RoR: Forum

Good points, Steve.

I especially like your idea of getting rid of some regulation in the process. Critics may call me a regulation-averse alarmist, but you have to take in the entire perspective. We now have federal regulations at a rate that is 37 times the rate in the mid-1930s. Because that's when FDR's New Deal was underway, another way to put it is that it is now like we are suffering under the weight of 37 "New Deals".

Think about that: 37 New Deals worth of regulations.

Whoa.

Holy bureaucratic red tape, Batman!

:-)

Sheesh, how much more of this can a market economy take?!

Ed

p.s., Dean, did you just make a joke? Also, I forgot to mention that the price on the Big Mac is up again this year -- to $4.56 from $4.20 last year. I haven't calculated the inflation rate for that kind of a price change, but it means that, in order to have the purchasing power of the average American in 1967, the median household income would have to be more than $60,000 this year. Fat chance of that happening.

p.s.s., I want to stress that using the price of a Big Mac in order to calculate the entire economic progress (or regress) in an entire country is pretty darned controversial, if not bordering on haphazard. Many professional economists would take issue with such a thing. I mention it not because it is the end of the story, the last word on all evaluation of American progress, but because it is an indicator of something that many already feel and that many are already witnessing in a variety of ways -- be it job loss, or loss of health care, or long-term unemployment, or rising prices on groceries, or what-have-you.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/07, 11:34pm)

Post 21

Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 1:28am

37 New Deals worth of regulations

Wow!!! Obama talked about transforming the country.... that'd do it. It will crush the last tiny bit of spontaneity, entrepreneurship, and individuality out of people.

Now I understand why the stimulus programs, followed by QE 1, 2, 3 and now 85 billion a month, plus spending the 40 or so cents per dollar of borrowed money didn't goose inflation through the ceiling. It is taking huge amounts of fiat currency being pumped into the economies to keep it from collapsing under the weight of the regulations and taxing.

Post 22

Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 10:14am

Ed,

I'm guessing back in 1967 McD's used grass fed beef, sauces made from butter or animal fat instead of vegetables, and lettuce etc grown in more nutritious soil. The meat was probably more fresh and not as over cooked. I'm not sure how far back in history you have to go for McD's burgers to be more home-made/natural.

Today if you want to get a burger like this in my area, you have to pay something like $6.39 to $6.95. And this is vegetable variety finished beef, not grass fed. Maybe up to $12.00 in the rare case you find grass fed, but then this is really specialty so its hard to compare.

Cheers,
Dean

Post 23

Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 12:06pm

Right, Steve.

He is outgunning Carter at this point. Under the Carter Administration of US constitutional government, we had stag-flation (inflation coupled with economic underperformance). Today, we don't even have stag-flation -- because what we have is even worse than stag-flation. At least under Carter there was some economic activity that gave rise to price inflation.

I know, I know, I know. It is a sad state of affairs when I look on price inflation -- which eventually destroys all of our savings -- as an economic improvement over what we now have!

Ugh.

At any rate, what's important to recognize or acknowledge is that we have less capitalism today (than in 1967). Economic systems form a spectrum from centralized, command/control autocracy (CCCA) to free market capitalism (FMC). The essential variable is the amount of economic intervention:

Centralized, Command/Control Autocracy (~100% economic intervention) --------------------------------------- Free Market Capitalism (~0% economic intervention)
--Loads upon loads of regulations ..................................................................................................................................... --Hardly any regulations at all (less than 2 per week)
--"Single Buyer" monopolized spending ............................................................................................................................. --Government spending < 10% of private sector GDP

The reason it's important to remember this is because critics are still clinging to the now-desperate rationale that freedom and capitalism are the source of our recent economic hardship and income inequality. We have more economic hardship and more income inequality now than we did in 1967, but that is not because of capitalism. If anything, capitalism has been decreasing over this time frame in order to make room for an increase in socialism (aka centralized, command/control autocracy). This is because they are opposites: You cannot have an increase in one of them without a corresponding decrease in the other.

If government spending is a greater fraction of the GDP today than it was in 1967 and if, at the same time, the rate of regulations is greater today -- then there can be no doubt that we have less capitalism today, because the alternative (more government spending and more regulation and the same or more capitalism) is impossible.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/08, 12:16pm)

Post 24

Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 12:22pm