Inequality 101

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:  Did you even read my posts?  I said that I as an individual do not feel entitled to the money. I said that our economy needs that money to function.  I made no implications as to how we go about making that happen. I have no idea where your post is coming from, except to stand on your soap box and accuse me of things I never said.

Extreme
Hey, wasn't Obama's almost one billion dollar stimulus supposed to get the economy and jobs going creating this "liquidity" you are obsessed with?  Why are you blaming the stagnation on people like Bill Gates?

Bill Gates could never create enough jobs or spend enough to offset what our economy has invested in him.  In his defense, he is extremely charitable but it's still a small part of his fortune.  As I have said my thoughts are not a matter of jealousy or entitlement, but strictly about the numbers.  As far as the stimulus it was just a short term fix.  Did not get at the root of the problem.

Pray tell how exactly has our economy invested in him? My goodness you are an idiot aren't you?

Don't waste my time...

The solution to your problem is crystal clear.  Just get all the greedy and selfish guys like Bill Gates together and give them the old low down how they are responsible for the lack of "liquidity" and tell them what they need to do.

No doubt you will win the Nobel Prize for Economics

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:  Did you even read my posts?  I said that I as an individual do not feel entitled to the money. I said that our economy needs that money to function.  I made no implications as to how we go about making that happen. I have no idea where your post is coming from, except to stand on your soap box and accuse me of things I never said.

Extreme
Hey, wasn't Obama's almost one billion dollar stimulus supposed to get the economy and jobs going creating this "liquidity" you are obsessed with?  Why are you blaming the stagnation on people like Bill Gates?

Bill Gates could never create enough jobs or spend enough to offset what our economy has invested in him.  In his defense, he is extremely charitable but it's still a small part of his fortune.  As I have said my thoughts are not a matter of jealousy or entitlement, but strictly about the numbers.  As far as the stimulus it was just a short term fix.  Did not get at the root of the problem.

Pray tell how exactly has our economy invested in him? My goodness you are an idiot aren't you?

Don't waste my time...

The solution to your problem is crystal clear.  Just get all the greedy and selfish guys like Bill Gates together and give them the old low down how they are responsible for the lack of "liquidity" and tell them what they need to do.

No doubt you will win the Nobel Prize for Economics

Again, I didn't say anything about being greedy or selfish.  Still on your soap box I see.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Interesting how Stewart Brand can believe in the "harm principle" (if personal liberties do not cause harm to others, then the state has no power of interference) as espoused by Mills, Locke and Declaration of Rights of Man but rejects the belief in the Natural Right of man to pursue ownership of property (Locke, Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence). Evidently Drunk Recovering Philosophers  are not aware of the contradiction that is posed by belief in self-ownership while advocating for the confiscation of personal property by the State to rid mankind of inequality. Stoopid "Drunk" comedian. And don't get me started on the fallacious argument of the redistribution of wealth will somehow fix an economy. You can't tax your way to prosperity.

Wow, I had no idea a statement from a comedian posted in a thread based in comedy would conjure up such intense hostility.  It's a simple matter of liquidity.

1) FYI, Stewart Brand (for reasons unknown to humanity) has suddenly become a political philosopher extraordinaire (at least in his own mind) and made that statement in an essay explaining in more detail his interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, a BBC current events program where in the guise of an intellectual he disappoints and comes across as a very disingenuous and naive man as he calls for an utopian revolution. From a person who admits that he has never once voted in his life. Spare me his ignorant political philosophizing.

2) WTF is simply a matter of "liquidity"? The redistribution of wealth by the State?

#1) I put his comments in a section labeled "cartoons" because although they had a certain level if truth to them, he is still just a comedian. To feel in some way threatened by him seems foolish.

#2) "Liquidity" refers to or economy's lack of liquidity.  If people have no money to spend there will be no demand for goods and services.  With no demand for goods and services there is no demand for jobs.  You know the drill.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Interesting how Stewart Brand can believe in the "harm principle" (if personal liberties do not cause harm to others, then the state has no power of interference) as espoused by Mills, Locke and Declaration of Rights of Man but rejects the belief in the Natural Right of man to pursue ownership of property (Locke, Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence). Evidently Drunk Recovering Philosophers  are not aware of the contradiction that is posed by belief in self-ownership while advocating for the confiscation of personal property by the State to rid mankind of inequality. Stoopid "Drunk" comedian. And don't get me started on the fallacious argument of the redistribution of wealth will somehow fix an economy. You can't tax your way to prosperity.

Wow, I had no idea a statement from a comedian posted in a thread based in comedy would conjure up such intense hostility.  It's a simple matter of liquidity.

1) FYI, Stewart Brand (for reasons unknown to humanity) has suddenly become a political philosopher extraordinaire (at least in his own mind) and made that statement in an essay explaining in more detail his interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, a BBC current events program where in the guise of an intellectual he disappoints and comes across as a very disingenuous and naive man as he calls for an utopian revolution. From a person who admits that he has never once voted in his life. Spare me his ignorant political philosophizing.

2) WTF is simply a matter of "liquidity"? The redistribution of wealth by the State?

#1) I put his comments in a section labeled "cartoons" because although they had a certain level if truth to them, he is still just a comedian. To feel in some way threatened by him seems foolish.

#2) "Liquidity" refers to or economy's lack of liquidity.  If people have no money to spend there will be no demand for goods and services.  With no demand for goods and services there is no demand for jobs.  You know the drill.

Who feels threatened? Certainly not me and certainly not by some hack comedian who thinks he knows political philosophy. Ha!

Now you're talkin'!!

As for liquidity this country is drowning in it. What do you think the Fed has been doing these last couple years with the  buying of all those trillions of dollars of government bonds with their quantitative easing? Why do you think the stock market has been doing so well (until late)? It's because there is no other place to invest. Most Fortune 500 companies are sitting on piles of cash, so much so they are buying back their own stock.

I think you need to revisit the meaning of "liquidity".  The base word of the term is "liquid" meaning something that flows.  Fortune 500 companies "sitting on piles of cash" does not say "flow" to me.  It says same shiste different day to me.  I certainly wouldn't argue that QE money has not gone where it needed to go. Nether would the millions of Americans who have seen little in the way of relief from the QE programs.

The real problem facing the economy was and remains a credit crunch coming from skittish banks and lenders who were  massively burned by pushing sub-prime loans to risky credit customers. Banks aren't lending because they don’t know who is a good risk. Even Ben Bernanke, former Fed chief, was unable to refinance a home because he didn't have a steady job (this is a guy who can command $250K in speaking fees).

I disagree with you here.  I am glad that lenders have seen the errors of their ways, and I am encouraged to see them tighten up their lending practices.  BB's story is certainly a comical anecdotal situation, but it could obviously be easily manually overridden by walking into any local bank  branch

You seem to be confusing insufficient aggregate demand for liquidity. There is a difference. There is money to be spent but because of the Obama Regime's reticent in assembling a coherent economic policy, he injects uncertainty into the economy causing consumers to put off making purchases, taking on new debt or companies to make investment. And unfortunately "priming the pump" with money stolen from the wealthy isn't going to reignite the economy. As nothing new is created we are only moving money from one pocket to another.

Aggregate demand is a function of people having the resources to create it.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stinulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

Darth Cheney wrote:Doctor of Sociology or Psychology I presume.

Darth Cheney wrote:Doctor of Sociology or Psychology I presume.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Doctor of Sociology or Psychology I presume.

No it's just a name.  Why?  Do you shoot people in the face?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stimulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

I call that the "Field of Dreams" economics.  If you just get of my back so I can build it, they will come.  That worked out well for Kevin Costner, but here in the real world they still have to have money.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stimulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

I call that the "Field of Dreams" economics.  If you just get of my back so I can build it, they will come.  That worked out well for Kevin Costner, but here in the real world they still have to have money.

Keynesian economics is the cornerstone of Obama's economic policy, such as it is. Most of what I posted was essentially Keynesian economics. The definitions, the policies, the dynamics; pretty much everything. The fact that you don't realize that is due to your less than rigorous thinking.

What we are seeing happening is what Jean-Baptiste Say called a general glut i.e. too much supply. However according to Say, supply creates it's own demand. How? By lowering prices to a point the consumer or business will buy. However interference by the government with programs keeping interest rates too low (QE) or by providing stimulus money crowds out the private sector by not allowing the supply side to divest itself of over priced assets and invest in new.  

It's not free market economics that is wrong, but the smoke and mirrors that was advocated by Keynes (and Obama).

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stimulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

I call that the "Field of Dreams" economics.  If you just get of my back so I can build it, they will come.  That worked out well for Kevin Costner, but here in the real world they still have to have money.

Keynesian economics is the cornerstone of Obama's economic policy, such as it is. Most of what I posted was essentially Keynesian economics. The definitions, the policies, the dynamics; pretty much everything. The fact that you don't realize that is due to your less than rigorous thinking.

What we are seeing happening is what Jean-Baptiste Say called a general glut i.e. too much supply. However according to Say, supply creates it's own demand. How? By lowering prices to a point the consumer or business will buy. However interference by the government with programs keeping interest rates too low (QE) or by providing stimulus money crowds out the private sector by not allowing the supply side to divest itself of over priced assets and invest in new.  

It's not free market economics that is wrong, but the smoke and mirrors that was advocated by Keynes (and Obama).

I agree that QE's effects have been marginal at best.  Largely due to the fact that the majority of the money has fallen victim to the same fate as the rest of our money.  Sitting in some fortune 500 bank account.  Those of us lucky enough to have retirement accounts have seen them come back with a vengeance.  I have also personally benefited from the weaker dollar because it boosts experts.  So I shouldn't complain, but by and large it has been business as usual.

I have a question for you.  The "job creators" were flush with cash in the Bush years, and they had a business friendly administration that should have prompted them to expand their business.  Why didn't they?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stimulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

I call that the "Field of Dreams" economics.  If you just get of my back so I can build it, they will come.  That worked out well for Kevin Costner, but here in the real world they still have to have money.

Keynesian economics is the cornerstone of Obama's economic policy, such as it is. Most of what I posted was essentially Keynesian economics. The definitions, the policies, the dynamics; pretty much everything. The fact that you don't realize that is due to your less than rigorous thinking.

What we are seeing happening is what Jean-Baptiste Say called a general glut i.e. too much supply. However according to Say, supply creates it's own demand. How? By lowering prices to a point the consumer or business will buy. However interference by the government with programs keeping interest rates too low (QE) or by providing stimulus money crowds out the private sector by not allowing the supply side to divest itself of over priced assets and invest in new.  

It's not free market economics that is wrong, but the smoke and mirrors that was advocated by Keynes (and Obama).

I agree that QE's effects have been marginal at best.  Largely due to the fact that the majority of the money has fallen victim to the same fate as the rest of our money.  Sitting in some fortune 500 bank account.  Those of us lucky enough to have retirement accounts have seen them come back with a vengeance.  I have also personally benefited from the weaker dollar because it boosts experts.  So I shouldn't complain, but by and large it has been business as usual.

I have a question for you.  The "job creators" were flush with cash in the Bush years, and they had a business friendly administration that should have prompted them to expand their business.  Why didn't they?

Off the top of my head I'd say the hangover from the tail end of the dot com bust combined with Y2K and heavily seasoned by 9/11.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stimulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

I call that the "Field of Dreams" economics.  If you just get of my back so I can build it, they will come.  That worked out well for Kevin Costner, but here in the real world they still have to have money.

Keynesian economics is the cornerstone of Obama's economic policy, such as it is. Most of what I posted was essentially Keynesian economics. The definitions, the policies, the dynamics; pretty much everything. The fact that you don't realize that is due to your less than rigorous thinking.

What we are seeing happening is what Jean-Baptiste Say called a general glut i.e. too much supply. However according to Say, supply creates it's own demand. How? By lowering prices to a point the consumer or business will buy. However interference by the government with programs keeping interest rates too low (QE) or by providing stimulus money crowds out the private sector by not allowing the supply side to divest itself of over priced assets and invest in new.  

It's not free market economics that is wrong, but the smoke and mirrors that was advocated by Keynes (and Obama).

I agree that QE's effects have been marginal at best.  Largely due to the fact that the majority of the money has fallen victim to the same fate as the rest of our money.  Sitting in some fortune 500 bank account.  Those of us lucky enough to have retirement accounts have seen them come back with a vengeance.  I have also personally benefited from the weaker dollar because it boosts experts.  So I shouldn't complain, but by and large it has been business as usual.

I have a question for you.  The "job creators" were flush with cash in the Bush years, and they had a business friendly administration that should have prompted them to expand their business.  Why didn't they?

Off the top of my head I'd say the hangover from the tail end of the dot com bust combined with Y2K and heavily seasoned by 9/11.

If I know you Gomezz, you have been researching/pondering this for almost 30 hours now.  We are getting a little past "off the top of your head".

As you pointed out it is like there is one excuse after another for them not to reinvest back into our economy.  From the dawn of Reaganomics until our meltdown in 2007 we had roughly 25 years to give it a test drive.  You could argue weather Bubba adhered to the plan, but those years were good enough it's really irrelevant.  How did this country fare over that period?  The vast majority has seen their paycheck shrink when adjusted for inflation.  Single income families have turned into dual income with a second job on the side, just to keep the status quo.  Meanwhile the "job creators" that we are told to entrust our wealth and economy to have seen their pay go up exponentially.  How much longer are we supposed to wait for these Reaganomics to take hold and work for us?  When is that prefect storm going to come along for them to reinvest?  Where us the proof that this works?  Why should I be a believer? What success are you seeing that I am not?  Make me a believer.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:No revisiting of the meaning of liquidity needed. Economists and the banking world refer to liquidity as "Available cash or the ability to obtain it on demand." This would include companies cash reserves or consumers savings.

What you are defining as liquidity is known as velocity of money. A rising velocity means the cash is turning over more rapidly instead of stagnating.

Aggregate demand is the demand for goods and services by all entities within the economy and represents the sum of consumption, investment, and government expenditures plus net exports.

Due to uncertainty in the markets brought on by government and central banking policies, business and consumers are showing a reluctance to invest, increase consumption and are saving (Keynesians call it hoarding) cash.

QE money isn't a targeted stimulus program per se. It's job is provide liquidity to the banks and to keep interest rates near zero. However even at a zero interest rate there is only so much debt that business and consumers will assume before reaching some upper limit. Keep in mind that any earnings the private sector uses to pay down that debt will not factor in to growing the GDP since there is no new money being injected in to the economy

I call that the "Field of Dreams" economics.  If you just get of my back so I can build it, they will come.  That worked out well for Kevin Costner, but here in the real world they still have to have money.

Keynesian economics is the cornerstone of Obama's economic policy, such as it is. Most of what I posted was essentially Keynesian economics. The definitions, the policies, the dynamics; pretty much everything. The fact that you don't realize that is due to your less than rigorous thinking.

What we are seeing happening is what Jean-Baptiste Say called a general glut i.e. too much supply. However according to Say, supply creates it's own demand. How? By lowering prices to a point the consumer or business will buy. However interference by the government with programs keeping interest rates too low (QE) or by providing stimulus money crowds out the private sector by not allowing the supply side to divest itself of over priced assets and invest in new.  

It's not free market economics that is wrong, but the smoke and mirrors that was advocated by Keynes (and Obama).

I agree that QE's effects have been marginal at best.  Largely due to the fact that the majority of the money has fallen victim to the same fate as the rest of our money.  Sitting in some fortune 500 bank account.  Those of us lucky enough to have retirement accounts have seen them come back with a vengeance.  I have also personally benefited from the weaker dollar because it boosts experts.  So I shouldn't complain, but by and large it has been business as usual.

I have a question for you.  The "job creators" were flush with cash in the Bush years, and they had a business friendly administration that should have prompted them to expand their business.  Why didn't they?

Off the top of my head I'd say the hangover from the tail end of the dot com bust combined with Y2K and heavily seasoned by 9/11.

If I know you Gomezz, you have been researching/pondering this for almost 30 hours now.  We are getting a little past "off the top of your head".

As you pointed out it is like there is one excuse after another for them not to reinvest back into our economy.  From the dawn of Reaganomics until our meltdown in 2007 we had roughly 25 years to give it a test drive.  You could argue weather Bubba adhered to the plan, but those years were good enough it's really irrelevant.  How did this country fare over that period?  The vast majority has seen their paycheck shrink when adjusted for inflation.  Single income families have turned into dual income with a second job on the side, just to keep the status quo.  Meanwhile the "job creators" that we are told to entrust our wealth and economy to have seen their pay go up exponentially.  How much longer are we supposed to wait for these Reaganomics to take hold and work for us?  When is that prefect storm going to come along for them to reinvest?  Where us the proof that this works?  Why should I be a believer? What success are you seeing that I am not?  Make me a believer.

Well then you obviously don't know me. First off, it wasn't even 30 hours between your question and my answer. Secondly, I certainly don't live on this forum. Been awfully busy the last couple of days doing some painting, deck sealing and replanting $400+ worth of fern leaf peony bulbs. Thirdly, when I post a researched reply it will usually be in the range of 200-300+ word count. And it certainly wouldn't take me 30 hours to research it. I understand that less rigorous minds might take longer   .

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of John Maynard Keynes' Paradox of Thrift (as have most Libs/Progressives). Somehow you believe that since companies aren't spending/investing their cash savings/reserves they are somehow impeding the economy. But in actuality, it is the excessive government spending and poorly constructed policies that are crowding out private investment.

For example, as a person that owned and operated a business for 35 years, I can't tell you exactly when it's the perfect time for businesses to invest. I'm not privy to that information and it will vary from business to business. Case in point, my business invested into a point of sale computer system because 1) government policy made it easier for me to write off the depreciation quicker and 2) I felt that it would pay for itself through it's increased effencies. Big investment but it worked.

However Y2K caused  my business to invest money into the system just to keep it running and it didn't add anything towards creating new wealth. While I certainly had to pay for components and the education costs (I rebuilt a 4 station system myself), it took money from my business that I might have spent on tools, inventory, wages, etc. Google "Broken Window" Fallacy and Bastiat.

While my lengthy post probably exceeds 300 words in length, no research was harmed used in it's creation.