Guess the Federal budget in 1909 for over 90 million Americans?
- Thread starter Debaser82
- Start date
.................................................Quote from Debaser82:
$ 0.8 Billion.
$9 per capita.
Today?
$ 3,550 Billion.
300 million people
$11,675 per capita
Not saying this is good or bad but the numbers are spectacular nevertheless. What should one think of this?
(Source: Doug Noland of PrudentBear fame)
LET HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF.....
BACK TO $9.00
Why don't you tell us first what YOU ARE saying. That's the big mystery. I have no idea what you're trying to say with these numbers.Quote from Debaser82:So you are saying the difference is all inflation?
I'm saying that nominal comparisons over a 100 year period are an INSULT to anyone's intelligence. The author should have had the decency (or brains?) to do the legwork to make a valid economic/statistical comparison.
The $USD has been the victim of currency debasement to the tune of about 100:1.
Adjusted for that, the "per capita" today would be about $900. "The Other 10X" is due to THIS... and it's NOT SUSTAINABLE. To continue along this path will lead to the destruction of the USA as we've known it.
And in case you hadn't noticed, Obama has us on the FASTER TRACK TO DESTRUCTION... (We've been on that track for decades... but Obama is like pouring gasoline on a fire..)
Adjusted for that, the "per capita" today would be about $900. "The Other 10X" is due to THIS... and it's NOT SUSTAINABLE. To continue along this path will lead to the destruction of the USA as we've known it.
And in case you hadn't noticed, Obama has us on the FASTER TRACK TO DESTRUCTION... (We've been on that track for decades... but Obama is like pouring gasoline on a fire..)
The numbers are just anecdotal really but the point is clear.
Government has expanded considerably and undisputable over the last century both measured in nominal and real terms.
Denying that would be just as much an insult to anyone's intelligence so let's not get into that shall we?
The main questions arising from this observation are if it has attributed to the wellbeing of the people and whether it could or should be reversed by (western) governments across the globe who have adopted the same policies.
Discuss.
Myself, as a person of nuance, am open to arguments of both sides as I believe all society models have flaws, government sponsored or not, but I like to read peoples toughts on the subject hence the topic.
See all this has very little to do with "The USD is not retaining value", this is about expansion of government and its consequences and solutions. Putting those budget numbers into perspective using historically correct comparisons would have made this point much clearer.
In fact, this is what we're talking about:
IMO, reverting the government share of GDP from 30-50% in the G7 to 3-5% of GDP like 100 years ago is an unrealistic illusion. Unless you have a dictatorship that can handle riots in the streets.
The only positive example I can think of is New Zealand managed to reduce their government share of total GDP from 60% to 35% over a period of 10 years in the 1980s, it was hailed as the "New Zealand model" in Europe in the 90s, but we all know that didn't really gain too much traction over here. I believe New Zealand managed to form a kind of tripartite agreement between unions, the government and corporations on how to lower taxes, reduce state spending and increase worker productivity. Unfortunately, this is impossible in socialist Europe with large socialist countries like France and Germany leading the way.
People deserve to be taxed 50% of their income (+ indirect taxes) because they and their parents were the ones who voted for all this welfare-sate non-sense in the first place. Anybody with the financial means and necessary balls can simply move out of North America and the EU to tax free jurisdictions and dodge much of the tax hike consequences that will undoubtedly occur globally over the next 20 years.