Cheap zolpidem. Cheap zolpidem persriptions. Buy zolpidem. Zolpidem overdose. Zolpidem zolpidem tartrate. Zolpidem….

Levitra free sample. Buy levitra cheap levitra online get back to life. Cialis viagra levitra. Levitra….

RE "You are no Cesar Chavez."

I'm not sure this is exactly going to be taken as an insult… more of a compliment

Not true. I try and stay principled to ideas, not groups. The idea I like to champion is the idea of free/liberty. You do understand the difference, right?

Oh, so that's why you come to the Cafe, because the discourse is irrelevent, not reasonable or fruitful?

>>You failed to dissect my arguement in any meaningful or substantial way, LOwJOe.<<

Let me break it down for you: I was not attempting to dissect your argument. I was mocking your response and pointing out what i dfeel to be your weak intellect. I did this through rhetorical questioning and a tad bit of satire covering what I found to be unmeaningful and substance-lacking replies on your part. Try dissecting that for a bit. And also stop using the word 'troll' to desscribe others when it's a behavior that clearly fits you to a tee.

Except when they 'freely' choose to limit their own liberties AND the liberties of those around them through the use of legislators and the 50%+1 democracy sham that leads us down The Road to Serfdom. Those are bad choices for me as one of the less than 50% portion of 'those around them'.

>>I hope he prefers California olives…<<

But when he doesn't will you go all apeshit, troll on his land, and confront him with your emotional hysteria?

>>I think I understand the subtlety, and blindness of your economic argument though.<<

And if there's not any real understanding, there's always a strawman that can be trotted out.

>>If the olive industry dries up in California, the farmers will have to grow a crop more to people's liking…<<

Wait, have to?

>>…or even pave over the fields to build more houses.<<

Going from ag to paving? That's a multi-faceted guy or gal there. S/he could always just sell the land to someone else who may do with it what they like.

>>Where there was once agricultural land there will now be more ugly tract homes to blight the landscape and make some crass developer rich.<<

And for a desiring future (set of) homeowner(s) to have more choices on: where to live, which government homeownership programs to take advantage of, etc.

>>there is no hope for the planet or for your failed theories about how the world works.<<

Speaking of failed theories, let's discuss some of the failed theories that you champion.

Like Mr. Olive, who is a teacher, not a high-roller on Wall St., does that regularly. Your obtuse and extreme hypthetical betrays that your sympathies lie with the hoity-toity, not with the humble day laborer. You are no Cesar Chavez.

Maybe what Mr. Olive likes is imported Spanish olives, or maybe he prefers California ones. I hope he prefers California olives, frankly, because I live in California and I would like him to support our state's olive industry. I think I understand the subtlety, and blindness of your economic argument though. If the olive industry dries up in California, the farmers will have to grow a crop more to people's liking or even pave over the fields to build more houses.

But the end result isn't necessarily neutral or beneficial. Where there was once agricultural land there will now be more ugly tract homes to blight the landscape and make some crass developer rich. How low people will sink, dig, or pave over to make a fast buck is what is truly disgusting about this. Yet you see the world through rose-colored glasses as if nothing that humans "freely" choose to do is bad. You are wrong, and people, collectively through government, must put a stop to the rich developers and Wall St. bankers until we are all made dirt poor by it, even it all the dirt is asphalted over. Chasing money above all else IS bad, and until you guys that want to sip champagne while other do your bidding get the message, there is no hope for the planet or for your failed theories about how the world works.

http://www.moslereconomics.com/
mandatory-readings/
the-innocent-fraud-of-the-trade-deficit-whos-
funding-whom/

{–Posted by: Corrupt Mayor}

___________

Very reasonable question.

Surely, Professor Boudreaux has some idea of his publication success rate for his frequent letters/comments.

Suspect the rate is very low despite their high quality.

"Editors" (like most people) dislike criticism of their published product.

And since the editors select which letters-to-the-editor get published — few negative letters pass that filter.

(…but additionally posting them here on the internet is vastly more effective than any success getting them published in the original targeted newspaper)

_______

They're not big by the standard of the capital stock of the USA, which is what the bondholders will expect the state to confiscate to pay them off. I suspect this will take the form of "fines" in order to get around the 5th Amendment.

… what is the ratio between the growth in the current account deficit and the growth in debt instruments issued by the federal government to finance its budget deficit?

Good question.

'08 GDP growth: $457.1B (3.2%)
'08 Current account deficit: $673.3B
'08 Federal budget deficit: $454.8B

The budget number is for fiscal '08 which ended in September, so it doesn't reflect many liabilities created by the bailouts last year.

We're now talking about a $1.8 trillion deficit for '09, $1.3 trillion for '10 and nothing less than half a trillion for the rest of the decade.

These numbers are only the tip of the iceberg. I worry as much, if not more, about the liabilities being heaped on taxpayers that we hardly discuss, like these pension bonds, and I also worry about nominally "private sector" rents. How many of us knew that mortgage backed securities were such an explosive time bomb only last year at this time? Never mind the incredible shrinking payroll tax surplus.

These numbers are huge by any standard.

Don't know. But what is the ratio between the growth in the current account deficit and the growth in debt instruments issued by the federal goivernment to finance its budget deficit?

This is the way that I understand this, at least. I'd like for someone to correct me if and where I am wrong.

Keep writing those letters. And posting them here.

Perhaps should be:

People know intuitively that if we (either individually or as a country) don't produce enough, then we can't keep buying stuff.

This would be correct except that Americans produce more assets to replenish what is sold off.

Do we? The current account deficit as a percentage of GDP is much greater than the GDP growth rate.