People who argue over politics like this are the same people that make it impossible for or leaders to actually get stuff done. If they didn't have to worry about pleasing everyone and making sure America doesn't hate them for they're actions they would get alot more done.

The problem is that good politicians shouldn't care who hates them as long as they are accurately representing their platform. It's not the people's fault their politicians are spineless.

but seriously, let Clinton puppeteer his wife as president and send bush to prison let alone anyone that voted for him. This country gets way to caught up in the affairs of other people. If the Iraqis really hated Saddam they should've done something about it. He wasn't affecting us, we should never have stepped
[/quote]

I don't think any of us is in a good position to say such things. Saddam had a history of killing his own citizens who disagreed with him. Being in a first world country we are jaded to the "they should just do something about it" mentality. Not every situation is solvable so easily. Especially when there is a leader that isn't being held accountable for anything he does.

but seriously, let Clinton puppeteer his wife as president and send bush to prison let alone anyone that voted for him. This country gets way to caught up in the affairs of other people. If the Iraqis really hated Saddam they should've done something about it. He wasn't affecting us, we should never have stepped

I don't think any of us is in a good position to say such things. Saddam had a history of killing his own citizens who disagreed with him. Being in a first world country we are jaded to the "they should just do something about it" mentality. Not every situation is solvable so easily. Especially when there is a leader that isn't being held accountable for anything he does.
[/quote]

spineless or is it just our social standard? It's not up to us to hold him accountable, it's the people in that countries responsibility. If you're mom was an abusive alchoholic, that beat you and killed your brother. Would you wait for the people down the block to step in? I hope you would say no. People may be born in Sh** but it's up to them if they want to eat it. Before you say they would just be killed for trying to stop him.... think how things would be if martin luther king thought the same way.

[color="#CCCCCC"]The fact that USPS exists should contradict this statement. [/quote]

Fixed - and USPS is just one of many flailing government services.

From what Prefect has posted, I'm assuming he is not American and is most likely European. Not sure where he gets these theories from, but decreasing government revenue (decreasing taxes) has historically (in the US) been shown to increase business expansion and consequently their revenue. Equating decreased government spending with a consequential decrease in the economy really depends on how many are dependent on government spending - which seems to be much higher in European nations, and might be biasing Prefect's opinion of the US economy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

If you are arguing point (1), then you are making an argument about how the economy will react to a change in economic policy, and it is pretty clear that trying to argue that is a lost cause. Reducing government spending hurts the economy, especially in the current economic climate. This is clear from theoretical economic models, and you have to look no further than Greece and the UK to see it happening right now in practice.

If you are arguing point (2), then you are making a political statement, which is fine with me. I would disagree, but people have different opinions all the time.

So what I am asking him is to face the reality that following through on point (2) in the US is going to hurt the economy. There's nothing wrong with admitting that if you have a backup plan / counteracting policy at the ready to help the economy, or if happen to want to hurt the economy (but I doubt that's the case).

So you're saying, if I'm against increased government spending, I must have a motive other than improving the economy. Because deep down I know that cutting government spending would hurt the economy, but I'm so anti-government that I want to cut it anyway. Amirite?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you think the main reason people are against government spending is that they hate paying taxes. I am a Libertarian, and I don't mind paying taxes, because honestly, they're not that bad. The tax rate for me and my family (and I suspect, for most of these crazy Tea-Partiers) is actually quite low, and certainly bearable.

The reason I am against government spending is that I am concerned for our economy. Basically, I am arguing point (1) from your post. I am surprised that you dismiss it so easily.

[color="#1C2837"]As an example, many municipalities in Germany are currently de-privatising their trash collection, with the result that the fees for trash collection are going down. The reason for this is very simple: the municipalities have no profit motive in providing this service, and so they are able to provide it more cheaply than the private enterprises that previously provided that service. Now a hard-core market radical would probably argue that this was because there was previously no competition between different service providers. That may be true, but if there had been competition, those private enterprises would still have been in it for a profit and so like more expensive for the citizens. On top of that, it would have required multiple redundant collection vehicles to do their rounds regularly - quite an obvious case of inefficiency, if you look at it from a social perspective.[/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]Nice red herring. Local-level garbage collection has nothing to do with this.
[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]

[color="#1C2837"]For many spheres of public life, in particular when it comes to the provision of infrastructure (transportation, electricity, water, etc.), this is not the case, and therefore state-run provision of those services is usually more efficient.[/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]I agree. Now, back to the topic at hand?

[color="#cccccc"]The fact that USPS exists should contradict this statement.

Fixed - and USPS is just one of many flailing government services.

From what Prefect has posted, I'm assuming he is not American and is most likely European. Not sure where he gets these theories from, but decreasing government revenue (decreasing taxes) has historically (in the US) been shown to increase business expansion and consequently their revenue. Equating decreased government spending with a consequential decrease in the economy really depends on how many are dependent on government spending - which seems to be much higher in European nations, and might be biasing Prefect's opinion of the US economy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
[/quote]

There's really no need to lower government spending. Everything could've stayed the same and been better, if only we cut half or army. Honestly I believe half of what are army does can easily be accomplished by computers and propaganda. I'll try to find the links but I believe we've been spending 50% of the govermental income, taxes, on the military, and doubled the national debt since bush went to war on bin laden. It's simply ridiculous when you look at countries like canada that have no problems with money like we do. And you know what they have free healthcare... but it's not hurting they're economy one bit.

There's really no need to lower government spending. Everything could've stayed the same and been better, if only we cut half or army. Honestly I believe half of what are army does can easily be accomplished by computers and propaganda. I'll try to find the links but I believe we've been spending 50% of the govermental income, taxes, on the military, and doubled the national debt since bush went to war on bin laden. It's simply ridiculous when you look at countries like canada that have no problems with money like we do. And you know what they have free healthcare... but it's not hurting they're economy one bit.

It's 20%. But yeah, it needs to go down along with everything else. Even completely removing the military wouldn't be enough.

[color="#cccccc"]The fact that USPS exists should contradict this statement.

Fixed - and USPS is just one of many flailing government services.
[/quote]
You cannot back up the claim that something is intrinsically inefficient by one single example (not that I'm certain your example is even a good one), or even several examples. It can be disproved with a single counter-example, which is what I did.

The truth is that government agencies do stupid and inefficient things, and so do private corporations. It has nothing to do with government vs. private, it's simply part of human nature. Please consider what I wrote about when a private approach is appropriate, and when government services are appropriate. It always depends on the context, and an ideological blanket position of "government is always bad" is just silly ideology. I prefer to be pragmatic about such things.

From what Prefect has posted, I'm assuming he is not American and is most likely European. Not sure where he gets these theories from, but decreasing government revenue (decreasing taxes) has historically (in the US) been shown to increase business expansion and consequently their revenue. Equating decreased government spending with a consequential decrease in the economy really depends on how many are dependent on government spending - which seems to be much higher in European nations, and might be biasing Prefect's opinion of the US economy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
[/quote]
Your assumption is correct, but I get the impression that you are not reading what I am writing, and are simply arguing against some clichés that you have in your head. Let me assure you, I do not argue standard US Democrat lines. I am arguing from the point of view of national accounts and sectoral balances, which the Democrats largely do not seem to understand - they are no different from Republicans in that respect. For example, I have stated myself that reducing taxes can expand the economy, but so can increasing government spending. Both actions are an attempt to push the budget deficit upwards, and therefore push the private sector into having more income, at least qualitatively. The quantitative question of how much the economy is affected in each case is a more complicated one.

So I guess the thing that really puzzles me is this: You seem to be utterly convinced that decreasing taxes (which is not necessarily the same as decreasing government revenue, as some like to argue) is expansionary for the economy. Why do you not have the same conviction about increased government spending? Distributional questions aside, the effect on macroeconomic aggregates is very similar.

Do you refuse to believe the part about increased government spending because it might challenge your political convictions in an uncomfortable way?

For my part, I definitely accept the fact that tax reductions can expand the economy. The reason why I do not favour most tax reductions politically are that (1) I believe that the wealth distribution in societies should be stable, (2) I believe in the idea of market competition to determine wealth distribution, and (3) the society has a responsibility to give everybody the chance to sustain themselves with a good job. Most tax reductions tend to favour the rich disproportionately, which is in conflict with the first two points. Also, except for cuts to sales taxes and similar, tax reductions never put money into the hands of the economically most disadvantaged, especially to the unemployed, which is in conflict with the last two points. That is why I believe the first measure should always be to increase spending with a focus on job creation at least until the economy is at full employment. Once this has been achieved, we can talk about tax reductions.

[quote name='Prefect' timestamp='1297962078' post='4775456']
If you are arguing point (1), then you are making an argument about how the economy will react to a change in economic policy, and it is pretty clear that trying to argue that is a lost cause. Reducing government spending hurts the economy, especially in the current economic climate. This is clear from theoretical economic models, and you have to look no further than Greece and the UK to see it happening right now in practice.

If you are arguing point (2), then you are making a political statement, which is fine with me. I would disagree, but people have different opinions all the time.

So what I am asking him is to face the reality that following through on point (2) in the US is going to hurt the economy. There's nothing wrong with admitting that if you have a backup plan / counteracting policy at the ready to help the economy, or if happen to want to hurt the economy (but I doubt that's the case).

So you're saying, if I'm against increased government spending, I must have a motive other than improving the economy. Because deep down I know that cutting government spending would hurt the economy, but I'm so anti-government that I want to cut it anyway. Amirite?
[/quote]
No. I was writing this from the perspective that you're probably a small-government person, and would want to cut spending and taxes at the same time - cutting taxes more than spending in the process, if you understand sectoral balances properly.

The reason I am against government spending is that I am concerned for our economy. Basically, I am arguing point (1) from your post.
[/quote]
So let me see your argument. So far, you've only made claims.

[color="#1c2837"]As an example, many municipalities in Germany are currently de-privatising their trash collection, with the result that the fees for trash collection are going down. (...)[/quote]
[color="#1c2837"]Nice red herring. Local-level garbage collection has nothing to do with this.
[/quote]

Local government has everything to do with this. On the other hand, you may just have expressed yourself badly, considering that you linked to an article about a criticism of central planning. Central planning is a separate concept from government spending.
[color="#1c2837"]

[color="#1c2837"]

[color="#1c2837"]For many spheres of public life, in particular when it comes to the provision of infrastructure (transportation, electricity, water, etc.), this is not the case, and therefore state-run provision of those services is usually more efficient.

[color="#1c2837"]I agree. Now, back to the topic at hand?
[/quote]
It's nice to see that we agree on something

Rhetoric. Anyone who actually keeps up with his politics in an honest manner knows this by now.

Well to be honest, all politicians are like that, fancy words to fool the people, political party or nationality doesn't matter, they're on the same level as lawyers and amoebas to me. (If any amoeba is offended by this comparison then i'll apologise)
Allthough GWB had some really awful rethoric that did a good job at pissing the rest of the world off he really wasn't any worse than obama if we only look at the decisions he made rather than the speeches.

I'd say i was actually happy when Obama won the election, i thought that US foreign policy (which affects those of us living in the rest of the world quite alot) would change for the better, i can honestly say that i was a naive fool, as for his domestic policies, well those don't affect me but from what i can see he hasn't managed to bring that much "Change" there either, i'm guessing the US is in the same situation as sweden in that you have 2 big parties that drift closer and closer to eachother in order to get the center votes (We actually have 8 parties in government right now, but the two biggest ones have formed alliances with the smaller ones to essentially form two blocks, at most the difference between the two blocks is half a percentage more or less in income tax but for the issues that really matters its all the same shit), its not like those who are further left than the democrats or further right than the republicans have any other realistic options to vote for anyway.

[color="#1C2837"][color="#000000"]

[color="#1C2837"]So let me see your argument. So far, you've only made claims.
[color="#1C2837"]

[color="#1C2837"]I've only made claims regarding your logic. I've stated my opinion (take it or leave it), but you sound like you've already heard enough arguments for it. If not, there's always Mises.

Central planning is a separate concept from government spending.

If you're talking strictly on the national level, this makes no sense to me. You must concede that government spending in any form (even on the local level, if you must bring that in) is wealth redistribution. How can it not be? And if it's wealth redistribution, how can it not be central planning? They go hand-in-hand. Please enlighten.