Can you balance the federal budget?

Individual

I suppose it might be an entertaining story, but it doesn’t seem to have any real lessons of much substance especially not on any economic level.

Also why is it they are all in debt in the first place and why is the only woman a prostitute?

*

I mean the central premise seems to be that…

…and that just doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.


The butcher has used his skill and time to produce pork.

The pig farmer has used his labour and time to raise the pigs.

The farmers Co-op is made up of people that have used their labour to produce and ship products like feed and fuel.

The prostitute has utilised her assets as part of the services and entertainment industry.

You then have to take into account all the ancillary services, industries and products also getting their cut in this loop. The cleaning products used by the butcher, the vet used by the pig farmer, the fertilizer producers used by the feed farmers, the steel workers, drillers and oil refinery behind the fuel sold and not to forget the lubricant and spermicidal products used by the prostitute. An economy and society is not made up of individuals working alone and completely separate from each other it is a collective with interdependent running all the way through it.

Also in a capitalist system (which this seems to be an example) profit had to be made along the way, the butcher’s products would have been sold for more than the raw meat, the pigs would have been sold for more than the cost of the feed and fuel used to raise them etc. Also a small amount would go in taxes that underpin the infrastructure that is needed for that economy to exist.

So it’s very clear - people are producing and earning all along the line and the money passing hands has bought and paid for those things.

If there is a lesson it’s the opposite of “No one produced anything. No one earned anything” its that basically the $100 stood for the liquidity in the market, you could say in a sense the Hotelier is acting like a bank he used the money that was left with him on deposit and investing it in the economy (and earns his own profit).

The money circulates through that economy but when the depositor wanted it back he got it back.

In a capitalist society when I deposit money in a bank I expect that I can withdraw it when I want it, but I also expect the bank to do its civic duty and help people in my society and in the real economy, such as butchers and farmers. That’s what they should be earning their profit for and not to gamble my money away on speculative derivatives etc.

My impression from the story is that the financial institutions are failing to provide the liquidity that this Texan town needs to function properly.


The problem with neo-liberal economic policies is that they lead banks away from helping society and people in the real economy and toward the short term maximisation of wealth for a few at the expense of society and the majority.

When that inevitably leads to disaster a result can a lack of liquidity as they try to pull back capital to refinance themselves, meaning governments have to step in to provide the liquidity (basically making society pay twice for their mistakes).


We need to curtail and harness wealth and the market to work once more for our societies and the majority.

A start would be a Tobin tax on speculative trading, along with regulation that curtailed gambling and pushed the financial sector into longer term thinking and investment in tangible products and people.

That in my view is the direction that needs to be taken to archive a balance society and economy.

 

The intent of the story is not so much to teach a clear lesson as it is to make readers think. It should also be obvious that the responses can vary widely, and more than anything else serve as a means of displaying ones underlying political philosophy.

When you place money in a bank, what is the primary motivation?

Couldn't your view be accomplished quite simply by allowing government to fix all prices, wages and salaries, and the elimination of all market volatility, by making the necessary changes brought about by supply and demand?

 

Individual

Thing is it seemed phrased as a lesson, as a parable, if it wasn’t why was it there at all since it didn’t take much thought to realise it didn’t make much sense or stand up to even the slightest scrutiny?

*

In what way could the response vary widely? What is your take on it and in what way would it be based on your political philosophy?

*

For me or the bank? I’d say ease of use it beats having it in my underwear draw.

*

What view are you talking about?

 

I can't help it if it doesn't make you think. Actually, I thought it was entertaining, and it made me think quite a bit trying to find a flaw in it. Do you see a flaw, other than the $100 had to move around rapidly to make it available to be returned? Point out your reasoning as to why you would claim it to not make much sense or stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Could the same outcome have occurred without need of the $100 bill? Think about that.

Read the other comment on it, and mine to that one, and don't forget your own as well.

Do banks not provide that?

The one presented in your post.

 

Individual

A non-reply kind of reply – you don’t actually answer the questions instead preferring to try and worm out of giving any kind of clarification – yes definitely a non-reply.

*

The whole premise of the story (the punch line as such) was that – and I quote –

But as I’ve said that is totally untrue and so like a joke without a punch line the story falls flat.
So I’ll ask again what was your reason for post it?
*

So you actually are unable (or unwilling) to answer the question so instead you try to brush me off.
Sorry but I did read the other posts (and I’ll explain why your other reply simply doesn’t stand up below) so could you now please answer the questions or are you unable to do so?
In what way could the response vary widely? What is your take on it and in what way would it be based on your political philosophy?
*

You asked a question I answered it (something you could learn from).
Thing is my answer has answered your new question before you’d asked it – if someone says that they do A because B does it, then it stands to reason that B must be providing A to some extent or other.
Have you actually got a point to make if so could you please get to it?
*

What view are you talking about?

Whenever someone replies to a question like that I always suspect they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, but are hoping no one is going to notice or find out.

OK, I asked the question because I wanted to know what ‘view’ you think you are talking about. It’s a simple enough question, and if you knew what viewpoint you were talking about, a simple enough question to answer.

But instead you don’t give an answer, which begs the question – why?

*

 

Individual

You wished me to explain why this is nonsense as well so I will.

Again it comes back to the assertion that – “No one produced anything. No one earned anything”

But as I’ve pointed out that just wouldn’t and couldn’t be true within a capitalist system.

Costs would have been calculated and the price set to cover them, all along the line.

So the butcher’s bill would cover all expenses and commitments before even a profit was made.

So for example it would contain, the price of the raw meat, the cost of cleaning the slaughter and butchering areas, the price of servicing any debts (mortgage or bank loans), all taxes, dues to trade associations, living expenses and hopefully then profit.

As before the story just doesn’t make sense and so the only thoughts it arouses is that it’s useless and dumb and I wonder why it was even told.

I mean I don’t know what economic system it’s trying to exemplify but it’s none I’ve ever heard of.

*

Problem is you’re basing this statement on a fairytale, on something that is clearly nonsense?

So can you please clarify?

 

The financial problems being experience around the world at the moment have there roots in neo-liberal economic thinking that came to dominate many areas especially the US and Britain.

If things are going to improve that type of thinking has to be overthrown.

The problem is that neo-liberalism gave a lot of power and influence to wealth which is and will use it to try and block any changes.

The financial sectors and the markets have to be brought to heel so that they serve the interests of the majority rather than the few.

There are no quick fixes, this is going to be a long and hard struggle and virtually all of the pain is going to be felt by the bottom and the middle.

I just hope that when we do get out of it the lesson is learnt and we don’t get screwed again.

 

The point is to get you to not only ask questions, but to also analyze and produce the answers on your own.

1. The Hotel proprietor provided a service, a room to the prostitute.
2. The hooker provided a service, to the guy at the Farmers Co-op.
3. The Co-op guy provided feed and fuel to the pig farmer.
4. The pig farmer produced pork for the butcher.
5. The butcher provided the Hotel proprietor with meat.

Are you beginning to get a picture of what is going on?

Don't waste your time looking for a punch line, there is none.

As I said, it's a thought exercise. After all we don't wish to allow our neurons to atrophy.

I think you would find that the answer to your questions is obvious, if you would just exercise some thought. Should I provide an answer for you, it would only provide you with something to argue over, and lead you further from the answer.

That appears to contradict "No one produced anything, no one earned anything."
I think you're doing a fine job of making my point for me.

It's no longer relevant.

You asked "Why are they all in debt in the first place?" The obvious answer is that none of them had any money to pay their debts.
You then asked "Why is the only woman a prostitute?" I don't know why that would be relevant, but perhaps the Hotel proprietor is also a woman, and maybe even the butcher and the pig farmer. That would leave the Co-op guy who owed the hooker to be the only male, assuming that it wasn't a Lesbian service provided by the hooker.

 

Individual

You really seem unwilling or unable to answer questions, why is that?

Well to me your replies so far seem to scream out that you haven’t thought through your ideas and that’s why you can’t answer the questions and find it difficult, if not impossible, to explain your ideas.

*

LOL…this is just another quick two step to try and not answer the questions levelled at you.
Thing is I’ve asked questions to seek clarification and so far you’ve been refusing to answer them.
And I have come to a tentative conclusion after analysing your posts and I’m sorry to say that it’s that you don’t actually have any answers because you didn’t really know what you were talking about in the first place.
*
The whole premise of the story (the punch line as such) was that – and I quote –
"No one produced anything. No one earned anything."

Frankly no, I’m still unsure what your point is.
Because that’s not what you said and doesn’t take into account what I’ve explained to you so far, maybe you need to read more carefully and do a bit more of that analyse you mentioned.
What you seem to be saying here is that goods and services were produced and money earned for those goods and services which contradicts the punch line of the story which was - “No one produced anything. No one earned anything”.
Rather than helping me ‘get the picture’ you seem to be trying to re-paint it as we talk, which again just gives me the impression you don’t have a clue what the picture is yourself.
*

But as I’ve said that is totally untrue and so like a joke without a punch line the story falls flat.

Again you seem desperate to disassociate yourself from something which you seemed to think had real meaning, why is that?
I’ll ask again what meaning did you think the story and its punch line – (No one produced anything. No one earned anything) had for you and maybe we can find out it actually had any meaning at all.
*

No - this was a parable with a definite conclusion which you seemed to think had meaning. The problem here is that once asked you don’t seem to know if it had any meaning or not.
As I said earlier it doesn’t create much thought because its conclusion falls apart as soon as it’s examined.
The only interesting thing is why you thought it had meaning and I’m beginning to get the impression you don’t know.
*
So you actually are unable (or unwilling) to answer the question so instead you try to brush me off.
Sorry but I did read the other posts (and I’ll explain why your other reply simply doesn’t stand up below) so could you now please answer the questions or are you unable to do so?
In what way could the response vary widely? What is your take on it and in what way would it be based on your political philosophy?

But I have given your post some thought and written a length my views on them and explained why I’m asking the questions.
All you’ve done so far is avoided answering any, to you the answers may seem obvious but to me they are not, so could you please answer them?
As to leading to other arguments and questions that is the definition of debate are you saying you are afraid to discuss your ideas or views?
*

What…(humours double take)…what are you talking about, what point, so far you don’t seem to have a point or even have a clue as to a point, if you have a point please oh please present it because so far its completely missing.
And remember pretending you have a point when you don’t isn’t very honest now is it.
Look you asked me why I used a bank I told you ‘ease of use’ - I can put my money in and take it out elsewhere, I don’t need to keep it on me or in my underpants draw.
What is the point this seems to reveal?
*

What view are you talking about?

Oh this had me chortling; this reply is a classic example of someone who doesn’t have a clue as to what there talking about trying to pretend they do.
Why did you make the claim if you didn’t actually have an answer when challenged? Is everything you say a bluff, a balloon that pops when pricked?
If you didn’t know why, why didn’t you simply ask for clarification, unlike you I’m happy to answer questions, why claim to have knowledge you clearly didn’t have?
*

Imagine a student in a science class asks “why is the sky blue” and the science teacher replies “the obvious answer is that it’s coloured that way”

I’d say the science teacher was not only a crap teacher but also a crap scientist because he obviously didn’t have a clue why the sky was blue.

*

Now this may be the reason why you’re not as knowing as you think you are. I mean did you not read what you were writing at the time you wrote it? Did you not bother to go back and check your facts before making a claim?

The rich tourist is described in the story as a ‘he’ the hotelier pays ‘his’ bill, as does the butcher ‘his’ and the farmer ‘his’.

The other people could have been female but in this story they were not, you should have known that or at least found out. I wasn’t really relevant but it seems to have thrown up something of relevance

*

In summery – it might be better in future to think through what you are saying before you say it and then you’d be in a better position to answer questions on it rather than resorting to stonewalling.

*

 

People may wonder why I find some things important.

The world has real problems and many people are going to feel real pain. I believe the reason for much of that was a certain mentality and viewpoint that flourished especially in the US and UK over the past few years.

So dominate were these views that some accepted them as ‘truths’ without question.

But I think people need to question.

The US budget is important but so is the health of the world economy we need to have in place stable economic systems that work in the interests of the majority of the people not unstable economic systems that work only in the favour of a few.

 

Obviously we're both wasting our time, but try to accept the story as a presentation of what are claimed to be facts, without assuming that I am making such a claim. We so often accept things as facts simply because we want to, or accept someone as an authority, and fail to examine them carefully ourselves.
There's the main story, and take into account the last two sentences, each examined on their own.
If a similar story was provided you by a politician of your desired party, would you be questioning it as readily as you are me? If not, why not? The story I presented is of little value to the quality of your life, my life or that of anyone else, but those who run our government can and often do have significant effect on our lives.
Finally, it is your responses to the story that make the point I intended.

Thank you.

 

The only reason a person might wonder "why" you find some things important would be by knowing "what" exactly it is you feel is important.
Everyone feels something is important, but not everyone feels the same things are important, nor does everyone agree even when they find the same "things" important.

Don't bother asking me for an answer as I am perfectly happy with a free market driven economy, with as little government control or intervention as possible. Economic systems work best when the consumers apply the controls. Ups and downs are to be expected, and are short lived if allowed to correct themselves.

That's my opinion, and yes there will be losers and winners. The same is true of life, some live long lives and others live shorter lives.

 

Sorry Indie but that seems to be mostly gibberish.

Yes I am most probably wasting my time with you, since you’re plainly unwilling or unable to answer questions or explain your views, but I’m always willing to try.

Are you saying you got the story from a politician from a political party you support could you tell me which one?

Also I’m always willing to question things from every political spectrum my own or other. But come on that story was complete pap, it was phased like a parable but taught nothing and its punch line didn’t make sense.

Wow you minds all over the place – yes it was a useless and worthless story that added nought to human existence but how do you get from it to the supposed nefariousness of all those in government?

LOL – and the point was, oh yes you’re not saying…..oh pleaaaasee stop my sides are aching.

 

That is why debate is so important, in them ideas can be discussed to see if they stand up to questioning and scrutiny, of course some people accept things without question and so are unable to defend their ideas and or to answer any questions about them, they say things like ‘Don't bother asking me for an answer…’

In other words you’re saying - ‘don’t ask me to defend my views I can’t all I've got is these tied old slogans’ - as I pointed out about your views earlier you don’t seem to have thought them through and that’s why your consistently unable to answer questions about them or explain them.

 

So back to reality…what should be done to tackle deficits?

 

Tackling tax evasion would be high on my list.

 

The story was not to question my views, but to see how others might make use of it. I got the story from an old Air Force compatriot, and I don't support political parties at all. I found the story quite thought provoking, and have had discussions with several friends after sharing the story with them.
The story had more to do with society than with government, and that's where the discussion most often goes with friends.
What I find interesting is that the last two sentences seem to be looked over without much questioning, especially the very last, "However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future." Unless you assume that the towns population is made up of just those 5 persons.

finis

 

1. Ask a concise question first, not, what are your views? without specifically stating what the response should be responding to. For example the OP question is "Can you balance the Federal budget?" My answer to that is "Yes". Would you like to pursue that one? If so, what would your response be to the same question?
And I've not asked you to not defend your views. To the contrary, please present your views.

 

Deficits occur when you spend more than you earn, or in the case of government, steal.
1. Cut spending.
2. Increase taxes.
3. Eliminate corruption.
4. Allow more freedom to businesses to create jobs.
5. Devalue the dollar.
6. Let inflation take place without allowing adjustments to higher salaried persons.
7. Exempt no one from paying income taxes. (Only then might you find the voters begin to demand government take some positive action.)

Not necessarily in any order, and I'm sure there could be many other things added.

 

Indie

This is disingenuous at best and down right lying at worst – I’ve asked specific as well as general questions and been met with the same response, which was stonewalling.