[ExI] the octuplets mother and what it bodes for the future

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 16/02/2009 8.37, BillK ha scritto:

> Mirco,
> Please try and bring your economic theories back in touch with the real world.



> Welfare payments are a small part of the problem.

Where did I write they are all of the problem?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/california-oil-and-nuclear-power-could.html

California deserve to be on its knees, as the people continue to elect 
irresponsible politicians and believe in irresponsible policies.
The have an huge debts and huge deficit and the refuse to allow drilling 
or building of nuclear plants or to cut spending.
This behaviour is immoral, because the spending will be a burden for the 
people living in the future (or in other states if the Feds bail out 
California) that have no way to oppose this spending.
It is always the "no taxation without representation"; old stuff but 
always good stuff.



> California and other states are going bankrupt because the collapse of
> the stock market has left their pension schemes grossly underfunded.

How do you call this if not "welfare state"?
The states and the Fed governments regulate and force the way people 
save for their pension plans. This is the consequence of the Taylorist 
model that the US government imposed to his citizens. This is a 
paternalistic model, not so different from a feudal system. Tie the 
workers to their big business employers like peasants to the land and 
their lords. This help the big business to receive governments help, but 
it is only a damage for the workers, that are, willy nilly, tied forever 
to the fortunes of their employer.

> The collapse in real estate has made property tax income disappear and
> unemployment has greatly reduced income tax revenue and the recession
> has reduced sales tax revenue.

And who did force, with the menace of law warfare the banks to give 
loans to the wrong people? What was the rationale to do this? Anyone 
must be able to buy a home? Is it this not welfare state? It is 
disguised welfare state. And the housing boom and bust is the 
consequence of this attempt to do a stupid thing.

> So states are only getting a fraction of the tax revenue that they got
> in the boom years.

They received, probably, more than they deserved before. Now the things 
are returning to the normality.

> Their only alternatives, (like the government) are either to borrow
> even more money than they borrowed during the artificial boom years or
> make unbelievable cuts in spending and pensions.

They could be unbelievable because a lack of will do do them, not 
because they are impossible. They are so possible that they can become 
inevitable if the policies continue unchanged.

> The phrase 'between a rock and a hard place' comes to mind.

Between delusion and lack of will would be more correct.

You tell me that my economic theories are away from the reality, then 
tell me that the current economic situation is unsustainable.

I could understand that you complain about the political feasibility, 
not the economic viability on the long run.

Mirco