[Green Energy Reports]

This should be no big surprise when our government is so damn polarized that nothing ever gets done. Congress and political parties spends its time blaming one another. In China they only have one political party and seem to avoid the problem of polarization quite well. The Chinese people work like dogs and save 38% of their income. Theirs is not a perfect world, but we should give them some credit for their achievements and blame ourselves for exporting all those jobs overseas in the 70s and 80s. All we have left now is the best technology and medical facilities. I honestly don't see how we can ever take back the momentum from China, unless they suffer an economic catastrophe as we did.

[Pops]

Capitalism and easy, new money blows bubbles, and China has a doozy going I'd think. Any time a new employer comes to the sticks and pays the subsistence farmers to come to town and work in the factory things look good, for a while.

As for inflation, we have it pretty bad now - it shows up in everything except the official number, I think Keynes said a global currency would eliminate exactly the kind of inflation we are seeing right now - but that could be wrong.

At any rate, I don't think there is not enough cheap energy left for it to make much difference. With cheap energy goes cheap everything, actually it will be the end of a great number of things altogether and so massive international trade will slow to a crawl.

In another 20-30 years I'm thinking there just won't be nearly the need for a global currency and Americans won't care either way.

[AgentR11]

Thought experiment...

Why shouldn't a 1 billion person economy become larger than a 300 million person economy. Where both are industrially based, with modern outlooks, and significant natural resources at their commands, I see no reason to expect anything less.

OTOH, I think the fear mongering about China hegemony is just that. China isn't an expansionist power; and the territorial disputes they do have, are legitimate disputes, over relatively small and/or obscure parcels, requiring no malevolent intent to support on either side of the issues. Much less obnoxious than some of the claims the US made and won during the 19th century.

China is not a threat to the United States. Its just not. Our own Federal system might be a threat to a continuing economic prosperity; our own inefficiencies in consumption might be threats; or perhaps our given sense of entitlement might be... but a thriving economy in China can only be an asset and stabilizing force.

[radon]

Predict when peak Science will occur and then come and argue with me. So far, nothing gives any indication that progress in Science & Technology is slowing down whatsoever.

I should say that I do not know when peak science will occur, and whether it will occur at all. We do not even know yet whether the volume of knowledge and information that our universe holds for us is finite or not. Any maths student will tell, though, that even infinite resources may peak, and that finite resources will always peak.

Nevertheless.

We can measure oil in barrels. Computer gurus invented bits and bytes to measure information. But how would we be able to quantify the pace of scientific development? A graph that you posted here attempts to introduce metrics for measuring it, by plotting the pace of achievements/discoveries against the timeline on a logarithmic scale.

A few thoughts in this regard, "criticisms":

1. There was only 8 years between the first space flight and first landing to the Moon. But to date, we have never seen a space flight to Mars or another planet, and even missions to the Moon have long been abandoned. Assuming an exponential pace of scientific development, one may argue that the space flight to Mars should have already happened by now, and absence thereof is an indication of slowing of the scientific development, and by extension - of peak science.

2. Why personal computer, that was introduced at the end of 1970s, is a greater scientific achievement than the landing to the Moon that happened much earlier?

3. Arguably, in order to objectively benchmark one scientific discovery against another in terms of their impact on the pace of progress, we need to know all possible scientific discoveries in advance. But this means that we have already discovered everything possible, a presumption which is false by default. Therefore in this graph of yours we just arbitrarily and subjectively plot the discoveries that we have already made against the timeline, and then call it exponential growth.

4. The graph to substantial extent reflects the evolution of species, and only at the very end we could see some signs of what we call "scientific progress".

5. Based on 1-4, one could argue that the metrics for the objective quantification of the scientific development should introduce a special unit for measurement of the advancement of any possible discovery/achievement relative to its peers, rather than plot the pace of factual evolutionary landmarks against the timeline.

6. The products of the scientific progress are arguably no different from those of the evolution: in principle: machines, airplanes and computers empower humans in the same way as wings, legs, eyes etc empowered species in various stages of their development.

7. The Dark Ages came after the fall of the Roman Empire. Was the discovery rate faster during the Dark Ages than it was during the Roman times and antiquity?

8. Exponential scientific progress, if true, should necessarily lead to the development of a fusion reactor or another source of abundant energy in the near future. This will make the die-off redundant. The human population will be able to continue to grow, and the humans will be able to reach other worlds to get access to their resources once the Earth is exhausted.

Based on the above, a skeptic could argue, your graph actually measures evolutionary trends which have been generally in line with the species/human population growth trends. And that therefore what you call "scientific development" is in fact necessarily proportional to the evolution and human population growth, rather than their counter-trend independent from them. Some argue that this means that nowadays the scientific progress is therefore a function of the fossil fuels availability.

But I am not the skeptic. I tend to agree that the scientific development is possible on its own terms, though not necessarily exponentially.

I have not had a chance to read all your posts or other related writings, where the criticisms above may already have been addressed.

However, in my view, the perceived conflict between the potential danger of the overpopulation and the unstoppable scientific progress is somewhat misleading as a concept (that conflict, according to the theory that you described, should be resolved by a birth of a new planetary life form).

The scientific progress does falter now, and very seriously, and the points above illustrate it. What is now perceived as a rapid advancement of the scientific development is in fact mostly restricted to the consumer-related fields: number of functions in your held hand device, broadband connection speed etc. And to some military applications. This is why some observers talk about the "law of diminishing returns of technological advance", quite justifiably.

By contrast, the areas crucial to the fates of the humanity remain underdeveloped. But this is not as much a scientific problem as it is a human resource/management one. The existing organizational arrangements appear to be structurally unable to advance these areas.

[Keith_McClary]

Also, it seems that superpowers can't get reliable stooges these days:
Washington on the Rocks -An Empire of Autocrats, Aristocrats, and Uniformed Thugs Begins to Totter
By Alfred W. McCoy and Brett Reilly

Across the Greater Middle East from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain and Yemen, democratic protests are threatening to sweep away subordinate elites crucial to the wielding of American power. Of course, all modern empires have relied on dependable surrogates to translate their global power into local control -- and for most of them, the moment when those elites began to stir, talk back, and set their own agendas was also the moment when it became clear that imperial collapse was in the cards.
...
When civilian presidents proved insubordinate, the Central Intelligence Agency went to work, promoting coups that would install reliable military successors --replacing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, who tried to nationalize his country's oil, with General Fazlollah Zahedi (and then the young Shah) in 1953; President Sukarno with General Suharto in Indonesia during the next decade; and of course President Salvador Allende with General Augusto Pinochet in Chile in 1973, to name just three such moments.
...
As U.S. power and influence declined, Washington’s attempts to control its subordinate elites began to fail, often spectacularly -- including its efforts to topple bête noire Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in a badly bungled 2002 coup, to detach ally Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia from Russia’s orbit in 2008, and to oust nemesis Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Iranian elections. Where a CIA coup or covert cash once sufficed to defeat an antagonist, the Bush administration needed a massive invasion to topple just one troublesome dictator, Saddam Hussein.
...
For more than 50 years, Washington has been served well by a system of global power based on subordinate elites. That system once facilitated the extension of American influence worldwide with a surprising efficiency and (relatively speaking) an economy of force. Now, however, those loyal allies increasingly look like an empire of failed or insubordinate states. Make no mistake: the degradation of, or ending of, half a century of such ties is likely to leave Washington on the rocks.

[AgentR11]

The scientific progress does falter now, and very seriously, and the points above illustrate it. What is now perceived as a rapid advancement of the scientific development is in fact mostly restricted to the consumer-related fields: number of functions in your held hand device, broadband connection speed etc. And to some military applications. This is why some observers talk about the "law of diminishing returns of technological advance", quite justifiably.

A lot of what you suggest as measurements though, is just a question of economic priorities. More people want faster/better/more internet/media than want human footprints on Mars. Personally, I think flying humans in space is a stupid practice; especially, if the humans are of the "go and come back" variety. "Go and stay" being a completely different discussion and worthy of its own consideration. Compared to "go and come back", you get much more science bang for the buck with unmanned missions.

So, is it a sign of progress to do something stupid?

Or as previous... just because science and technology allow you to build a space vehicle with wings, its "coolness" factor, doesn't make it the right answer. The environment calls for tough, simple, reliable system that look bulky and clumsy; not swept back wings and fighter pilot cockpits.

You note some areas of advancement, and act as if their broad appeal somehow diminishes their worthiness. As someone who's gone the whole trip of the evolution of wireless/cellular voice and data, all the way back to satchel phones and audio couplings to 300bps modems, let me suggest that the advancements there are far more meaningful, to far more people, than any manned space mission ever could be. I thought it was cool when I could finally get a VT100 session to work over the cellular service; 1xrtt seemed like an amazing advancement, and now I hold a Droid X and Ultracompact notebook both with staggering network speeds and computational power. Scientific advancements are rightly focused on areas that effect the most people; communications, medical, food, military; all of those have continued to advance at incredible rates; perhaps even faster than would be really best for us as humans.

Today we talk about dual core, quad core; and they are rightly impressive to us. Yet, I distinctly remember being impressed with what I could accomplish on a 4.7 mhz 8088; and the advancements to 286, and then 25mhz 386 lines; all seemed equally staggering. We are again at that entry point. Project the same... what kind of processes will people have when we are talking about an 8 kilocore processor? Now imagine the handhelds people will have when slightly less powerful processors can run on 1watt of power. These are not insignificant advancements; they are central to people's daily lives with technology and science; and they rightly hold a central focus for research and development efforts.

By contrast, the areas crucial to the fates of humanity remain underdeveloped. But this is not as much a scientific problem as it is a human resource/management one. The existing organizational arrangements appear to be structurally unable to advance these areas.

Quite the contrary, it is specifically those areas that are crucial to our fate as a species that are being developed to the fullest right now. You just disagree with what others deem crucial.

[radon]

A lot of what you suggest as measurements though, is just a question of economic priorities. More people want faster/better/more internet/media ...

Absolutely right. Economic priorities=consumer priorities. Many people on this board have been expressing a view that these priorities are driving us to abyss.

Personally, I think flying humans in space is a stupid practice; especially, if the humans are of the "go and come back" variety.

You may well be right here. On a personal level, I totally agree with you. I did not intend to advocate the idea of usefulness of the manned space exploration. In my view it would be much wiser nowadays to focus all the resources on issues more urgent than the research of the outer space.

The only reason that I picked up the space research as an example to criticise Carlhole's theory is because this example is very illustrative and widely known.

The quantification of the pace of the scientific advancement is central to Carlhole's theory, as otherwise it is not very meaningful to discuss it in maths terms such as "exponential growth". He posted a graph that illustrates an approach to this quantification. I used the timing of the human advancement in space as an example to criticise this approach.

So, is it a sign of progress to do something stupid?

This is actually a very nuanced question.

Scientific advancements are rightly focused on areas that effect the most people; communications, medical, food, military; all of those have continued to advance at incredible rates; perhaps even faster than would be really best for us as humans.

This is interesting. Contain science in order to give humans some breathing space. Can this work?

Today we talk about dual core, quad core; and they are rightly impressive to us. Yet, I distinctly remember being impressed with what I could accomplish on a 4.7 mhz 8088; and the advancements to 286, and then 25mhz 386 lines; all seemed equally staggering. We are again at that entry point. Project the same... what kind of processes will people have when we are talking about an 8 kilocore processor?

Multi-core processors were invented and implemented long long ago, some time in 1960s probably. Supercomputers have long used multi-core (or multi-processor) models of parallel computations. However, parallel computations work poorly for many real life tasks, because this tasks involve many conditionals that cannot be broken in parallel computational branches that can be processed simultaneously. Parallel computations are most effective in physics, meteorology and alike areas that involve simultaneous processing of very large arrays of uniform data.

By the way, what was the main obstacle to introduction of dual/quadro/multi-core processor models in personal computers for all these years? Interestingly, this was not a technological problem. This was Intel hardware and Microsoft software architecture legacy issues. In order words, this obstacle was human paper bureaucracy rather than objective natural boundaries. It was not until the micro-technology really caught up with the related (and substantially inflated) processor sizing and heating problems that these issues were overcome. By the way, this is yet another good example challenging the presumption of the exponential growth of science advancement, but also illustrating how consumer/corporate-driven approach to research may actually delay the progress by many years in certain cases.

Now imagine the handhelds people will have when slightly less powerful processors can run on 1watt of power. These are not insignificant advancements; they are central to people's daily lives with technology and science; and they rightly hold a central focus for research and development efforts.

This is because people want them in the short term. In the longer term people will want survival and sustainable development. Eat and don't lose sleep, in other words.

Quite the contrary, it is specifically those areas that are crucial to our fate as a species that are being developed to the fullest right now. You just disagree with what others deem crucial.

It seems that I have already partly responded to this thesis of yours, but I'll have a thought and feed in a bit more a bit later, perhaps.

We seem to be a bit off-topic here.

I have come across this article today. No one seems to have posted this link yet, so it might be interesting to the readers of this thread. My recollection from the Russian perestroika times is that the sort of this article's self-flagellation was very popular, widespread, but also useless and futile type of time-wasting during that crisis. Probably, this should be fairly enjoyable for some as quite a few people so readily engage in it.

[yeahbut]

Wots the bet you're a Ad hom deleted ?

Heh heh heh I just noticed you had "bloody jafa" deleted!! Good to see the mods sticking up for us poor oppressed dorklanders! (seriously Ferretlover that was purely a good-natured jab in the form of a widely used NZ colloquialism)
Guilty as charged btw, but working on making a little bit of land out of town useful and productive...

We're still behind the times down here seein as we don't have buses.

Small towns and settlements are pretty much buggered as oil prices rise. As it is, there's something of a flight from places like Seddon where house prices are plummeting. I can see a return back to the '80's when small town New Zealand was solo mum land.

I'm in two minds about what's happening. On the one hand, I reckon it will devastate small communities, on the other I see it as inevitable and a perhaps necessary step to weaning us off imports of trash which no one needs. I reckon all this poncy convenience has made us a bit lazy, arrogant and soft. You just don't see op shops these days and no one will buy secondhand...well most anyways. This may well trigger some sort of local spirit of community enterprise and support.

Hope you're right AD. Long-term, this is the only way I can see things going. Living cheap, with a hell of a lot less, and making our own stuff again.

[wallythacker]

The chinese gov will simply round up the old people and dump them at sea. problem solved. do you really think old people are going to stand in the way of china becoming the economic superpower?

the US, on the other hand, being broke and destitute and reduced to a 3rd world economy will slowly strip medicare and medicaid provisions away from their aged and watch them die terrible slow lingering deaths.

the chinese way is ultimately more humane.

[kublikhan]

The chinese gov will simply round up the old people and dump them at sea. problem solved. do you really think old people are going to stand in the way of china becoming the economic superpower?

the US, on the other hand, being broke and destitute and reduced to a 3rd world economy will slowly strip medicare and medicaid provisions away from their aged and watch them die terrible slow lingering deaths.

the chinese way is ultimately more humane.

Your proposal to dump senior citizens in the sea is insane. China is not going to do that, stop posting such nonsense. And without your 'solution', China's pension problems are going to dwarf the pension problems of the US.

[Sixstrings]

Here's a link to the actual IMF report on the US:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2011/062011a.htm

An interesting passage:

5. Our preferred adjustment strategy entails a reduction of the federal structural primary deficit at a uniform pace over the next five years, within a fully-specified and politically-backed consolidation plan. Fiscal adjustment should start in FY2012 to guard against the risk of a disruptive loss in fiscal credibility.

(snip) Consideration could also be given to a national VAT or sales tax and carbon taxes, consistent with past advice by Fund staff.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8051-imf-wants-us-debt-ceiling-raised-immediately

Huh. Who the hell is the IMF to tell us what to do? So they've got a five year plan for us now, suggest we not only raise our debt ceiling but also pass a NATIONAL SALES TAX, and CARBON TAXES. It's another topic, but that right there proves carbon taxes have nothing to do with the environment -- it's just another tax to raise revenue, just like a national sales tax. The IMF isn't an environmental organization so why are they telling us to pass carbon taxes.

An article with some more analysis and list of IMF strong suggestions / demands / five year plans:

The June 20th report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the United States strongly recommended that the debt ceiling be raised because “if the debt ceiling is not raised soon…[it] would have significant global repercussions, given the central role of U. S. Treasury bonds in world markets. ” In announcing the report, John Lipsky (picture, left), acting managing director for the IMF, said:

We’re confident that the participants are well aware of the potential risks of a debt default in the U. S. and will avoid those dangers. It should be self-evident [that] a debt default by the U. S. government debt market would have very serious, far-reaching, dramatic repercussions and that’s why we’re confident that it will be avoided.

The IMF reort was full of other suggestions to assist the U.S. in regaining its financial footing, including

1. Don’t cut spending too much — it might impede the economic recovery
2. Keep interest rates low for a long time
3. Keep an eye on inflation
4. Keep stimulating the housing market, it’ll eventually come back
5. Enforce “cramdowns” by banks holding mortgages in order to clear the market more quickly
6. Fully implement the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, with full funding to complete the bill’s potential to regulate further the financial markets
7. Allocate more money for federal job training.
8. Consolidate the government’s present 50 different job programs into a single program
9. Institute a national sales tax, or value-added-tax (VAT)

The IMF describes itself as “an organization of 187 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty. ” Remarkably, none of these statements is true.

Founded in 1944 along with the World Bank, the IMF essentially represents one half of a tag team to offer loans (through the bank) to corrupt governments who then spend the money recklessly or steal it, putting repayment of the loans into jeopardy. The IMF then comes to the rescue, offering incentives (called “considerations”) as a condition to receive bailouts, which usually involve austerity measures to attack and pauperize the middle class, increase the governments' control over its citizens, and sell off private assets (“privatization”) that are often then sold at discount prices to banks and other interests affiliated with the Anglo-American establishment.

(snip)

With friends like the IMF looking over the shoulder of the American government, no one needs enemies. The suggestions made by the IMF in its latest interference into American sovereignty promotes more, larger, more intrusive, and more expensive government.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8051-imf-wants-us-debt-ceiling-raised-immediately

You know what, I'm starting to realize that the Republican Party is important. All those Southern Bible thumping doomer wingnuts are very important. They're all that stand between us and a NATIONAL SALES TAX. And carbon taxes. The IMF needs to go have coffee in some Vienna cafe and bother Greece because there is NO WAY the Republican base will ever allow a national sales tax to pass.

Anyhow, I've never read IMF reports before so I don't know how long they've been giving us their "advice" but I have always wondered when the day would come that the IMF starts dictating to us like it does all the tinpot countries it pushes around. The IMF doesn't have technical power over us (hell it's at least halfway funded by us in the first place), but I still think this is a watershed moment in the collapse narrative. Here it is, the day has come, the IMF is saying we need to raise the debt ceiling "immediately" and they have other nifty suggestions like a VAT and carbon taxes too.

Sadly though, I suspect the IMF has more power over us than we think.. the IMF are bankers, and Congress will do what the bankers tell them to just like in Greece. The debt ceiling is one thing, that will pass, but I'm glad the Republican base is so obstinate and paranoid about taxes -- because that makes carbon taxes and a national sales tax impossible, no matter how many five year plans the IMF pushes on us.

[careinke]

You know what, I'm starting to realize that the Republican Party is important. All those Southern Bible thumping doomer wingnuts are very important. They're all that stand between us and a NATIONAL SALES TAX. And carbon taxes. The IMF needs to go have coffee in some Vienna cafe and bother Greece because there is NO WAY the Republican base will ever allow a national sales tax to pass.

Actually quite a few Republicans support a sales tax.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Of course at the same time you would repeal ALL other taxes, including the payroll tax.
Plus give a prebate to everyone, to cover the sales tax up to the poverty level, there by completely untaxing the poor for the first time in the last 60 years or so.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Careinke, sounds great to me. IF you could get everybody beyond the prebate level to actually PAY the 23%.

However, I suspect you're going to see a tremendous amount of cheating on high end goods and things being bought offshore, etc. to avoid this by the rich. So then we find out the REAL rate is something north of 40%. That, I suspect would be pretty nasty to the middle class.

[Pretorian]

Founded in 1944 along with the World Bank, the IMF...

[/quote]

By the way do you guys know that IMF, along with the World Bank, has never been run by a non-Jew?

[Sixstrings]

Actually quite a few Republicans support a sales tax.

That's the Republican ELITE Establishment. Of course they support a sales tax for all the little people to pay with the dwindling dollars in their pockets.

My assumption is though that the Republican BASE would be up and arms over a VAT. I'm talking about the Coors beer truck drivers who listen to Limbaugh. Am I wrong on this? I used to be a Republican, every Republican I know would be mad as hell about a national sales tax. It's anathema.

But maybe I'm off base, give me your honest opinion.. would the Tea Party be ok with a VAT?

[Sixstrings]

In what Treasury officials viewed as one of the most outrageous power grabs in recent memory, they demanded the right to raise a Europe-wide sales tax.

A Europe-wide VAT *on top of* your national VAT.

Brussels bosses also called for a new financial transaction tax,

I would love to see that here.. there's so much on Wall Street that needs to be taxed and would do real good, like a tax on high frequency algorithmic trading for starters. Nip that crap right in the bud.

Also they unveiled plans to let Brussels grab a chunk of green taxes which are already being levied on polluters.
In total, the commission demanded nearly £100billion extra[/i]

That one sounds like a nightmare. You guys already have "green taxes" to save the planet. Now because Greece is bankrupt, you Brits have to pay some more "green taxes." What are these green taxes really saving, the planet or world banking?

The global economy, international banks, the powers that be, the elite. Their grand scheme slowly comes to fruition. You and me are the loosers - we will lose everything to "The system", even our kids futures. Then we really will all eat s**t.

True.. you know it's nice this forum is so international, it adds perspective to know what's going on in other countries. You're probably quite aware of the US situation, so when your Right starts trying to BS everyone you can look to America and see where that road leads..

Conversely, looking at Europe and the UK I have to admit there are excesses to socialism. A little bit of socialism is good for everyone, but when it gets to green taxes on top of green taxes and multi-layered VATs that's too much.

[pup55]

For every strategy there is an equal and opposite strategy.

The strategy above is designed for the least amount of pain possible, while at the same time, stringing the problem out for more decades.

1. Don’t cut spending too much — it might impede the economic recovery

Correct, but what spending we do should be an investment in productivity i.e. fixing up our highway and rail systems and not pouring it down a rathole in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why in the hell do we have a 6 billion dollar per year naval base 1200 miles from the nearest ocean? Why are we defending Germany and Japan and Korea, and of course Israel, while their middle classes have government-financed health care, and a higher standard of living than we do?

2. Keep interest rates low for a long time

Nope. Interest rates need to be much higher. Right now, holders of capital are not being compensated for their risk, as we all found out during the real estate collapse. Yes, it will be painful in the short run, but in the long run, when holders of capital are rewarded for lending their money out, there is more money available and it gets spent on the projects that have the highest likelihood of success.


3. Keep an eye on inflation

And if it shows up, do what? drop money from a helicopter? If you do (2) above there will be a lot less inflation.


4. Keep stimulating the housing market, it’ll eventually come back

Not until it is purged of the felons who perpetrated the fraud in the first place, starting with the public humiliation of the bond rating agencies, who gave the CDO's a AAA rating despite the fact they were printed on Charmin.


5. Enforce “cramdowns” by banks holding mortgages in order to clear the market more quickly

I absolutely agree with this. The first order of business is start telling the truth about what the nation's real estate is worth, and if the banks go under, let them and prosecute the managers for fraud, which is what they deserve.

6. Fully implement the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, with full funding to complete the bill’s potential to regulate further the financial markets

Nope. Chris Dodd should be locked up along with his banking buddies. The Dodd-Frank legislation basically lets the felons in (4) above off the hook in exchange for their cooperation.


7. Allocate more money for federal job training.

Training programs tend to be focused on the jobs that are soon going to be obsolete. The real problem is that aside from defense, we're living in an economy that no longer makes anything useful, because we exported all of that.

8. Consolidate the government’s present 50 different job programs into a single program

Hilarious. Single program to provide a workforce to do what? The problem is not the workforce, it is at the job creation end. Oh, and by the way, is there anything in these to stop the illegal importing of low wage labor across our southern border? Nope. They evidently want to keep that game going. We have a generation of young gentlemen (the 20 somethings) sitting around getting fat and/or loaded, playing Xbox right now, perfectly capable of doing some of this activity and developing a work ethic, but it suits us to be giving those jobs to immigrants. Until we sort all of that out no amount of training is going to help. We also have a generation of teen moms who have figured out that it is a cute game to pop out a couple of kids and live off the system, so it is quite likely to go on for another generation.


9. Institute a national sales tax, or value-added-tax (VAT)

Sadly this is inevitable. It allows taxation without representation. The cowards in congress will not need to honestly tell the public that they're going to raise taxes. All they need to do is sneak a VAT increase in one of those midnight spending bills, and we're paying another penny, and won't notice it or even worse, build in a little inflation and they get their tax increases by stealth. If the government wants to raise taxes, and has a legitimate reason for doing so, they need to come forward and ask the public directly, and maybe if we think we need it, we'll go along with it. The VAT allows them to avoid that.

The sad thing about taxes in this country is that no one is being honest. We want to fight two-plus wars, and pay to support the bottom third of the population, plus everybody over 65, plus give out a lot of other benefits to various groups, but no one wants to come forward and ask us to pay for it out of our own pockets. Much easier to borrow it from the future generations. We are looking at the tax system as a way to modify behavior, rather than raise money for the useful government activities, if any.

[Pops]

Good post pup.

If the government wants to raise taxes, and has a legitimate reason for doing so, they need to come forward and ask the public directly, and maybe if we think we need it, we'll go along with it.

This is the thing isn't it? No one wants to confront the facts, representatives want to come back next term so they deliver the goodies and postpone the bills and the more we holler the more afraid of real decisions they get.

I'd support an amendment that limits spending during peacetime (yea I know, endless wars) and needs voter ratification of the limit every 4 years.

I prefer a progressive flat tax on all income. <period

A VAT in the US with no other changes will perpetuate or maybe accelerate the current trickle-up of wealth and I'm very worried about that as we go to the next phase. Remember that 80% of wage earners pay 13% social security tax on 100% of their income - those earning over 100k pay an ever smaller proportion. That's fine, those people will be the ones drawing on Soc Sec, but adding a regressive consumption tax to the already lopsided advantage capital has in the tax structure would only increase the stratification of our society and that is in my opinion anyway, is probably the most destabilizing factor we as a country face aside from PO & GW.

Anyway voters could decide directly how much they want to spend on government (maybe with a 2% limit on the change?) along with electing representatives to spend it.

[Fishman]

Ah, the wonders of the internet. Lets see, how much do we contribute to the IMF? Who has advocated giving more money to the IMF? If we don't give anything to the IMF will that appease Obama's private jet envy?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294127775444875.html

"You know what, I'm starting to realize that the Republican Party is important. All those Southern Bible thumping doomer wingnuts are very important"

Six, reality can be painful, its not always pleasant, but it's best you confront it, welcome.
The borrower is slave to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)