Keep your government hands off my money
Jenson Hagen
It reminds me of the guy that told a South Carolinian Republican Congressman "keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Sorry, but Medicare is a government program. So too is the U.S. dollar. The government agency known as the U.S. Treasury prints all U.S. dollars. It's the Federal Reserve's process of monetization and the banking system's fractional reserve lending process that gets money into people's hands.
We generally don't barter for goods and services anymore. We the People decided that our government would facilitate the trade of goods and services by means of an accepted currency, the U.S. dollar. It wasn't always the case. Right here in Oregon, beaver pelts and then wheat and then gold were used as a currency.
My point is that government currency is circulated for all people to use. When a small percentage of a society accumulates wealth and holds onto currency over the long term, the economy will not function at its optimal level. The ability to transact goods and services becomes compromised because without a common currency, people have to resort to bartering.
I find it funny that people see money as "theirs." It's my money. Mine! All mine! Actually, the dialogue should be that currency is a government-run program meant to allow all of us to buy products and services more easily. Money belongs to everyone one of us. And there should be consequences to holding onto money and never departing with it because it's not really yours--it's the governments--it's all of ours. We already make it a crime to destroy money for this very reason.
When the U.S. dollar does not circulate, it's value is nothing. It's a piece of paper. The value comes from its common acceptance among people as a means of exchange. The government makes it available to all, and I find allowing a few people to accumulate currency in total conflict with the social construct that originally gave rise to this wealth.
So should we take money from those that accumulated it? No, but there should be consequences for not departing with it after you have accepted it via an economic exchange. The consequence is called taxation and it should apply to large quantities of accumulated wealth. Florida used to have such a tax. Oregon could easily have one as well.
7:52 p.m.
Sep 17, '10
Money is a generally accepted medium of exchange. It has value because everyone agrees it has value. If I have $100, and you have a chair that we both believe is worth $100, then we both have something of equal value.
By your argument, since I have dollars, somehow you and/or the government have some claim to it. According to your reasoning, the government would also have claim to your chair.
And whether I am handing the $100 to the cashier at Home Depot, or I leave it in my wallet for a while, it is still $100. The value may change over time relative to other goods and services, but it is not worthless simply because I am holding on to it.
And who actually stashes money under their bed? Money is almost always put back into the system in some form or fashion. It is placed in a bank, and the bank uses it to finance a home for someone else, etc.
There are several authors on the subject I could recommend; Milton Friedman is one of them.
11:55 a.m.
Sep 18, '10
...and William Greider's Secrets of the Temple is another one, from the left side of things.
10:37 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Though the writer is decidedly left, and some of the conclusions are decidedly left, the book as a whole - especially the second section - is an excellent exposition of the FED and its impact over the decades since the inflation/stagflation of the seventies. I think it's an excellent book, whether or not one agree's with Greider's conclusions.
On point though, Greider's exposition and conclusions do not support the presuppositions on display in this post.
Cheers :)
3:53 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Yeah, the government has claim to that $100. It's the government's money. The government put it out for all of us to use, but "your" $100 originally came from the government.
Money never has value. Goods and services have value. Money is simply a mechanism of exchange, but it has no value in and of itself. Products and services, i.e. GDP, i.e. the economy, does not move along when money sits in your wallet.
Who said anything about stashing money under a bed? That's a pretty irrelevant thought to make off my statements. Money is idle! Your precious banks are not lending money because borrowers are broke and companies have plenty of money on hand, money that originated from the U.S. government, i.e. you, me and every citizen of this country.
It's all about pushing money along and preventing it from stagnating in someone's wallet, bank account or money market account. The solution to our economic woes is finding out where money is slowly trading hands and speeding up activity. And the government has every right to force money along since it's the government god damn money.
7:32 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Wow. Simply unbelievable. I don't know what to say. Is your opinion shared by many people?
5:02 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
you can't possibly believe what you just said .... what happens when the government increases the amount of money in circulation by 25% in two years? The government has absolutely zero right to force the money along as you put it Jenson...who do you think the government is? It's us! who runs your appliances for you? Your ignorance on this topic is beyond belief
8:20 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
Something has value only if someone wants it. Your chair has value if someone wants it. Your $100 has value if someone wants it.
While I can see where the original poster is coming from on the idea that government prints the money therefore it is the governments money, I think it stretches the point a little to ultimately come to that conclusion.
Value is dictated by the mutual desires of all parties in an economic transaction. Government is just one more party. It is neither inherently evil or inherently good. It just is.
5:51 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
The government has no claim to that $100, jackass. Are you that dense? ...and ""your" precious banks" What kind of stupid petty comment is that? And what bank does your precious self use?
The solution to our woes is NOT finding out where money is trading hands, that's a parasitic comment and it has no place as a solution to anything. It's never worked.
You sound like a progressive big-government central planning fool.
.
8:21 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Didn't you run for office, John?
Don't you have the capability of arguing issues and at least being a bit civil?
10:17 a.m.
Sep 23, '10
Civility? Like the civility of mocking and degrading the entire Tea Party Movement and the vast majority of Americans as bigots, racist, and ignorant in lieu of debate on the actual issue of failed progressive big government?
Civility is a virtue, but it does not trump truth, when it's used as a cudgel to deflect or to silence dissent or opinion.
And I and nearly every one who has read his tripe, agree it's drivel.
My apologies for your sensitive ears. Personally, Carla, I don't like your tone. Jenson is foolish and wrong. Do you have a defense of his position or are you just the civil police?
9:24 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
Anyone still citig Friedman as an authority on economics at this point, needs to hone their critical thinking skills.
At least Alan Greenspan understands this.
5:38 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Pat, that comment shows you're an idiot. Who are you quoting, now-a-days? Paul Krugman? You want to have a conversation about Keynesian economics?
You sound like a fool who wouldn't know one economic theory from the next without someone you thought smarter than you telling you your opinion.
7:02 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
"And there should be consequences to holding onto money and never departing with it because it's not really yours--it's the governments--it's all of ours."
So when I work 50-60 hours a week to bring home a paycheck, I should look at it and say, "This belongs to everyone, not just me?"
8:05 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Exactly! Your paycheck represents money put out by the U.S. Treasury. And what do you do with that paycheck? You pay rent, buy food, subscribe to pornographic websites. I am sure you spend that money however your heart desires. You make it available to the rest of us every time you use it to transact goods and services. It does belong to everyone and everyone gets a turn using it so long as you depart with it. When you don't depart with it, I don't get a paycheck.
And you wouldn't have to work 50-60 hours a week if you supported workers in this country and fought for better wages.
8:15 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
But if instead Jason bartered and exchanged his services for some other goods (chairs, for example) the chairs belong to him and him alone? Or do they also belong to everyone?
5:58 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Parasites, moochers, liars, and thieves try to convince others and even themselves that everybody else's earnings belongs to them.
Which one are you?
Money is a store of value. The work or product traded for it, hence the money, belongs to the one who traded for it.
7:26 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Please circulate this post as widely as possible between now and the November election. It is exactly the attitude that we Republicans want to associate with Democrats, but if we just say it we'll be accused of making stuff up.
6:40 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
Well, I guess fair is fair, since we did have a whole lot of fun with Sue Lowden's chicken bartering proposal. Of course, unlike Jenson, she was an actual candidate for her party's nomination - and received 26% of the vote. Judging by the comments so far, I suspect Jenson's approval rating is well below that threshold for this post.
7:33 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Let's say, for example, that someone is sitting on $1,000. What do you suggest that the government force that person to do with it?
8:00 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Someone would not be sitting on $1,000 if it weren't for the U.S. Treasury's role in printing money. Do you have the brain power to understand that concept or am I just wasting my time?
A person can do whatever they want with it. That's far from the point. The point is that money is established by citizens of a country to assist citizens of a country trade goods and services. If you're not going to use money to engage in the trade of goods and services, then why do you need to hold onto it?
To be a greedy, selfish Republican? To stifle trade and prevent everyone from benefiting from what currency represents to an economy?
Thanks for bringing down the entire financial house by the way!
6:17 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Brain power? You're going to talk to the other guy about brain power?
Jenson, are you just wasting your time? you're wasting all of our time. LoL
"A person can do whatever they want with it. That's far from the point"
No, Dum dum, that is exactly the point. They can do whatever they want with it. That is freedom. It's what your country is based on.
Money is a store of value, that's why you hold on to it.
Greedy and selfish?
Looking out for one's self interest is wrong?
Do you want us to put other people first over ourselves and our needs and family? Maybe you and your stupid ideas?
Individual rights are what this country was founded on, as laid out in the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of the individual to pursue his or her dreams and aspirations, and take the actions in life to achieve them is a foundational principle, and as long as they do not infringe on anyone else's same rights, they are free to take action to sustain their life, and pursue those dreams, and keep anything additional they produce as a store of value in money or what have you, to use for whatever they want at a future date.
Life & what you do with your liberty, are your property. America is founded on the sanctity of property rights. Money is a store of the value of those rights.
Don't you understand the foundational principles of the country you live in?
8:06 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
No need for the insults. Could you answer my question? If I am sitting on $1,000, what would you have the government force me to do with it?
8:19 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
The government is not some abstract concept. We are the government.
I would not force you to do anything with your money. That has nothing to do with anything I have said. I am speaking to the need to circulate money. You can spend it anyway you want. The whole point is that it needs to circulate. When you stop circulating it or it circulates at a slow rate, then it impedes all of our ability to exchange goods and services.
You don't benefit. I don't benefit. No one benefits. Think beyond stereotypical bullet points and you will realize some really cool stuff about the world.
7:49 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
"We are the government" gets pretty abstract.
I've picked up on two points: money needs to circulate (yes) and Republicans like biting the hand or pretending to (yes).
10:59 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
Yeah, one person gets it!
ding ding ding we have a winner folks!
6:26 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
The circulation of money is directly proportional to the investment growth of a country's economy.
Growth comes from the private sector through innovation, investment, and productivity.
WEALTH CREATION
My educated guess is you don't understand that concept.
Government intervention stunts the process, and has adverse and unpredictable consequences.
you're are very ignorant of economics.
The circulation rate dropping doesn't cause the slow exchange of goods and service, it's the effect of decreased exchange.
You got it exactly backwards. Every economist would tell you that.
Do people really listen to you without laughing?
8:29 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Ed, answer this question for me.
Do you understand that the U.S. dollar comes from the U.S. Treasury, which is a government agency, so that if you took government out of the equation and never allowed the government to touch your money, then your money would never have existed in the first place?
8:39 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Yes. And do you understand that the chair you bought at Home Depot came from Ashley Furniture, and if you took Ashley Furniture out of the equation, that chair would not exist?
Point being: That does not give the US Treasury the right to confiscate my money. Yes, they can affect the value of my money by printing more, printing less, etc. But they do not have a right to the money in my pocket, any more than Ashley Furniture has a right to the chair in my kitchen.
8:27 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
I think Jensen is really stretching the point in his argument, but I think your argument is flawed as well. You say that the government does not have a right to the money in your pocket, yet you also say the government has the right to set policy that could dramatically change the value of that money in your pocket. In what way is this different? This does not mean the government can come in and physically take the cash out of your pocket (no more than Ashely Furniture can come in and take the chair out of your house). But the actions of the government and Ashely Furniture can change the value of those things, and that's really what economics is about.
Cash is just pieces of paper (or coins). It has not inherent value. It has value only based on how much others want it and how much you are willing to part with it. Government policy can effect both sides of that equation. And government, which we have endowed with the right to regulate commerce, has every right to enact such policies.
6:38 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
You dummy, The paper comes from the U.S. government, and is a promise backed up by force, and faith in it's stability and longevity.
The value comes not from printing a number on the front of it, it comes from the productivity of the entire nation.
That's why inflation, if you print more of them dilutes the value despite what the number on the front says, and becomes less and less of worth in trade, until you print so many whatever the number on the piece of paper they are effectively worth zero.
At that point a country can't just tell you what they are worth. As the value doesn't lie in the paper, of which you keep trying to tell everyone foolishly.
And money can easliy exist without government. What do you think a stock certificate is, or a corporate bond, or a promissory note?
Government does not give the money it's value, and the concept of value exists outside of government.
Did you take a basic econ class before you started spouting off in public? Seriously.
8:35 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
We can agree on the benefits of circulating money. I hope that is pretty obvious to everyone!
It is the other concepts you espouse beyond that basic fact (such as my paycheck is your paycheck is everyone's paycheck), and the conclusions you draw (such as forcing people who accumulate money to part with it in a fashion that you see fit), that are pretty disturbing.
9:04 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
Annoying!
I'm not saying any of that. I don't have a right to spend some poor schmuck's paycheck. But when he spends his paycheck, that improves my odds of getting a paycheck myself. Thus you see the need to ensure money circulates.
There's nothing disturbing about what I'm saying. You are over thinking it to a right wing extreme. I am merely shedding light on the fact that you can't hate government's role in controlling the supply of money because money originates from the government.
Right wingers seem to hate the government, but without the government they wouldn't have a pot to piss in because they would have just bartered it away for a chair to crap on.
7:58 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
Sorry Jason, but I have to agree with Jack - you need to read about the history of money. Money serves as a medium of exchange, as a store of value, and as a unit of account. None of thse functions is dependent on government; in fact, governments often destroy the value of money through hyperinflation.
10:56 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
Correct! I mention a brief history of Oregon's money. But we are using fiat currency currently and that is dependent upon government, especially U.S. Treasury notes, bills and bonds.
11:53 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
I'm glad you recognize that the "money" you're talking about is fiat currency.
The term fiat money means:
Fiat currency has a dismal history of serving as a store of value. To argue that government "owns" this money may be technically true, but one would hope that you see the risks in such "ownership" and would argue against it.
5:30 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Steve Buckstein!
Glad you showed up. How much of this nonsense can you stomach?
I am amazed at the silliness I've just read from more than a couple of these individuals.
6:50 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
"Welcome to Stepford ...Big Government Edition-A New Way of Thinking"
In all fairness I should point out that even the standard BO flag burning crowd thought this article was way beyond even normal progressive lunacy. It's not just the silliness, it's the bullheaded ignorance and anger parked right behind it. Jensen sometimes it's OK to say .."wow you guys, thank you, all of you for your comments and insights you gave me some new perspective on this topic and I can see now how silly my comments may have seemed" versus doubling down on an idea that has done nothimg but bring people together. Just a thought
11:54 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
It's value is dependent on monetary policy, but not possession of it. That is where your entire screed goes not just off the rails, but off a cliff.
6:58 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
You understand that government abdicated it's Constitutional role to print money with the creation of the Central bank, the Federal Reserve, of which they do not control, or are not legally suppose to, so government doesn't control the money supply, Right, slow poke?
And yeah, much of what your saying is disturbing because you attempt to pass it off as fact interlaced with pejorative comments, and it's garbage....complete and utter blather.
Our Government is instituted by the people and the States. It was created to protect out individual rights, liberty, and freedom. It is not suppose to Lord over us, that is why our Constitution was instituted to protect those rights from government itself.
you seem to have a very different view of what government's are for and about, than most Americans.
Government does not create or produce anything. The Government would not exist without the consent of the governed, or if it did, we would not be living in a representative democratic Republic.
You seem to think our government is something other than what it is.
Do you want it to be different?
What do you wish it to be?
6:45 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
I find that disturbing too.
It's called parasitic mooching through government by guilt, We see it for which it is and we do not acknowledge the guilt, and hence the impasse, we find ourselves, with progressive socialists who don't even know that's what they are.
10:21 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
I suggest you read your post and some of your own comments again.
11:03 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
I suggest you pull a U.S. bill out of your wallet and read whose property it is.
7:05 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
It says "in God we trust".
Is that who your saying it belongs to?
11:28 p.m.
Sep 18, '10
I don't happen to have one on me, but I don't believe it says whose property it is. It says it is a Federal Reserve Note, and legal tender for all debts public and private.
My daughter took my last $20. But hey, since your money is my money is everyone's money, how's about you give me one of yours? :)
12:30 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
I will gladly in exchange for some nice Oregon pinot. Now do you get the point of what I'm saying?
7:06 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Yeah, we get what your saying, it would go nice with your cheese.
5:06 a.m.
Sep 19, '10
good point ed ...if he gave you some of his it would make the odds of my getting a check next week go way up ... hurry everyone start spending money so i can get paid. (this guy is dumber than soap)
12:33 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
How did this commentary ever get posted? His grasp on reality is tenuous at best and his commentary that follows is incoherent, non sensical and angry.
12:52 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
The grasp you have on your mom is not tenuous. It's actually kind of creepy.
7:27 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
Grow up Jensen. Really?
10:54 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
Lighten up Steeven.
9:58 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
Gee, if the misspelling of my name is to point out my own misspelling of yours, why, I apologize despite the boorish manners.
7:14 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
You tell people to lighten up after making a whole slew of stupid uneducated comments.
Everyone is telling you, you've made a fool out of yourself, and all you can do is keep digging.
It's fun to watch you implode.
7:09 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Douchie comment in lieu of facts or an argument.
Is that the best you got?
I bet you can get dickier.
10:25 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
People always tend to be angry when they defy logic and reason and people question it. The article shows a clear misunderstanding of the nature of money or currency, how it is created, who creates it and why. Currency is printed by the Fed a private company created by Congress to finance the nation's debt from nothing so they could spend recklessly. This is why they are addicted to it. Without the Fed they would be controlled in their spending. By holding on to currency you are in fact loosing it, because the Fed is printing currency so fast it is loosing value faster than your investment may be appreciating especially if that investment is just a piggy bank. Some people remember that nickel gallon of gas? That $3 gallon of gas is your dollar going down the drain. BTW if we define money as a store of value, our currency is not money.
12:56 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
Jenson, I would suggest you study the history of money. You might also want to look at what has happened in countries where government presumed to exercise total control over money with hyperinflationary policies, confiscatory taxation or other draconian attempts to control wealth and spending. People actually become very creative in finding ways to circumvent a government's attempt to assert both an irresponsible and monopolistic control over what we call money.
10:52 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
"in countries where government..."
You mean the US? The Republicans allowed hyperinflation of housing prices. All taxes are confiscatory (100%). And don't the Republicans allow credit card companies to use draconian tactics to control wealth and spending?
7:20 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Jack, you professionally gave very good advice for our friend Jenson, but he's a fruit-loop, who turns to some strange anti-Republican rant when he doesn't know what's going on. I believe he read what they told him. I believe he's called a useful idiot. If there is such a thing.
Hey Jenson, listen to Jack's advice, and then come back and play with the adults after you've learn something, anything, and we'll tell you if it's right.
7:43 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
"I find it funny that people see money as "theirs." It's my money. Mine! All mine! "
Jenson, this is a little tone-deaf. We want to be sensitive about how we talk about citizens' livelihoods. You are 100% correct from an economic point of view.
7:44 p.m.
Sep 19, '10
I point this out because it's election season. And this is a political blog.
10:54 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
Yeah, but it would be nice if Progressives fought for what they believed in instead of cowering every time the Republicans raised a stink about what someone said.
4:58 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
Sorry, posting ridiculous screeds which do NOT represent what progressives think (aka this bit of drivel that everyone's money belongs to the Federal government) is no way to stand up for progressive values or anything else.
All you have managed to do is make yourself (and by extension other progressives) look like idiots by posting something which no progressive actually supports or believes.
You don't speak for me or 99.9% of other purgatives with this batsh*t crazy premise. If I was conspiracy minded, I would suggest that you were in the employ of Lars Larson or some other fright-winger being paid to plant false-flag stupidity on BlueOregon. But I am not and will give you the benefit of the doubt and leave it just a spectacularly stupid, baseless and misguided attempt to try and make a valid point about macroeconomic need of recirculation of currency in order to push up demand (aka a demand-side economic view).
7:28 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
No he's definitely one of your, Mitchell, but nice try.
7:26 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
What is it progressives believe in?
You seem to believe spouting stupid incoherent concepts about economic and money, is better than cowering?
Tell us what progressives believe in.
11:28 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
This post is an Escher staircase of economic analysis.
11:49 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
This article so spectacularly dumb that I am actually embarrassed for you Jenson.
On a macroeconomic level, recalculation of money back into the economy is vital. Over accumulation of wealth can and does harm economic activity. But, where you go with it is down a rabbit hole of absurdity as to make it laughable if not so embarrassing. The basic premise that somehow money is inherently the government's property is nonsense.
11:52 a.m.
Sep 20, '10
recirculation, not recalculation. (damn iPhone predictive typing)
8:56 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
I have $5 in my wallet right now.
Whose property is it then? Is it mine? What happens if I give it to you in exchange for say bike parts? Is it still mine or does it become yours? What happens when I pay taxes with it? Is it still mine or is it the government's? Who owns it once the government departs with it?
I could care less about your opinion of me my friend. I just wish you had the intelligence to understand what I'm saying.
Money is there for all of us to use. It belongs to all of us. That's exactly what I said in the article.
10:22 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
Yours. Next stupid question?
It becomes my property. Next stupid question?
Already answered, it becomes mine. Next stupid question?
It becomes the property of the U.S treasury. Next stupid question?
Depends on who that $5 goes to. It becomes their property.
And that little exercise proved what exactly?
Oh please enlighten us unintelligent fools.
And yet your assertion is still totally devoid of anything resembling reality. You seem to confuse money (a medium of exchange) with it being public property. Try taking $20 out of my wallet, and we will soon see how you will end up in jail (or worse) for theft.
10:22 a.m.
Sep 21, '10
I agree. They are stupid questions that I should not have to pose.
What would be the progressive, socially-minded and economically responsible thing to do with your $20?
Retain it or engage in commerce, thus departing with your $20 allowing it to become someone else's so that person can then engage in commerce?
I don't understand how you can interpret this as being public property. I am very clear about stating that the sole purpose of money is use as a medium of exchange--not to retain, accumulate or destroy.
11:55 a.m.
Sep 21, '10
When some fool say...
8:09 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
I can't believe you tried to pin this guy on Lars Larson. I see why you'd want to, but come on, he needs your help.
Where's your progressive compassion?
You gotta have some kind of wasteful government funded self-help program you can bill our children for to help this guy, don't ya?
You know Mitchell, when you try to erroneously pretend all conservatives are some kind of racist, ignorant, redneck, bible thumping, bigoted, islamophobic, rubes, it's the same as and as disingenuous as us thinking this guy represents the progressive left.
Notice how he asks for confirmation: "What would be the progressive, socially-minded and economically responsible thing to do with your $20?"
He needs reassurance from you as to what to do. He's a dependent, can't think for himself, progressive patsy. He needs you to reassure him progressivism is right, because he's never really thought for himself and now he's encountered resistance from all sides to his stupidity laid bare.
Smart people go to the source and think for themselves. Progressive lackey lever pullers like him need to know what other people they believe to be smart think, so they can agree and group hug.
8:11 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
You agree your questions are stupid?
Wow, way to convince the jury of the validity of your argument. LOL
7:43 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Mitchell,
He one of your own, be gentle with him. He's fragile. LoL
Your side needs his vote. I belief he constitutes your base supporter!
7:39 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Mitchell,
I can't believe your arguing with him. It's cracking me up. LoL
He is embarrassing the progressive side, but in doing so, he does the personal insult part and snotty comments in lieu of an valid defensible position almost like he's a protege of yours. ;)
In spite of it all, I'm going to argue with you on your comment:
"Over accumulation of wealth can and does harm economic activity"
You make the assumption that wealth is static. It is not. Wealth is created. The accumulation of wealth does not harm economic activity it causes it and produces growth, and your statement begs the questions, harm to what activity, and who's the judge?
But don't let me distract you from going after dumdum for embarrassing and laying bare that many "progressives" don't know what the hell they're talking about.
2:27 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
Well, I don't know about the macro level, but I will say this: if you try and take the "government's" money from my wallet, you'd better be pointing a gun at me at the time or I'm going to smack the crap out of you. Yes, the Treasury made the money, but it's in my possession until such time as I choose to part with it. And what I do with it is my business.
2:28 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
Even Mel makes sense to me jenson ...thank you
7:49 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Yes, they made the paper but they didn't make the value of it. And Mel, it IS your property, and what you do with it IS your business.
In fact, the principle of property rights is behind the concept of not taxing people federally on the fruits of their labor, but by choice via a sales or consumption tax.
But that went all to hell, awhile ago, and so did some of our freedom.
2:27 p.m.
Sep 20, '10
I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with Mitchell. His statement that:
"This article so spectacularly dumb that I am actually embarrassed for you Jenson
is 100% on the money! Not only that but I have seen links to this article posted on just about every forum on Oregonlive and numerous facebook pages because of it's stupendous stupidity. Jenson your article has served to bring right and left together (to laugh at you) like nothing else I have seen in over a year. Thank you
8:13 p.m.
Sep 22, '10
Chester,
you've said it all!
Laugh out LOUD!!!!!!!!!
6:16 a.m.
Sep 24, '10
I'm trying to wrap my head around jensonomics- can you provide any background for where this comes from?