Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (566988)	5/18/2010 2:06:22 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583324

>> Tim, don't show that to Ted, Alghieri, and other liberals who think CA is a low-tax state thanks to Prop. 13 Ten, I don't think they believe it is a low-tax state; rather, they believe that government confiscation and redistribution of ALL or NEARLY all private funds is acceptable. Al and tejek are fine with the concept that you fork over all your money to the government then receive an allowance. But for different reasons -- Al would exempt himself from the provision, while tejek would be a recipient of the redistribution.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (566988)	5/21/2010 7:58:44 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1583324

More Evidence on Laissez-Fairism by Don Boudreaux on May 21, 2010 in History, Reality Is Not Optional, Regulation George Washington University’s Susan Dudley, and the Weidenbaum Center’s Melinda Warren, just released this important study: A Decade of Growth in the Regulators’ Budget: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. I highlight one fact here – a fact that is at odds with those persons who allege that the period roughly from 1980 to 2009 was one of laissez-fairism in America: the total amount of real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) dollars spent by Uncle Sam’s administrative agencies on regulating the economy rose by 36 percent between 1980 and 1990. This spending then rose by another 40 percent between 1990 and 2000. Between 2000 and 2009 it rose by 43 percent. So, by 2009, Uncle Sam’s real expenditures on regulating the economy were 174 percent higher than they were in 1980. (By the way, between 1970 and 1980, the increase in these real expenditures was 29 percent – a smaller percentage-rate increase than during any decade since. Between 1960 and 1970, in contrast, this spending more than doubled, increasing by 108 percent.) One can argue that Uncle Sam’s real expenditures on regulating the economy between the year Ronald Reagan was first elected to the White House (1980) and the year George W. Bush left the White House (2009) did not rise by enough. But one cannot legitimately argue that the past 30 years were marked by a general retreat of government from the economy and a blooming of laissez-fairism in actual policy. cafehayek.com