming to an end...

The US government is about to lose its #1 lender (https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/the-us-government-is-about-to-lose-its-1-lender-20240/)


...Think about it– yesterday I told you that the debt is now $19.5 trillion. The debt hit $18.5 trillion in November of last year… meaning that they added $1 trillion to the national debt in just 10 months.

What did you get for that $1 trillion? Did they defeat ISIS? Give everyone a massive tax rebate? Recapitalize all of their insolvent trust funds?

Nope. Nada. They made a trillion dollars vanish into thin air and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

...To be fair, this approach has worked well for years. The US government has had an ample supply of lenders willing to fund its largess.

But that pipeline of suckers will soon be running dry.

In fact, according to the Treasury Department’s most recent data, two of America’s biggest foreign lenders (China and Japan) are already cutting back on their $2.37 trillion of US debt.

Then there’s the Federal Reserve, another one of the government’s major lenders, which now owns $2.46 trillion of US debt.

...But one of the Fed’s major challenges is that they’re nearly insolvent, with a razor-thin capital ratio of just 0.8%.

Simply put, if the Fed continues to conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air to feed the government’s insatiable appetite for debt, they’re risking a major currency crisis at a minimum.....

[Tahuyaman]

But government being able to provide it is for the simple reason those expectations, those wants are unlimited, but resources are limited. Basic economic problem.

About the only advance in politics in centuries has been fiat money. But printing more money increases supply and lowers the value, the purchasing power of money--inflation. Creating treasury bonds to sell our debt may be coming to an end...

The US government is about to lose its #1 lender (https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/the-us-government-is-about-to-lose-its-1-lender-20240/)

I agree that resources to provide the unlimited services people expect are indeed limited. But that is going to force government to choose between the essential functions of government, which often aren't visible, and those non-essentials which are visible. The people will always vote for that which is visible.

This is will lead to a collapse of our society. The only question is, when?

[Boris The Animal]

A VA hospital being built in colorado was supposed to cost $700 million and is now $1.7 billion and counting

there are so many stories like this that it boggles the mindHere in New York, 9 government officials and high ranking corporate bigwigs were just indicted for (drum roll, please) play to pay corruption. As Gomer Pyle says; "Surprise, surprise, surprise". Reagan was correct in his 1981 inaugaural speech that government IS the problem.

[Chris]

I agree that resources to provide the unlimited services people expect are indeed limited. But that is going to force government to choose between the essential functions of government, which often aren't visible, and those non-essentials which are visible. The people will always vote for that which is visible.

This is will lead to a collapse of our society. The only question is, when?

Collapse of the government, possibly, society will carry on as it always does.

[Chris]

Here in New York, 9 government officials and high ranking corporate bigwigs were just indicted for (drum roll, please) play to pay corruption. As Gomer Pyle says; "Surprise, surprise, surprise". Reagan was correct in his 1981 inaugaural speech that government IS the problem.

The problem is the corrupt collusion of the big (government) and the rich. The solution is facing it political solutions are failing.

[Boris The Animal]

The problem is the corrupt collusion of the big (government) and the rich. The solution is facing it political solutions are failing.This is why Reagan was correct and still hated by the Left and the Elite today. Even though he entered the presidency being Governor of California, he wasn't entrenched Washington like his VP was.