« Only terrorists resist fiat money | Main | How to Protect School Children in Schools (updated 14jan13) »

21 December 2012


Ryan Mount

I need to digest this some more, but as a piece of rhetoric, you've done a superb job of putting the Connecticut horror in context. What appears to be a tangent, ends up being an appropriate setup for an explication of the tragedy.

My spidey sense tells me that there's the genesis of some kind of unified field theory here.

I reckon this might generate some discussion.

Douglas Keachie

It's not going to be that long before the criminals are able to read and understand the signals you smart meter is sending out. When you are not home will be very obvious, unless you waste energy with auto timers turning off and on unnecessary loads.

Nice distraction, but I'd say the American public will continue to search for solutions to Sandy Hook like events, especially if another one happens, and idiots like Pierre LaPhuew of the NRA keep on coming up with impossible plans. Who get paid more? A cop or a serviceman?

You are talking billions, many billions. 134,000 x $100,000 would be 13,400,000,000, pay them only $50,000, including all bennies and retirement, still over 6.5 billion dollars per year.

Now get real, to really do the job you probably need at least four at major high schools. They're just too big. And just where will get all the new recruits?

Russ Steele


Money is not a problem, just layoff one of the six vice principals and hire a cop.

Michael Anderson

George wrote: "Related documents like the new Army field manual FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations gives specific instruction for the detainment and re-education of dissidents."

Yes, you are correct. The FEMA camps are almost ready. Any day now the trains will start to roll. The process will be painless, and will require no more than a week or two of the subjects' time. The medicines and training are UN-approved, and harmless when looking at the big picture. Once re-introduced into society, the subjects will experience great joy and solitude in their new way of being. We are on the road to achieving the perfect world.


But Alex Jones is or seems to me to be a card carrying member of the "Black Helicopter" crowd. The field manual is a necessary planning tool for WAR related operations of the military. What do we really the military trying to wing it when the shitte hits the fan? I think it is better to have a plan that outlines procedures that 18, 19 and 20 year old military personnel should follow in case of an all out war.

George Rebane

MichaelA 115am - You're not an early graduate (beta test?) of the program, are you?

MikeL 619am - Such manuals and established procedures for overseas operations (i.e. war) have existed since WW2. Today the war that the government is preparing for appears to include American citizens within our borders - i.e. those who hold beliefs that may make them non-compliant to a fundamental transformation to autocracy.

Steve Frisch

Funny, on another thread people stated my sarcasm was 'over the top'. The essence of sarcasm is the kernel of truth it depends upon to be simultaneously accurate and funny. This rant proves the point.

Todd Juvinall

I am a bit more optimistic the people of America will reject the "moron party" dictates and realign the place. We are simply in need of some leaders who will reinstate the values that made our country great and strong.

We need to attack PC at every step. We need to put conservative journalists into every venue and challenge the liberal bias and brainwashed news business. We need to remove social engineering from our schools (condoms on cucumbers and homosexual history). Remove tenure from colleges and replace it with merit. We need to remove civil service rules of the lame and stupid and replace them with merit. No more dumbing down 98% of our students at all levels to make the 2% feel good self esteem. We need a strong military and lower taxes. We need less spending by the governments at all levels (mostly fueled by fed mandates). We need to restructure the country to honor success and not failure, give the winner the trophy (not a phony one for all the other losers). There is more.

Unfortunate, the Frisch's have been the leading members of the "dumbing down" of America and we need to defund all the organizations like SBC and Planned Parenthood. Take away their grants and loans and force them to compete for free market money rather than taxpayers money and credits. One only needs to look at the Federal Ag Departments lists of grants and loans and see the billions of our dollars that one department spews into the pockets of organizations hell bent on the destruction of the very fabric of America.

We the people will prevail over time because there are people like George and Russ who keep the flame of freedom alive. People like the Frisch and most liberals will find the world of free stuff a lot smaller in time.

There, that is my rant of freedom and how to fix the mess. Have a great Christmas. I may be back.

Michael Anderson

Nice rant Todd.

Wait for the knock. It's coming...

Douglas Keachie

"Money is not a problem, just layoff one of the six vice principals and hire a cop.

Posted by: Russ Steele | 21 December 2012 at 10:22 PM "

Once again we see the right wing idiocracy at work. Russ obviously has no clue as to what FUNCTIONS vice principals actually perform. One is usually in charge of day to day buildings and grounds, and the rest? When a classroom is being disrupted by an unruly student to an extent that the learning environment is becoming farcical, then the teacher calls for security (minimum wage, unarmed, escorts, the bigger the better, and females too (as disrupters include female students, sometimes much worse than the boys), and security frog-marches the offender to the vice prinicpal's office such that learning can return to normal, and the VEEP can employ other techniques. These might range from "do you really want to be eligible to play next season, to phone home for parent, to call the cops. This is an important function. It is one that led me to effectively drop out of completing an administrative credential, once I understood the nature of the job, during my internship at Balboa High School, despite the extra cash it would have brought in. Our purchase of a spot up here also played an important roll in deciding to quit, silly me, back when a teacher's retirement looked like it would cover everything just fine.

So, when you think of dumping vice principals, remind yourself how you are about to lessen the effectiveness of learning at that school.

Further proof of cluelessness? Elementary schools seldom have vice principals, and there are far more elementary schools than middle and high schools. Stick to your weather forecasts, Steele, you stand a better chance there. And yes, some of Greg's snarkyness has rubbed off on me.

Douglas Keachie

"we need to defund all the organizations like SBC and Planned Parenthood."

~ Todd Juvinall | 22 December 2012 at 07:57 AM

So having a flood of unwanted babies is Todd's way of repairing the fabric of America? Looks to me like he'd rig his sailboat with felt sails. Funny, I always thought he preferred Kevlar?

Douglas Keachie

Todd, where do you thnks the students come from, that fill our vice prinicpals' office, nation wide? From homes with every child a wanted child, or from broken homes, low cash, absent parent(s)?

Ben Emery

Happy Solstice and Merry Christmas

Conservative Christian Right Wing Republican Straight White Males.


Steve Frisch

Funny Todd, my organizations 990 for 2012 will show that we grew by about 18% in the last year (measured by total budget) and that 79% of the revenue came from private sector sources, fee for service contracts and donations. In short, we are competing for 'free market money' and doing quite well well, thank you very much. The less than 20% of our revenue that comes from public sources has very strict fire walls as far as use of funds for anything other than the specific grant purposes. In addition we will have a 501h declaration (which we have had on file since 2004) showing we spent less than 1% of our total revenue on grassroots lobbying. But I am used to you (and George, Russ, Greg, Walt and the whole crew of idiots over here) either attacking my organization, or tolerating and cheering on the attacks while you hide behind the fig leaf.

I see over on your web site you stated that you were going to take a few days off to commune with Jesus. While your talking to him perhaps you should get some advice on lying, cheating, casting the first stone, fidelity, fiscal responsibility and worshiping false gods. I'm sure we will see you here, breaking you vow to be more Godlike, and acting like an ass.

Todd Juvinall

The only liar on these blogs is a non-profit CEO. That person is yanking 100K a year from the coffers. Those coffers are non-profit. The donors write off their money. One only needs to read the website and the rules for shyster non profits .

As you have said, you are an atheist secular Gaia lover so any criticism from your types are simply hilarious! All God fearing Christian folks pray for your souless life. You're welcome.

George Rebane

SteveF 950am - "... the whole crew of idiots over here", "advice on lying, cheating, casting the first stone, fidelity, fiscal responsibility and worshiping false gods.", "... acting like an ass." It seems that you take any suggestion of losing your public funding very seriously indeed.

In that vein, a good part of the whole crew here thinks that SBC's "service contracts" for "free market money" are work primarily to satisfy government diktats for compliance and regulatory assessments imposed on businesses. If so, then would that really count as free market money, or would that be more like compelled spending, part of the government induced friction in commerce and enterprise? This is probably just a plausible misapprehension on our part which you can feel free to ignore.

Douglas Keachie

I think Todd is jealous, Steve.

Douglas Keachie

BTW, Steve's a piker compared to: http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Executive-pay-soars-as-one-of-WA-States-largest-non-profits-makes-cuts--150968095.html

and that's why we need Obamacare.

Steve Frisch

Yeah, I agree.

There are hundreds of non profit organizations in our county, thousands in the state and hundreds of thousands in the country. They represent about 15% of our economy. They are a legacy of and contribute to the success of capitalism, not the opposite. Many of those non-profits are supported by people like Todd and George. The bottom line is if they support the mission they love them and if the oppose the mission the hate and vilify them.

What the George's and Todd's of the world just can't stand is that they live in a SOCIETY---that they have to live with and cooperate with others, who may not share their views or values.


Most non profits aren't functioning as rent seekers, bottom feeding to help business large and small jump through the hoops they've helped the government impose. What Frisch & Company are selling are environmental indulgences that have value because of governmental regulation.

I do hope everyone has slipped the Salvation Army bell ringers some bucks this holiday season; whatever you think of their salvation message (I think very little of it), of all the non profits in the country, they are the best at taking dollars and turning it into desperately needed services.

Douglas Keachie

Ask the bell ringer at SPD market, Greg, if he's seen the Santa that insists on a candy cane. The toy helicopter from Hess that I got for the CHP toy drive wound up going to Salvation Army because it got here too late for the CHP pickup. Plus,, I buy stuff there regularly, got a great deal ona Panasonic 32 inch flat tube front tv the other day, $10, and using the s-video in, excellent OTA medium def tv for the garage.

George Rebane

Re SteveF's 1054am - can anyone shed light on the 15% GDP contribution from non-profits?


George, I have a hard time seeing the non profits of being a GDP source rather than a sink. Sometimes a desirable sink, but a sink nontheless.

I expect what Steve is reporting is that non-profits *spend* 15% of GDP.


"... the whole crew of idiots over here", "advice on lying, cheating, casting the first stone, fidelity, fiscal responsibility and worshiping false gods.", "... acting like an ass." -this blog according to Steven Frisch.

It seems to me that Steven Frisch, CEO of the wretchedly misnamed "Sierra Business Council", is the one who has a hard time living in a society that isn't as homogeneous as he wants.

George Rebane

Gregory 1148am - Agreed. I can't figure out where private non-profits fit into any GDP formula, except perhaps indirectly. For example, here's probably the most accessible and oft used formulat for which I developed a graphic.

Thereunder we have 'Private Sector Investments' as a potential source. For example, if the Getty Trust or Bill/Melinda Gates pump some millions into their foundations, and the staff draws salaries, contracts for outside work, or buys stuff, then these expenditures would feed into GDP. But that this would contribute about $2.3T annually (Frisch's 15%) to GDP boggles the mind.

Douglas Keachie

Contributions to GDP? How about healthier, smarter, happier workers, who are more productive? I think that fits the bill.

George Rebane

Re DougK's 1213pm - Speaking of contributions, now there's a shining example of liberal thought and logic. Thank you Doug.

Todd Juvinall

It is not the expenditure of the phony non profits like SBC etal it is the income side I am talking about. Hell, government takes 25% of our GDP and if Frisch's 15% is added on that is almost half the economy doing nothing for the underlying capitalist system and well being of the country.

The non profits take dollars that would have been taxed for the good of all the citizens and then spends them on things like Land Trusts. They just bought 3,000 acres of what could have been a money generating machine in the profit world (housing and resorts) (adding value to the GDP) and up in the Truckee area. My guess is it will become a playground for the rich Sierra Clubbers (with lots of rules for its use) and won't pay their "fairshare" of the taxes to run the county. It is all a scam in my view and unless it is the Salvation Army/Red Cross types, they are mostly thieves of our dollars. People like Frisch have become good at figuring out the system.

Ben Emery

Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product are 20th measurements that need to be replaced. Here is one of the best outlines of why GNP is such an inadequate measuring tool.
Robert Kennedy on GNP in 1968

George Rebane

BenE 144pm - America's GDP is a measure of the country's economic performance, which is just one, albeit an important, component of our quality of life. Bob Kennedy was a middling lawyer and progressive for whom such concepts and measures were somewhat foreign. Since that warm and fuzzy speech over 40 years ago, no one has been able to come up with an objective measure (nay, any quantitative measure) of with what you and he want to replace GDP. But such pabulum makes all the sense in the world to the country's innumerates.

Douglas Keachie

Todd loves a broad brush, doesn't realized who he's smearing: http://greatnonprofits.org/reviews/profile2/operation-troop-appreciation

Steve Frisch

What I said was that non-profits were about 15% of the economy. Reporting non-profits were $1.89 Trillion in 2009; reporting public charities were $1.40 Trillion. The total GDP in 2009 was about $14.5 Trillion. If one were to just take the non-profit side it would be just over 13% of the economy (not counting any of the 'public charities amount many of which operate as non-prfots). So I under estimated.



Although I agree with Ben that GDP is a poor measure of value and economic activity--using GDP as a gauge I am correct and George is incorrect.

George Rebane

SteveF 250pm - You're flying a bit fast and loose with your reporting (analysis?). It appears that there is massive double counting of government spending in the figures you quote. The document declares that 32% of the charitable revenues come from "government sources", and I suspect the lion's share of the non-profits' revenues also come from government grants, stipends, set asides, etc. I don't know if that is the kind of thinking that SBC delivers, but I do believe a recheck is warranted, and you really meant to say that you overestimated.

And on what, pray, do you base your conclusion that "George is incorrect."?

Steve Frisch

By the way Greg, I think it is kind of sad that you don't know what GDP is since you comment on economic issues on a regular basis. One does not "spend" GDP; GDP is the market value of all officially recognized goods and services PRODUCED within an economy in a given period of time. I am sorry you have demonstrated just how completely ignorant you are on financial matters, but I will trust readers to remember your need for remedial education on this subject the next time you weighs in on economic policy. The non-profit sector produces goods and services, and is paid to produce those goods and services--the service may be a hot meal for a homeless person, continuous forgiveness for Todd when he goes to church on Sunday then sins on Monday, or project implementation/management/monitoring and reporting like my entity--just like any other entity in the economy.

Steve Frisch

George, I did not rely on any figures from the report other than the total revenue and expenses of nonprofits and charities. None of the 'analysis' is necessary for the calculation. I made a simple calculation--total expenditures divided by GDP. Nonprofits alone came out at 13%, charities came out at 9% (public charities fall under the same IRS code as non-profts). The two added together came out at 22%. Thus, I UNDER-estimated.

By the way, taxation (which is neither a good nor a service) does not count in GDP, consequently there is no double counting--taxes don't become part of the GDP until they are spent on goods and services.

I don't know if that is the kind of razor sharp thinking you deliver as an "entrepreneurial" consultant, but you might want to recheck your definitions.

Paul Emery


22 December 2012 at 07:57 AM

"There, that is my rant of freedom and how to fix the mess."

You're a little old to believe in Santa Claus.

Do you actually believe the Republican Party will lead the charge and get enough popular support to make this happen?

Todd Juvinall

Of course. The democrats want more control, the libertarians are toothless and the non aligned are wimps. That leaves the R's.

George Rebane

SteveF 330pm - taxes do indeed impact and count in GDP since they 1) are not wholly returned to productive commerce, and 2) the part that is returned is mostly unproductive commerce (and no net generation of wealth). Your analysis is the kind that Lenin used to convince the light thinkers of his day, especially the Bolsheviks in Russia. It convinced them that the more that the state assumed the means of production and distribution, it would then generate and distribute the most wealth for all - and the revolution, or should I say "fundamental transformation" - was on.

As the darling of the Depression, Keynes softened that somewhat, and it still didn't work. Now we know no history, and the same crap dished out again sounds like manna from heaven to the country's naifs.

Steve Frisch

George, you are high; taxes are counted in GDP when they are spent, whether spent for a tank, or a meal.

If your point is that we should not collect taxes because they do not create as much wealth when they are spent as allowing people to keep their wealth, then make it. But beware, more wealth is created when taxes are distributed as direct payments to the the poor than any other government spending, because the poor spend it immediately for consumer goods.

And don't compare my analysis to Lenin, my analysis is based on the 100% commonly used definition of the term "Gross Domestic Product". It is simple math.....Expenses (spending) of NGO's $1.89 Trillion.....GDP $14.5 Trillion.....$1.89 Trillion is 13% of $14.5 Trillion. I really wish, just once, someone here could simply say, "upon seeing the numbers and further reflection you were right and I was wrong". Why is that so hard?

Every thing else is horses hit.

Steve Frisch

Oh, by the way. transfer payments are not included in GDP either, they are counted when the recipient pays for something, like a meal, a shirt, or if you prefer, a Cadillac. Of course if they buy a gram of crack its not counted, if they buy a ton of cotton to make shirts, its not counted, until they sell the shirts. Got it kiddies?

Joe Koyote

All of the discussion about the one world government and how the progressives are selling out the country to the UN has it backwards. It is not Obama or Democrats or Liberals or Progressives or Republicans who are behind the globalization movement and selling out the country. It's the plutocratic owners of the multinational corporations, especially the global banking and finance industry. Seventies conspiracy theories point to the Rockefellers/Kissinger/Tri-lateral Commission et.al. group as the culprits and promoters of the one world government theory, none of whom are considered progressives. The address of the UN is One Rockefeller Center, after all.

George said there are “authoritarian globalists who have already openly usurped governments all across Europe?” Just who are these authoritarian globalists? Are they the conservative austerity focused leaders that have dominated European politics as of late, shrinking public services in an unsuccessful attempt to balance government budgets and stimulate economies without tax increases on the wealthy? Are they the elected legislators who have voted to tighten belts to the point where the people a government is supposed to serve are out in the street protesting the failure of austerity to turn the economy around like Greece or Spain for instance? No, according to George it’s apparently not the politicians it’s the evil bankers, “with leaders of major banks and investment houses in the EU countries all moving governments and economies in a direction to make the world safe for international finance.”

I agree, policy moves with the people in charge. Get your buddies elected and the policy moves favorable to your interests. That is what campaign finance and Citizens United is all about, giving the wealthy more power and say-so in elections so they are better able to put people into positions that are favorable to their interests, not main stream Americans. Much like Romney for example (not that Obama is that much better in reality if you ignore the blogs and that he already has backed off his no tax increases for the middle class claim.)

The big money wants a world safe for their investments even if they have to take over the world to do it. The world elite want a one world government so they can plunder at will and continue their game of monopoly unfettered by any opposition from the serfs. America's role in all of this is to be the enforcer. Our taxes buy more weapons than most of the developed world put together. Our drones strike terror in children everywhere. Where is Luke Skywalker when you need him?

I think there is a conspiracy here but it doesn't come from government. If guns don’t kill and people do, then Governments don’t conspire, people do. These globalists aren’t UN socialists seeking to take down America. The authoritarian globalists are the corporate capitalists and bankers who want to see the American people taken down. They don’t want the spirit of human rights, workers rights, and concern for each other and the environment that shines in most Americans to spread to the developing world. It would lower profit margins and they wouldn’t be able to PASS GO and COLLECT $200.

Russ Steele

I recently read a discussion of GDP and the role of increased Government spending in creating government bloat but little or no real growth at the Ludwig von Mises Institute web page. Government spending distorts the current calculation of the GDP, misleading mainstream economists, journalists, policy makers, and others believers, which may include some those commenting here.

Here are some thoughts from Robert Higgs a senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review.(http://mises.org/daily/6306/Government-Bloat-is-Not-Growth)

Much of the increase in government spending in recent decades has taken the form of increased transfer payments—payments for which the government receives no current good or service in return—such as Social Security pensions, disability benefits, and payments via Medicare or Medicaid to subsidize program beneficiaries’ health-care services. In 2000, such payments amounted to 56 percent of all federal spending; in 2011, they were more than 61 percent. Transfer payments do not enter the computation of national income and product; only purchases of final goods and services do so. Keynesian economists argue, however, that government may use increases in transfer payments to cushion business slumps in the same way that it may use increases in its purchases of final goods and services because increases in transfer payments augment personal income and stimulate greater consumption spending, hence greater investment spending, and therefore, from both sources, an increase in GDP.

The foregoing issues have taken on special cogency during the past five years, as the federal government has greatly increased its total spending. Real total federal outlays increased by 32 percent, from $2,729 billion to $3,603 billion (in chained 2005 dollars), between fiscal years 2007 and 2011. Although much of this increase has taken the form of increases in transfer payments, the part that is included in GDP has also risen substantially—at the federal level, it increased by 15.6 percent (in real dollars) between 2007 and 2011. Some of this increase was offset by a decrease in state and local government purchases of final goods and services, which fell by 3 percent during this period.

The article concludes:

Perhaps the most positive statement we can make about the private economy’s performance during this twelve-year period is that it has been somewhat better than complete stagnation. But private product has lost ground relative to total official GDP. Moreover, many of the measures taken to deal with the contraction—the government’s huge run-up in its spending and debt; the Fed’s great expansion of bank reserves, its allocation of credit directly to failing companies and struggling sectors, and its accommodation of the federal government’s gigantic deficits; and the government’s enactment of extremely unsettling regulatory statutes, especially Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank Act—have served to discourage the private investment needed to hasten the recovery and lay the foundation for more rapid economic growth in the long run. To find a similar perfect storm of counter-productive government fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies, we must go back to the 1930s, when the measures taken under Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt turned what probably would have been an ordinary, short-lived recession into the Great Depression.[2] If the government and the Fed persist in the kind of destructive policies they have undertaken since 2007, the potential for another great depression will remain. Even without such a catastrophe, the U.S. economy presents at best the prospect of weak performance for many years to come.

No mention of NGO contribution to the GDP, unless they are just part of the government spending.

Paul Emery


All the money that was generated through taxpayer subsidies for high tech industry during the cold war ultimately was spent in the private sector, right?

Paul Emery


Why don't you work on getting a Republican majority first. All you have to do is win over Latinos, women, gays, under 30's, and libertarians. That should keep you busy.

George Rebane

SteveF 611pm & 700pm - I think you're trying to carry coals to Newcastle here, your bag is too small, and you don't have a clue what I tried to convey in my 507pm. I have gone into great detail in word, song, and pictures on RR describing the workings of GDP. Apparently none of that has made an impression on you, because now you are trying to explain to me what GDP is.

One more time. No, "more wealth" is NOT created when taxes are distributed to the poor or anyone else. That is the Leninist cum Keynesian mistaken economics. Less wealth is created when taxes reduce the wealth of those who created it in the first place. Since feedback-immune bureaucracies make bad investment decisions (e.g. the "green investments" crap that's been going on lately, and that you have been a trumpet for), government redistribution creates a net reduction in created wealth - for more on the matter read Bastiat, or Hazlett, or Hayek, or Taleb, or some non-socialist.

I have explained that net loss in the graphic by the little curvy arrow that shows money coming out of government and going 'poof!' in the figure. That's polite graphics for what the government pisses away from the money ("revenues", hah!) it takes in.


This is getting tiresome Steve. Since you don't have a clue about what I am talking, why don't you take a crack at explaining the great benefits of Keynesian redistribution? Or perhaps another sojourn at FUE's railing against the "whole crew of idiots" over here will settle your nerves.

George Rebane

JoeK 803pm - you were doing pretty well until you got to the "workers' rights" etc. You burden yourself unnecessarily when you talk about globalist conspiracies. I'm not aware of any; only the leftwingers here claim to see such conspiracies. Globalism and the pursuit of a one world government is a legitimate and publicly debated objective, and has been for over a century. Today its foremost promoters are the financiers and corporatists of enterprises that need the guns of government to do their business. They belong to known and cited organizations - beyond the UN - that meet regularly.

I and others like me think a one world government at this time in human social development is a bad idea, and in RR you read my commentaries opposing such globalism, as opposed to supporting liberal international trade policies.

PaulE 921pm - Yes it was Paul, and we've been around this barn more times than I can count. The necessity and impact of that government spending has been explained ad nauseum in these pages. As Bastiat explained in 'That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen' over 150 years ago, the alternative uses of wealth elude the collectivist mind. Give this a read.


re: Keach @ 9:12am

So, if I understand correctly, vice-principals are just as important as firemen on diesel locomotives, no? L

Michael Anderson

Joe Koyote, I agree with you that it would be much easier for the elites to live behind gates and in protected communities, and for the rabble to live in squalor in places that have no meaning, no usefulness, and no political power.

Lots of models worldwide where this is already the standard.

One problem with this plan: dirty hippies. They are mad as hell and they aren't gonna take in anymore! (At least as long as Medicare is still intact...)

Nahhh, just kidding. The hippies are asleep. They're tired. Next.

Douglas Keacie

So "L" you understand nothing about how schools really run. Decrease the # of vice principals, and you increase the anti-learning turbulance in the classrooms. It's like losing one whole set of magnetos on a Lycoming engine. It ain't as safe or learning-worthy. You are up rather late, George.

Steve Frisch

You misread my comments George. I was address solely the NGO comments, not your wider theory. That was all. I was commenting on statements made in the comment stream.

You choose to challenge my facts. I backed them up with data.

"Re SteveF's 1054am - can anyone shed light on the 15% GDP contribution from non-profits?

Posted by: George Rebane | 22 December 2012 at 11:32 AM"

"Gregory 1148am - Agreed. I can't figure out where private non-profits fit into any GDP formula, except perhaps indirectly. For example, here's probably the most accessible and oft used formulat for which I developed a graphic.

Thereunder we have 'Private Sector Investments' as a potential source. For example, if the Getty Trust or Bill/Melinda Gates pump some millions into their foundations, and the staff draws salaries, contracts for outside work, or buys stuff, then these expenditures would feed into GDP. But that this would contribute about $2.3T annually (Frisch's 15%) to GDP boggles the mind.

Posted by: George Rebane | 22 December 2012 at 12:02 PM"

So, I was correct and you were wrong...period, end of story.

Steve Frisch

And I will say it one more time, which is it about pontificating know-it-alls that they just cannot say the simple words, "I have new information that shows that I was incorrect"?

Russ Steele


If the vice-principals are the internal cops, then send them to training and then arm them. They can be the external cop as well. The taxpayers get a two for the price of one.

Todd Juvinall

George, how dare you challenge the "smartest" man on planet earth. What a hoot. The guy's eyes have to be brown.

Back in the 90's I and many across America concerned with the money and influence the SBC type scams were practicing came to a head with the FORD Foundation. The common blokes were buying their F-150's to go to work and do the things the middle class folks were doing and the profits of FORD were pouring into their "non-profit". Then the Board of the non-profit (apparently a bunch of lefty do-gooders) would "redistribute" the money to NGO's whose soul purpose was to undermine capitalism, property rights and spread socialist crap. Well we all started sending them letters saying "what the hell" are you doing? C omitting suicide? They got the message only after a threatened boycott of their F-150's. (they are probably back to their crap though)

They were recycling the profits, getting tax write-offs, taking the money and giving it to a bunch of leftwing scammers who hated FORD. And this was my first real forays into understanding the dangers the SBC's create for free enterprise, taxes and the bastardization of the true intent of non profits.

Douglas Keachie

Steele, 7:36 am, first intelligent thing you've written about schools, but please keep in mind, the vice principles cannot wander the halls armed, or you will get both dead and wounded VEEP's and students. You will have to have hardened safes for night time storage on campus, and then transfer to BioMetric instant open inside the Main Office lockups.

Todd, you've found your soul purpose! I thought it was perfectly legally and therefore perfectly OK for corps to transfer cash wherever they wanted, superpac and superfoundations. What, you don't like their choices? Too bad, this is the system you are encouraging.

Douglas Keachie

still waking up, "principals"

Steve Frisch

Jesus Todd this just shows what a dimwit you are. Don't you know that there is absolutely no on-going financial connection between the Ford Motor Company and the Ford Foundation? The Ford Foundation was created with a gift of non voting stock from the estates of Henry and Edsel Ford. The Foundation and the Motor Company operate completely independently.

This is like boycotting FORD to get a completely unrelated business to do something. It is insane.

Douglas Keachie

I would also set up cameofluged daytime biometric safe boxex at the afr ends of the campus, guns placed in them before students arrive, and removed at the end of the day, once most students are gone. Special cart to carry the guns to and from the remote safe-boxes. That speeds up the response time, by placing a weapon where a wandering VEEP, common mode for them, can get to it in a hurry. Bullet semi proof vests for all veeps, and school paid insurance policies for them too.

George Rebane

SteveF 416am - (wow, you're up early on a Sunday)

Did I miss your response to my 308pm that countered your 15% of GDP claim?


As a general comment I want to remind us all that it is profits (in excess of costs) that allows an economy to grow through investment in new infrastructure, plant, equipment, research, ... , and, yes, even fund government through taxes on such profits. And government, though the only channel for funding certain of these activities, is demonstrably the most inefficient and profit killing method of benefiting the common weal through its spending programs. Its operation in areas better handled by for-profit enterprises always diminishes the possible benefit to the economy - there is no net gain when compared with private enterprise.

Douglas Keachie

So George still lists no benefit of improved productivity on the part of employees based on their lives being upgraded by the services of non profits? Must really hate to have to hire anyone to do anything, as you hold labor in such low esteem, and apparently contributing nothing to the GDP. Upgrade a machine, cool! Upgrade a human, I guess no such thing exists in George's world. As for me, I always thought that's what education and healthcare and better housing were all about.

Steve Frisch

George, did I not clearly post the source of my !5% of the economy in response to your 308 pm (it was you who defined the economy as GDP)? Of course, some portion of the funds that go to charitable and nonprofit organizations comes from government, although as you yourself noted most come from private sources. Some portion of revenue to for profit businesses also come from government, as you clearly know since you worked in a government dependent business (defense then education) most of your life. Those private sources CHOOSE to distribute their funding through nonprofit organizations. That is just as much a contribution to GDP as if they bought a ton of steel.

You are dissembling and being completely disingenuous here.

You asked me to post sources and I did. They proved your figures incorrect (and I must note you are selectively deciding what to respond to here, for example you never answered my question about whether or not government should play some role in telling the private sector where to put its money, like donating it or distributing it through contracts for services to no profits).

Your position that non-profit activity is diminutive is just that, an opinion. My statement that nonprofits contribute 15% of GDP is a FACT, based on real data.

Todd Juvinall

SteveF, you are calling me a dimwit? What a hoot. While you were running a restaurant in Truckee I was involved with thousands of Americans in the FORD issue. But hey, you are the Wiki master here, the cut and paste king, so you must be right. All those people involved were no match for your superior intelligence.

Steve Frisch

Hey Todd, it just goes to show you that thousands of people led by dimwits can all be wrong. There is no connection between FORD MOTOR COMPANY and the FORD Foundation. FORD Foundation is a private, stand alone, endowed entity, with zero operational relationship to the motor company. So you may try to critique me for knowing more than you, but the simple truth is I just know more than you do. I can't help it if you are an idiot.

Michael Anderson

Hey Todd, I think James Carville is talking about you here:

“When I hear people talking about the troubled state of today’s Republican Party, it calls to mind something Lester Maddox said one time back when he was governor of Georgia. He said the problem with Georgia prisons was ‘the quality of the inmates.’ The problem with the Republican Party is the quality of the people who vote in their primaries and caucuses. Everybody says they need a better candidate, or they need a better message but — in my opinion — the Republicans have an inmate problem.”

Michael Anderson

Here's a couple of fun links that I'm sure everyone will enjoy:



George Rebane

SteveF 840am - From your own source 32% of one non-profit sector's revenues came from the government (which you repeatedly choose to ignore), and the other sector's government contributions were omitted (which you also ignore). Already your 15% is wrong, and now we are debating how much of the 15% is being double counted in GDP. There is no fact to your fact until you reconcile my observations.


George, The Urban Institute puts the number closer to 5.4%:
"In 2010, nonprofits contributed products and services that added $779 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product; 5.4 percent of GDP."


Steve Frisch

George, you still do not understand...it is not double counted in GDP....GDP is a measure of goods and services produced...it does not matter where the $$ came from, they could come from Mars.....GDP does not measure where money comes from it measures what money is spent....You don't get to just redefine a standard economic terms for your own purposes....(oh, but I guess you think you do since you provided a Dr. Seuss 'glossary' for posters)

But, lets pretend for one second that we define it your way; even if 32% came from government, and you choose to discount that, the other 68% came from the private sector...and you failed to add together expenditures from non-profits and charitable organizations...which added together are 22% of GDP...if you were to reduce that by the 32% that 'came from government' you would still have 15% of the GDP.

What is even more disturbing to me is that you just can't say it can you? You can't say, "based on the commonly used definition of GDP, public charities and nonprofit organizations comprise 15% of US GDP." Instead you insist on dissembling, changing definitions, providing opinion, and denying the naked truth that you are WRONG. I thought you were a bigger man than that Mr. Rebane.

But I agree, we are getting nowhere, because you are full of beans and refuse to acknowledge the most commonly used and standard definition of a word rather than admit fault. How sad.


"George, I did not rely on any figures from the report other than the total revenue and expenses of nonprofits and charities." Frisch

And yet I was ridiculed by Frisch for suggesting he was just totaling the percentage of GDP (a dollar denominated measure of value) that non profits *spent*; by adding revenue and expenses together, it does appear that he double counted, since *expenses* are covered by revenue.

Using Frisch's 15%, assuming he actually had good reason for that, and using The Urban Institute's ~5%, it would appear that the average non-profit takes $300K of capital and turns it into $100K of goods and services; that might well be the case.


So, if the Fed printed $16 trillion and gave it to non-profits, instructing them to pay off the national debt, would that double the GDP? Just askin'... L

Steve Frisch

Math, simple math. GDP has a definition. You may not like that definition, but it is the definition.

George Rebane

L 1124pm - Actually, the Fed cannot 'print and give' money to anyone, but needs to go through some fairly complex open market transactions in buying/selling debt instruments (e.g. Treasurys) with the US Treasury and the banks for which it holds reserves.

Todd Juvinall

MichaelA here is a link that reflects what most people think you are all about. Frisch too.


What a hoot.

Steve Frisch

You stay classy, George.....


"Math, simple math. GDP has a definition. You may not like that definition, but it is the definition." -Frisch

And just how did our resident 6 figure income non-profit executive apply the simple math to get a figure three times the size The Urban League came up with for GDP contributions by non-profits?


Kitties, Christmas trees, a bouncy tune, what more could one want for a Progressive Pandemic on Christmas Eve?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad