My idea for the perfect government

[pcs]

Whichever joke PCS got, and I suspect it was ironic rather than humourous, there are plenty of others, largely unintentional.

 

Jim made an oblique crack at Jimmy Carter.

[Pangloss]

Too bad the United States is incapable of electing a president who graduated in the top ten percent of an elite school, did graduate work in nuclear physics and even worked as a nuclear engineer. I'm certain the election of such a president would launch a decade of prosperity and a resurgence of American prestige abroad.

 

For a moment there I thought you were describing Jimmy Carter. He doesn't miss that mark by a whole lot, you know. (chuckle)

[Pangloss]

They are protesting - it is their right' date=' don't you think? If they want to have excessive unemployment, who are we to say they are wrong?

 

Someday, we may be faced with working 7-day weeks and working our children to compete with the Chinese. Is there a point when you say enough with this competition and lets have a life?[/quote']

 

No, I don't. I don't believe that jobs are a right, because that involves taking something from someone else by force. Woe be unto those who have the guts to start their own business in a world where, once you do that, you lose your right to decide who gets to work for you and who does not. What fool would start a business in such a world?

 

The reason France has such a high unemployment rate is in part because of that job-for-life rule. Companies are afraid to hire young people because they would then be employed for life, with zero motivation to succeed and help the company prosper.

 

There's a reason why most European countries are backing away from those kinds of guarantees. They've discovered what socialists are always slow to discover -- that guarantees remove motivation. Consider Belgium, for example, which has produced a world class educational system by requiring its public schools to compete with private schools and making it easier to fire incompetent teachers.

 

I actually have to say something I never thought I'd ever have the opportunity to say: I admire the French government for taking this daring and bold position, and I wish them luck with it.

[YT2095]

I admire the French government for taking this daring and bold position, and I wish them luck with it.

yeah, 1`st time for everything I guess, well since Napoleon that is

[john5746]

I'm pretty sure you and I are the only two who get the joke.

 

I got the joke - I knew Jimmy was a nuclear engineer. Didn't know he did so well in school.

 

So, intelligence doesn't always equate with leadership. Yep.

 

 

And since we did have prosperity under Clinton, effective leaders can have character flaws.

 

And what do we learn from Bush? Having your Dad in high places really helps!

[The Peon]

It's not your idea.

 

 

 

This is idle platitude.

 

Your "idea" has been explored in academia and in practice in a wide range of experiences from the rise of managerial science and operations research to faculty politics to Singaporean governance. In the end' date=' your idea boils down to one thing--qualifying the class of the governed capable of giving their consent to such a contract. That's why businesses answer to lay shareholders and consumers, faculties answer to corporations or state boards that are in turn responsible to the beneficiaries of the enrolled and alumni of varying technical compentence, and even a small city state like Singapore maintains a not-so-disingenuous pretense of republicanism. All you've done here is offer an extremely water-downed defense of what in its worst form descends into totalitarianism.

 

 

 

I think most people are simply rejecting the core thesis of your proposal, that an extremely elite community of the highly educated has the moral and physical authority to impose political apartheid against the far more numerous lay population.

 

 

 

No, it simply makes you disingenuous--that's because you claimed the idea as your own and made no independent effort to evaluate it's efficacy of its previous incarnations.[/quote']

 

 

Well excuse me that I dont have the intelligence or knowledge you have mr smarty pants. I did come up with the idea on my own without knowledge of others having done the same so I AM SORRY . Yea ill let this thread die and discuss the idea with people who are willing to actually discuss it. I still dont think its a bad idea, with some modification.

 

As the old quote (more or less) says "Few people desire true freedom, only fair masters."

[pcs]

And since we did have prosperity under Clinton, effective leaders can have character flaws.

 

Really? When did Clinton join the captains of industry? Or become a Republican?

 

And what do we learn from Bush? Having your Dad in high places really helps!

 

And passing tax cut after tax cut reduces unemployment, raises wages, increases capital investment and productivity. Oh, and that we can execute a strong, clear grand strategy aimed at democratizing the most strategically vital region of the world without prohibitively violent fluctuations in energy costs.

[pcs]

Well excuse me that I dont have the intelligence or knowledge you have mr smarty pants. I did come up with the idea on my own without knowledge of others having done the same so I AM SORRY .

 

Quick aside. Why do people use the "roll eyes" smiley? Seriously, it's like the geekiest one in the list. "Mr. Smarty Pants?" I've got nothing against a race to the bottom, but I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the Disney Channel and bring on the hard liquor.

 

I have nothing to say about you're intelligence or body of knowledge. I don't believe you came up with that idea on your own. Sure, you may have pieced together a few coherent sentences from bits and pieces of knowledge you've acquired, but your OP really boils down to a poorly thought through, overly long exposition of a single technocratic feature. That's not original thought.

[Dak]

easy both.

 

it's not that inconcievable that he came up with the idea without having heard of it from technocracy. i concidered it before i'd ever heard of technocracy, and, when you get right down to it, it's pretty much just the archaic 'council of wizemen' govournance, which is hardly that difficult to think of.

 

one thing im still curiouse about: why scientists? in a technocracy, for example, science would be govourned by scientists, education by teachers, the economy by economists*, etc... why do scientists do all the govournance in your proposed political system?

 

-----------

 

*yeah, i know, but i was running out of examples

[Jim]

I'm pretty sure you and I are the only two who get the joke.

 

For a moment there I thought you were describing Jimmy Carter. He doesn't miss that mark by a whole lot, you know. (chuckle)

 

Heh, I think we've succeeded in dating ourselves.

 

I met Pres. Carter when only 2% of the population knew his name. Rosalyn came to our small rural town of 4,000 and her husband spoke at a small gathering in Tulsa well before New Hampshire.

 

He was very impressive in a small group but did not translate to television. In my defense, I was only 17 at the time and very gullible.

[Pangloss]

Heh, I think we've succeeded in dating ourselves.

 

(grin) I'm afraid so. I'm not quite old enough to have voted for Carter, but I remember debating Carter v Reagan as a freshman in high school. Ironically, I was for Carter. Got whipped by a girl, too!

[john5746]

And passing tax cut after tax cut reduces unemployment, raises wages, increases capital investment and productivity.

 

 

Ha Ha Ha!! I am all for tax cuts but, I would say Bush's example would be that borrowing money like there is no tomorrow makes selective spending unnecessary and future chaos likely.

 

Productivity started really increasing during Bush I

 

 

Oh, and that we can execute a strong, clear grand strategy aimed at democratizing the most strategically vital region of the world without prohibitively violent fluctuations in energy costs.

 

Why is it strategically vital? because we are addicts?(His words)

 

clear strategy? That's too easy...

 

Bush's message: We can rebuild Iraq, keep their borders secure and keep them from civil war. But, we cannot secure our borders, run our ports, help our people in disaster or even attempt to pay our debt.

[pcs]

Ha Ha Ha!! I am all for tax cuts but, I would say Bush's example would be that borrowing money like there is no tomorrow makes selective spending unnecessary and future chaos likely.

 

I find this argument uninspired. The vast majority of middle class Americans under 40 are leveraged by thousands of dollars. The average debt-equity ratio across industry is rarely under 1, and often as high as 1.5 and 2. Yet the national debt to GDP ratio is under 65 percent. Mind you we actually fought a war on two oceans under a tax system that took 90 percent of capital out of the private and leveraged the country 120 percent over a tenth of our present economic output. And suddenly an annual deficit that amounts to a mere quarter of total federal outlays is a road to chaos?

 

Productivity started really increasing during Bush I

 

Between 1987 and 2004, productivity went up 37 points, a third of which has occurred under President George W. Bush's tenure. Put another way, the fiscal year of the 2001 tax cuts--mind you that single year--saw productivity rise 84 percent of the gain achieved during Clinton's entire first term. So let's just pretend all that news about unprecedented productivity growth has some basis in reality.

 

Why is it strategically vital? because we are addicts?(His words)

 

Yes, because we are addicts of an energy source with NO (not simply just more, but NO) comprehensive alternative that the vast majority of working Americans need just to feed their families.

 

clear strategy? That's too easy...

 

Yes. Clear. What's unclear about it?

 

Bush's message: We can rebuild Iraq, keep their borders secure and keep them from civil war. But, we cannot secure our borders, run our ports, help our people in disaster or even attempt to pay our debt.

 

Our borders are secure, we do run our ports, and we have the best disaster relief the planet, and who gives a damn about debt? You do know that grown ups seem to manage pretty well in this regard.

[john5746]

I find this argument uninspired.

 

That's fine, I'm not going to tell you how I find your arguments.

 

Productivity magically skyrockets in one year based only on some tax cuts! Nevermind all the investment in IT during the 90's, trimming of Fat(layoffs), lowering wages and overtime work for no pay common in a recovery, low payed immigrants and outsourcing. No, that had nothing to do with it.

 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches/2005/20050119/default.htm

 

That's like saying that Islamic terrorism is all Bush's fault, oh wait a minute, you would say that if you were on the other side.

 

 

I don't know about you, but I am not spending more than I earn every year and keep planning on doing that as a policy. I also don't plan on everything going rosy, I expect there may be some bad years in my future, so I actually have some savings.

 

Yes, I am a grownup and manage debt quite well, unlike the federal government.

[Jim]

Well excuse me that I dont have the intelligence or knowledge you have mr smarty pants. I did come up with the idea on my own without knowledge of others having done the same so I AM SORRY . Yea ill let this thread die and discuss the idea with people who are willing to actually discuss it. I still dont think its a bad idea' date=' with some modification.

 

As the old quote (more or less) says "Few people desire true freedom, only fair masters."[/quote']

 

I did not react negatively towards your post because I believe you are unintelligent. I would have a highly negative reaction to the Government telling me when to step onto my elliptical. Only my wife gets that much control.

[pcs]

Productivity magically skyrockets in one year based only on some tax cuts! Nevermind all the investment in IT during the 90's, trimming of Fat(layoffs), lowering wages and overtime work for no pay common in a recovery, low payed immigrants and outsourcing. No, that had nothing to do with it.

 

We can also credit the invention of the wheel if we extend the time gate and go through enough n-order effects. In the end, we still have an uncharacteristic increase in productivity beginning in 2001. So tell us, what happened nonfarm labor in the last two quarters of FY01 that didn't happen in quarters before? A year before? Two years before? 1995? What was so different in the latter half of 2001?

 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/speeches/2005/20050119/default.htm

 

This doesn't even address the post-2001 slope.

 

I don't know about you, but I am not spending more than I earn every year and keep planning on doing that as a policy.

 

So you intend to rent (or live with your parents0 for life and have no credit?

 

Yes, I am a grownup and manage debt quite well, unlike the federal government.

 

Wait a minute. Just above you said you have no debts. Now you do? I'm skeptically, Johnny.

[john5746]

We can also credit the invention of the wheel if we extend the time gate and go through enough n-order effects. In the end, we still have an uncharacteristic increase in productivity beginning in 2001. So tell us, what happened nonfarm labor in the last two quarters of FY01 that didn't happen in quarters before? A year before? Two years before? 1995? What was so different in the latter half of 2001?.

 

 

 

The link I provided did address that, search for 2001 and then read. It addresses productivity increases since 1995 and postulates on why they increased even more post 2001, even after the 9/11 attacks, recession, etc. You won't find tax cuts in there, but I agree it should have helped - I spent my extra dollars on something, sure didn't save it at that time.

 

 

So you intend to rent (or live with your parents0 for life and have no credit?

 

Please educate yourself on the difference between debt and deficit. Most people cannot run a deficit for very long. They will lose their belongings and goto jail.

 

http://www.greatreality.com/DebtFAQ.htm

[pcs]

The link I provided did address that...

 

No, it didn't, and hand-waving aside the only time Bernanke addresses the post-2001 productivity gains is in his opening remarks and even then just to report that the rate has doubled again.

 

You won't find tax cuts in there...

 

Because the scope of the lit review is restricted to research concerning 1987 - 2001 data.

 

Please educate yourself on the difference between debt and deficit.

 

Funny, coming from a guy who's managed to incur debt without running a deficit. I'll ask you again. Is it your plan to live a credit-free life paying rent or living with your folks?

[john5746]

No, it didn't, and hand-waving aside the only time Bernanke addresses the post-2001 productivity gains is in his opening remarks and even then just to report that the rate has doubled again.

 

 

...Thus, in the earliest stages of a contraction, for example, employers may choose not to dismiss workers but instead to use them less intensively or assign them tasks that do not involve current production, such as maintenance or training. Measured productivity growth consequently declines when the economy enters a recession. Similarly, during the early stages of an economic recovery, employers may hesitate to add new workers and instead may ask existing employees to work harder, at least until the expansion seems better established. Output per hour of work thus tends to rise faster than its secular (long-run) rate early in the recovery. Finally, as the expansion matures and hiring picks up, productivity growth tends to slow again as the level of employee effort returns to normal and as the need to devote firm resources to hiring and training new workers detracts from current production. At present, three years from the official end of the 2001 recession, the U.S. economy has likely entered this latter stage, as productivity growth appears to be falling from its recent high levels to a rate that is likely below its longer-term trend.

 

 

Funny' date=' coming from a guy who's managed to incur debt without running a deficit. I'll ask you again. Is it your plan to live a credit-free life paying rent or living with your folks?[/quote']

 

I have debt, but my revenues exceed my monthly or annual bills. I pay interest and reduce the principle on the debt every month. I could run a deficit every month or year, maybe keep borrowing on credit cards or against the house, but I think this is risky. So, I don't spend more than my revenue and in fact actually save money.

 

What does the government do? It spends more money than it receives every year and if it does run a surplus, doesn't spend that towards the debt. As interest increases, the interest on the debt increases, which makes the deficits grow larger, etc.

[pcs]

...Thus, in the earliest stages of a contraction, for example, employers may choose not to dismiss workers but instead to use them less intensively or assign them tasks that do not involve current production, such as maintenance or training.

 

None of which amounts to an analysis of the uncharacteristic productivity gains starting in 2001, gains that anticipated tax relief authorized that year.

 

 

I have debt, but my revenues exceed my monthly or annual bills. I pay interest and reduce the principle on the debt every month. I could run a deficit every month or year, maybe keep borrowing on credit cards or against the house, but I think this is risky. So, I don't spend more than my revenue and in fact actually save money.

 

You build liquidity. So do lot of people. What you've now clarified is that you are leveraged but you are incurring no additional debt. Whether or not that's wise in terms of opportunity cost is another matter: I anticipate doubling my debt in the next four years, but the bulk of that expected leverage will exchange for continuing education and law school.

 

What does the government do? It spends more money than it receives every year and if it does run a surplus, doesn't spend that towards the debt.

 

Actually, government currency accounts do go towards the debt in terms of interest payments. What we haven't done is pay down the principle, and this mirrors the financial situation of most Americans between 20 and 45. Unlike a single citizen or family, the government isn't expected to expire anytime soon and sits on top of a $15 trillion a year economy.

[john5746]

You build liquidity. So do lot of people. What you've now clarified is that you are leveraged but you are incurring no additional debt. Whether or not that's wise in terms of opportunity cost is another matter: I anticipate doubling my debt in the next four years, but the bulk of that expected leverage will exchange for continuing education and law school.

 

I'm glad you finally understand my debt situation. You do manage to listen once in awhile.

Debt for education, sounds like a good investment, I guess.

 

Actually' date=' government currency accounts do go towards the debt in terms of interest payments. What we haven't done is pay down the principle, and this mirrors the financial situation of most Americans between 20 and 45. Unlike a single citizen or family, the government isn't expected to expire anytime soon and sits on top of a $15 trillion a year economy.[/quote']

 

I know, that. We pay the interest. I would hope most people are at least paying the principle on their mortgages, but I know many are not.

 

So, you are happy with the current administrations expenditures of our money and how they handle the security of the border. Good for you. I am not and am glad Bush cannot have another term. The next person is bound to be better, Republican or Democrat.

[pcs]

I'm glad you finally understand my debt situation. You do manage to listen once in awhile.

 

I think we should thank your still very occasional capacity to explain yourself.

 

Debt for education, sounds like a good investment, I guess.

 

Debt for home ownership, debt for home office electronics, debt for home security, debt for food--these are generally good tabletop investments.

 

I know, that. We pay the interest. I would hope most people are at least paying the principle on their mortgages, but I know many are not.

 

Most people don't. Most businesses don't. This is a question of whether your revenue through the future is sufficient to justify lowering periodic costs at the expense of greater expenditure over the long haul. And countries, being what they are, generally can hold out far longer in far deeper red than individuals or firms.

 

So, you are happy with the current administrations expenditures of our money and how they handle the security of the border.

 

1. I'm not displeased with Washington's annual expenditures. I would question the wisdom of over $1 trillion in redistributive, nondiscretionary outlays that will only continue to increase and have close to zero stimulative effect, but even then we have to take that part and parcel with the fact that the US has maintained a responsible debt-to-GDP ratio compared to our foreign creditors. That is an engine of economic dynamism we can't ignore.

 

2. Why the abrupt segue into immigration control?

 

Good for you. I am not and am glad Bush cannot have another term. The next person is bound to be better, Republican or Democrat.

 

Or, maybe the next person can only hope to be as great as our current President. You know, seeing as he's so great and all compared to his predecessors.

[john5746]

I think we should thank your still very occasional capacity to explain yourself

 

I said I don't spend more than I earn EVERY year, and you turned that into something else. You have a habit of posting several times arguing about your interpretation of what someone said. You will make a fine lawyer someday!

 

Debt for home ownership' date=' debt for home office electronics, debt for home security, debt for food--these are generally good tabletop investments.

[/quote']

 

I especially like the home security one. Why don't you pay some guys to go over and beat up your neighbor, who beats his wife and might rob you, but leave your backdoor unlocked?

 

 

Most people don't. Most businesses don't. This is a question of whether your revenue through the future is sufficient to justify lowering periodic costs at the expense of greater expenditure over the long haul. And countries' date=' being what they are, generally can hold out [i']far[/i] longer in far deeper red than individuals or firms.

 

I don't have any stats, but fixed loans, where a portion of your payment goes towards the principle, are still fairly common.

 

 

1. I'm not displeased with Washington's annual expenditures. I would question the wisdom of over $1 trillion in redistributive' date=' nondiscretionary outlays that will only continue to increase and have close to zero stimulative effect, but even then we have to take that part and parcel with the fact that the US has maintained a responsible debt-to-GDP ratio compared to our foreign creditors. That is an engine of economic dynamism we can't ignore.

 

2. Why the abrupt segue into immigration control?[/quote']

 

I mentioned the borders earlier and you said they were secure. 3 million illegals pass over it, so it does seem to be secure for them, that is true.

 

 

 

 

Or' date=' maybe the next person can only hope to be as great as our current President. You know, seeing as he's so great and all compared to his predecessors.[/quote']

 

Applying the No Child Left Behind policy to our Presidents. Make crappy an A and all Presidents will make the grade.

 

I haven't seen anyone claim he is better than Reagan. I liked his father better, he just ended his war too soon and had to deal with Parrot and domestic issues.

[pcs]

I said I don't spend more than I earn EVERY year, and you turned that into something else.

 

So you plan to either live with your folks or rent and you have no credit. We've gone through this before.

 

You have a habit of posting several times arguing about your interpretation of what someone said.

 

Huh?

 

You will make a fine lawyer someday!

 

Maybe, but what does that have to do with practicing law?

 

I especially like the home security one. Why don't you pay some guys to go over and beat up your neighbor, who beats his wife and might rob you, but leave your backdoor unlocked?

 

Where did that come from?

 

I don't have any stats, but fixed loans, where a portion of your payment goes towards the principle, are still fairly common.

 

Castle assets (mortgages) usually are positively amortized at some point, capital (second homes, equipment, etc.) generally isn't for a time and is usually financed interest-only. Even so, most people defer interest and therefore accrue debt for five to ten years. Of course, most human beings have finite lifespans.

 

I mentioned the borders earlier and you said they were secure. 3 million illegals pass over it, so it does seem to be secure for them, that is true.

 

Then perhaps you better clarify what you mean by "secure."

 

Applying the No Child Left Behind policy to our Presidents. Make crappy an A and all Presidents will make the grade.

 

Where's your Harvard MBA?

 

I haven't seen anyone claim he is better than Reagan.

 

I will. This President is better than Reagan.

 

I liked his father better, he just ended his war too soon and had to deal with Parrot and domestic issues.

 

Perot.

[john5746]

So you plan to either live with your folks or rent and you have no credit. We've gone through this before.

 

Yes, we seem to be having our own private discussion about my finances. Well, I have a mortgage, which means I have debt. But, I pay the monthly P & I payments and all my other bills and still can put money in retirement, savings and stocks. So, I define this as not running an annual deficit. I do have a debt, but not annual deficits, and I am not living with my parents. You are correct, I could borrow up to my eyeballs and leverage that money to create the next Google or Apple, or I could go bankrupt.

 

So, I think the US should have debt, I just don't like the unending deficits, especially with the interest rates going higher and higher.

 

 

 

Perot

 

I thought Perot was a Parrot! My bad!