[charles brough]

geko, on 10 October 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

Where are you getting 3% US inflation from? If we use seasonally adjusted M1 only it's ~10% annually (~1% monthly), for the last 2 years. Considering the US population growth rate is ~1% this is a factor of 10 higher than even that proposed by a monetarist theory.

This is one of the problems with limiting this type of discussion to a strict Keynesian principle like JM seems to suggest as even though the topic is about fiscal policy the main discussion should be monetary policy as after they inflate to offset depression they continue to inflate to force growth. So whether it's Keynesian or monetarist or a combination of the two, based on, usually, a boards idea, seems moot to me. It's all monetary policy, or, in my opinion, to word it more accurately, an ongoing inflationary policy, which therefore leads me once again to my question...

I understand the official rate has been about 3% for the last 60 years---even when you factor in what it has been in the last two years.

I know that when we have generally inflated to get out and get growth back but never reduce Federal expenses at least enough to pay for the stimulus. However, if we don't inflate to get out of it and instead try to reduce the debt now, we end up with a deflationary collapse in credit and a downward spiral as mfgs fire to reduce costs and more workers become unemployed. More being unemployed, there is even less manufacturing demand leading to still more layoffs.

Eventually, we will run into run-way hyper inflation, but we may well have more economic cycles ahead before that happens.

[lawcat]

geko, on 12 October 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

Absolute power resides in the executive like always. They appoint the legislators, which governs the judiciary.

No. That's not how it is.

[charles brough]

geko, on 12 October 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

The US constitution is a joke, no offense. It doesn't work. It never worked. This 'founding fathers' just always sounds like emotional sentiment to me espousing belief in there being some 'objective benefactors and protectors' that we can fall back on to 'tell us what's right'... or maybe that's just my UK cynicism.

Absolute power resides in the executive like always. They appoint the legislators, which governs the judiciary.

Our elected presidental system and two Congress system is certainly working badly now and I am not surprised to hear other people begin to show less religious-like adoration of our Constitutional system. It would appear that the Parlamenty system works better. We have idealizsed the American Consitution all over the world and made it into a sort of Bible to our special form of the Western secular ideological system. Because it now no longer works so well and also because we have bogged down flailing in two wars against Islam and running up huge debts, our whole secular ideological system is, step by step, losing its appeal throughout the world.

That's not so good. it means that the only thing holding all this religiously divided and hence mutually antagonistic world together is losing its ability to do that.

By the way, when you refer to the "executive" as "they appoint the legislators," I'm not sure what you mean. Is "the executive" the President of the US? He does not appoint legislators. If you are instead referring to business executives, then I agree 100%! Big Business here does "appoint the legislators."

[geko]

lawcat, on 12 October 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

No. That's not how it is.

Just because the US constitution puts checks on the branch's doesn't mean the checks are respected. The old saying that "absolute power cannot be found in a republic" no longer holds. The executive in a republic has the same power as they do in a democracy.

[lawcat]

geko, on 13 October 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

Just because the US constitution puts checks on the branch's doesn't mean the checks are respected. The old saying that "absolute power cannot be found in a republic" no longer holds. The executive in a republic has the same power as they do in a democracy.

No. That's not how it is.

[geko]

lawcat, on 13 October 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

No. That's not how it is.

That's not an argument mate is it. You're either arguing from the idea that the constitution is enforced or that legislators are elected rather than appointed in the US. Both points are moot due to the constitution being ignored when it suits the executive, just like it is in the UK, and that elections no longer have absolute integrity. The US executive is also responsible for enforcing and implementing the laws written by congress. It appoints the cabinet and agency heads. It also appoints the federal judges, including that of the supreme court.

So yes, that is how it is.

[lawcat]

No. Federal government in US is limited to powers given, written. Moreover, each branch of the federal government is limited to powers given, written.
Unlike to the federal government, the powers are not given to the 50 states, states have inherently all powers except those taken away by the state constitution or federal constitution.

The US strictly follows this model, since the inception.

Therefore, the president or the office of president does not have absolute powers. Nor has a US president ever performed constitutional judicial or legislative function or governed a State while president.

[geko]

lawcat, on 14 October 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

No. Federal government in US is limited to powers given, written. Moreover, each branch of the federal government is limited to powers given, written.

You deserve merit for your innocence.