Date: Dec 24, 2012 12:24 PM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 23, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is only one reason why a government would turn its back on the
> people over which it governs - for whatever reason, a sufficient
> percentage of voters have not voted for and/or do not continue to vote
> for the right people or parties running for office.
>
>
> I am pretty sure it is about the finiteness of money Paul.
>
> Bob Hansen


This claim about "finiteness of money" is one of the many examples of excuse-making conservative code language for the "moral philosophy" of conservatism with respect to government, that government should turn its back on so many of those over whom it governs.

First, note that presently the US has only about 25% of its GDP is in the form of government revenues for all levels of government combined (federal, state, county, city), where only 15% of US GDP goes to the federal government, where for the Scandinavian countries (all of whom over all or almost all of the last few decades have had both larger nominal GDP growth rates and larger per-capita nominal GDPs than the US), it's roughly double that - in these countries roughly 50% of GDP is in the form of government revenues, where for these countries like the US, most of it goes to their federal governments.

And note the power of fiat money, the backbone of modern economics: During the Great Recession of 2008, the (fiat money based) US Federal Reserve, the central bank of the US, and the (fiat money based) central banks of Japan, the UK, and Switzerland electronically printed out of thin air roughly 50 TRILLION dollars - the US central bank alone electronically printing out of thin air roughly 25 of those 50 TRILLION dollars (compare all that the entire US nominal GDP, which is roughly 15 TRILLION dollars), and then electronically deposited all this new money in the electronic vaults of almost all of the world's big commercial and investment banks to keep them from failing. Because this emergency bailout of the word's big banks worked - kept them from failing - all these big banks in short order paid back these four central banks, where all this newly created money was erased from existence. (I said "almost all" since countries like China did this for their own banks with their own fiat money based national currency.)

Everyone who had read what I just wrote needs to pause for a time here, to let the enormity of what I just wrote sink in. Everyone who does not understand how fiat money based economics works needs to educate themselves about it. (One thing to learn: Not once in history has a country on its own national fiat money based currency gone into a quantitative economic depression. Not once. All quantitative economic depressions have happened only to countries that at that time did allow themselves the power of a fiat money based national currency - they were all on the gold standard or some such other standard, where they could not create money and use that newly created money to fill in economic holes that were being created in a normal recession.)

Therefore any idea along the line that the money is not there, that a first world country cannot afford to take care of its own, is a damnable lie, pure and simple. (That is, for example, it is a damnable lie that the US cannot afford anything but to continue to do what Republicans want, which is to continue to DENY food and medical care in the form of ANY government assistance like Food Stamps and Medicaid to homeless people and other poor including the working poor - note that this continuing denial covers the majority of the homeless population of 41 states of the US.)

In my post

"Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?"
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7943210

I outlined all the ways that only during those few times that there was a sufficient lack of conservative political power - a sufficiently low percentage of conservatives holding the reins of governmental power in law - did the US has made any major progress at all in terms of the US taking care of its own through its federal government, this taking of its own covering all sorts of things including not just things like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Food Stamps, but such as labor law and civil rights law and environmental law (and gun control law as well).