With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying wages that are holding their own against inflation.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11195216 … l-wet.html
http://openeconomicsnd.files.wordpress. … e-down.jpg
Dosn't work is an understatement. It puts the money in the hands of people who don't spend it. Can't have consumers without money and jobs. Ten years since the Bush tax cuts and we have the highest unemployment since the great depression and the wealthy are more wealthy then they were before the tax cuts. You got to love people who believe in fairy tales.
Spending money isn't the goal of the economy. In fact, there's no such thing as "the economy". GDP is a meaningless statistic created to justify government spending.
Saving money is much more important that spending it. You can't eat a lunch unless you save enough turkey, bread, mayo, and lettuce AND TIME to make AND EAT the thing.
Keynes was wrong.
These videos are awesome and explain the competing theories: the Austrians vs. the Kenyesians. You have to listen carefully and reflect on what they say to get the most out of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzm … ure=relmfu
(my comment on this one is the highest rank atm, i'm proud!)
Utter tosh! try saving your money and spending it on lunch, it doesn't work.
If you forgo lunch in order to save your money the providers of turkey, mayo and lettuce don't get paid.
... you do realize that your argument was ludicrous.
If you save money, then you'll be able to spend the saved money to feed yourself -- saving money is a good thing.
And, if you choose to save money instead of buying turkey mayo and lettuce, then you can save that money up to spend on a bigger purchase -- buying a home costs quite a bit. It's called "building capital".
Right, imagine if everybody saves every penny they earn and doesn't spend a single one, how long will the country last?
To build capital you need spare income, that means that after you've provided everything that you need, you have money left over.
Think, if everybody, just for one week, stopped buying turkey, mayo and lettuce sandwiches. . .
Evan a great Republican president says you are a fringie. Here is a response I made to Walt in the comment section of an article I just published yesterday.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-----
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b … _quote.htm
Walt, you have no clue how fringe wacko you are. You are abhorred by a great American president. He was well aware of the John Birchers.For him this new manifestation of Birchers, the Tea Party, is a fringe organization.
Evan I wrote the article that spawned these comments at BI showing that Walt didn't have to be a Ron Paul loving libertarian wacko to hate the behavior of the Fed. It has an important chart I want you to see. I am posting the chart here in case you can't make it over to read the article, although I hope you do. I write as Gary Anderson there. Anyway here is the chart:
The chart explains that Fannie and Freddie were involved in the start of the housing bubble but that the main event was the private mbs by the unregulated shadow bank lending and investment bank securitization. This of course makes Faux News a liar in that they focused on the CRA sideshow and totally left their viewers in the dark about the main event, the unregulated part!
ZOMG a Republican disagrees with me? I better renege everything that makes sense!
And further more, it's disgusting that people who love liberty are considered Whackos in our society.
Fannie and Freddie were GSEs - GOVERNMENT sponsored entities, thus not a part of the free market. They received fantastic tax privileges and promises that the government would bail them out in a pinch. Thus they were able to take horrendous risk, and also dominate the market of loanable funds.
Because of these insane and artificially (and obviously highly dangerous) promises and incentives, they had went nuts buying mortgages no matter how risky the mortgages were -- after all, if they bought the risky mortgages and the people paid, they win; if the people didn't pay, they'd get bailed out.
-- are you starting to see "government created moral hazard" yet? If not, I'll continue!!! ---
In fact Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd wrote to the employees "get aggressive on risk taking, or get out of the company".
Fannie and Freddie also spent millions lobbying Congress.
AND!! The executives of the companies were caught cooking the books in 2004 in order to justify huge CEO bonuses... yet no one went to jail.
--- do you see the connection between government promises and the housing collapse yet? If not... I'LL CONTINUE ---
Because of the government promises of a bailout and tax bonuses, the two companies were encouraged to idiotically only have $83B in capital to cover $5 Trillion in liabilities -- a 60 to 1 ratio.
But, despite such a horrible leveraging (60-1), TREASURE SECRETARY HANK PAULSON said "their regulator has made clear that they are adequately capitalized" in July 2008.
NOW - let's talk about "DEREGULATION!!" and how it DID NOT cause the housing collapse.
There were only 3 possible deregulating pieces of legislation that could have had an impact on the housing crisis:
Regulation Q: repealed by Jimmy Carter... obviously not the culprit
Riegle-Neal Interstate banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994: repealed restrictions on interstate branch banking. This made portfolio diversification easier, and hence would have strengthened the housing market instead of weakening it. NOT THE CULPRIT
Bank holding companies were allowed to underwrite corporate securities. ... not really pertinent to the collapse.
... so unless you can show me which piece of deregulating legislation led to the collapse -- AND SHOW ME THE CAUSE AND EFFECT -- I'm going to have to ask you to shut up about this collapse having ANYTHING to do with A) the free market, or B) deregulation.
The culprit was/is clearly government and the moral hazard created by printing money out of thin air and bailouts.
You are deliberately ignoring Phil Gramm and his influence on the economic state of our union.
You are well informed enough that that can only be deliberate.
Just in case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act and another winner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_ … ct_of_2000
Alright: let's take on the Glass-Steagall Act. It's easy to debunk.
The Glass Steagall Act consisted of four basic provisions:
1) "Banks can't be securities speculators": It prohibited banks from underwriting or dealing in securities, apart from essentially riskless government-issued or government-backed securities. This meant that banks couldn't buy things like bonds and stocks for the sole purpose of selling them (they couldn't be speculators).
2)Securities firms couldn't take deposits
3-4) nothing exciting. The banks couldn't be allowed to be affiliated with securities-speculators.
The Legislation you're discussing is "Gramm-Leach-Blily".
This legislation simply made 3-4) LEGAL again.
Was this what caused the collapse? 3-4? No of course not. The banking activity that collapsed "the economy" was activity that was LEGAL BEFORE THE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED.
... anything else you want me to tear apart? Because, so far, the blame is still on government for encouraging reckless behavior through bailout-promises.
Once again, deregulation was not the culprit. -- I WILL admit that I should have included the Gramm bill, but it also wasn't instrumental to the collapse. And even if I did include it in my OP in this thread, the tally would simply be 4 acts of deregulation that had no logical impact on the collapse.
0-3 or 0-4... which record would you guys prefer?
Gramm and Clinton both understood that deregulation would allow banks to write swaps on the crap loans they were writing. Without the ability of banks to write swaps, which Brooksley Borne tried to stop, this would never have happened. There would have been no major bubble.
The blame comes from Basel 2 who allowed off balance sheet banking. You should read my first articles at BI Evan. Basel 2 allowed banks to hide bad loans and package them into CDO's that were priced wrong. They were priced wrong because the banks used a bogus bell curve that showed them the likelihood of default was small. But that was not true. The liklihood of default was high. Japan defaulted on RE. Worldcom defaulted on off balance sheet accounting. So did Enron. Yet the bankers pressed ahead and pushed Fannie and Freddie out of the way and went wild. So wild that a homeless guy in Florida owned 4 properties no money down. All so the banksters could make money on the Fees Evan.
This is a crime from a place much higher than Fannie and Freddie, much higher.
Here you are Mostly correct. But your twisting the blame! you said it in your first statement then twisted the end. It was all because they allowed it to happen!
How am I twisting the blame? Actually, the politicians were bought and paid for. It was 90 to 8 in the senate to repeal Glass Steagall. But the banks and specifically the central banks were the puppeteers.
You did post blame on both parties in your second post but then tried to sway from that when in fact because of the politicians actions you want to blame the banks and wall street. if they would not have let it happen in the first place we would not have had the problem.
"No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.(Bernie)
---So, the Fed did that 16 trillion "gifting" without Bush, Obama, or the Congress knowing what they were up to!
And what is this??
"the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the group responsible for formulating the nation’s monetary policy."
Apparently, if you sit as head of a Fed bank, you are a permanent member of this FOMC.
OPEN Market? Are they crazy?
Your argument COMPLETELY ignores why bad loans were being sought after.
Money was injected into the system by the federal reserve and the government.
This was a classic Austrian Business Cycle.
His argument also ignores the power of the Federally created lenders Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. The FMs' standards for lending were continually loosened by Congress in an effort to make lending more "just," "fair," and "equal." The end result is a secondary market writing standards the entire sub-prime loan industry followed.
I worked in the sub-prime industry. I advised customers to refinance as soon as they were back on their feet into long term, conventional, low interest loans. I never stuck anybody with a loan that didn't benefit them but I was one person.
The standards were centrally directed by lending agencies that never ran out of money because they were backed by the Federal government. The federal government, through FHA, made it possible for first home buyers to pay zero out of pocket for a house. The lending standards were sloppy and the income requirements were insane - unemployment income could be counted as real income - it further distorted the market.
It is the culmination of all of these factors that created a sub-prime loan crisis as the economy began its down turn banks and other lenders found that they were buried under terrible loans. Credit default swaps and other monetary mechanisms were an effort to reduce that risk. They failed.
Who did what wrong? Very few people. Most were just trying to buy a house. Make a loan. Sell those bundled loans in the secondary market - as had been done for years. Protect their company, depositors, stock holders by creating ways to ameliorate risks.
Why did it all fail. Because - the same reason all economic efforts fail. GOVERNMENT intervenes with no clear notion about how economies work, how money works, how economic risk works.
The government abdicated its responsibility to govern monetary instruments - decades ago. It created a false market place and loosened its requirements far beyond what any bank would - Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, FHA all loosened standards. Then when it all started falling apart rather than let it the government re-inflated the bubble.
The government did what its members wanted - behave in a way that makes their re-election likely. So who is to blame - ultimately?
We are to blame because we either ask government to do things that are none of its business and that it will inevitably screw up. Or we ignored the actions of government because of other distractions or it is just too hard or the most common and worst excuse of all, because we care and it isn't fair that some people just can't have a house when they want one.
We are to blame because we aren't grown ups.
That was a truly irresponsible post, cutting what didn't fit your agenda.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/ … -steagall/
This is just one of dozens of sites that will give the interested reader a more complete and less edited version of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It was not the benign legislation you characterize it as.
Very disappointed in this post of yours.
Well said. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of the greatest attacks on mainstreet ever done by the elites. It was shameful and it was wicked.
Bruce that is a great article. Great. Evan should read it very carefully.
No, this is nonsense. The article you posted agrees with me, it just changed the wording to make it sound more like the legislation was the problem.
“The market and appetite for derivatives would then have been far smaller, and Washington might not have felt a need to rescue the institutional victims.”
-- Why did the market have such an appetite for the derivatives? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION I DISCUSSED EARLIER!!
-- And, they knew they were going to be bailed out.
Sorry, but the NY Times actually agrees with me, they just don't understand it. (PS - this is the newspaper that still let's Paul Krugman write for them... ewww...)
The problem was that the entire market knew that the companies would be bailed out.
Sorry, I'm sick of your left-wing nonsense: I do NOT get my news from Fox; i'm NOT a Republican; and the repeal of "letting banks invest their money in various forms in order to increase portfolio diversity" did NOT cause the bust.
"Hey, you know how countless companies do the same thing? Well, if banks did it, then the world will come undone" -- that's ACTUALLY what you're arguing. This is nonsense.
The real problem is that everyone knew that these companies were "too big to fail" (translation, they had the Ds and Rs in their pockets). The problem was government, not a lack of it.
Fannie and Freddie were just a sideshow. The chart proves it. Faux has LIED to you Evan.
Sad you truly have no clue!
The was the main reason for the collapse! I can show a chart to debunk your chart...So? If you actually look up Fannie and Freddie you will see where it started then got out of control! and YES it was the dems pressuring the banks to give people loans unless get fined for discrimination! You can hear Frank and Dodds in their own words but of course you will just say Fox lies! , Please show where they admitted in court they lied! I will be waiting
Sorry Danny, that is the Fed's own chart. You have it wrong. Fox lied and the chart proves it. Fannie and Freddie, as the House of Cards also agrees, was pushed to the side in mid 2003 and the shadow banks took over. The flow of funds chart does not lie. Whatever chart you have is subservient to the flow of funds chart. You need to be reprogrammed because you have been massively brainwashed Danny.
You need to be reprogrammed. As I stated if the mostly democratic house and senate, lead by Frank and Dodds didn't start this mess it would not have gotten out of control! simple fact! go to Youtube and plug it in and listen straight from the horses mouth. I would like you to deny and twist their words.
You need to watch this
Who originally offered all of the "Creative Financing" and accepted the loan applications?
It was Barney Frank, and he defended it till it exploded and he could not hide it no more. In 1995 Barney Frank was upfront again looking to make more changes to loosen banking guidlines on qualifications for getting a loan. His ideas were ment for low income, but it applied to everyone
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results. The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes. Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.
During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.
Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.
In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll": "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."
Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008. In 2006 a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. acknowledged to the Boston Herald that he assisted his ex-lover in obtaining a plumb job at Fannie Mae in the early 1990s.
During that time Frank was a junior member on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversaw the government’s mortgage market titan.
However, Frank doesn’t see any ethical problems with his action. Calling it a potential conflict of interest is “nonsense,” he said.
August 21, 2010
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied, "Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing."
Frank also said that any federal housing guarantees should be transparently priced and put on budget. But he added that the private sector must be encouraged to re-enter housing finance just as the government gradually withdraws from it.
Some would say Frank's mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where bailout nation and big government are public enemies No. 1 and 2. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion, is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.
In fact, these failed government agencies are in such bad shape that they can't even pay Uncle Sam the dividends owed under the conservatorship deal reached two years ago. That's right. In order to pay a $1.8 billion dividend on Treasury department stock, Fan and Fred had to borrow $1.5 billion from -- you guessed it -- the Treasury.
Then there's this head-scratching detail: In an absolutely outrageous move last Christmas Eve, President Obama signed off on $42 million in bonuses for the top 12 Fannie and Freddie executives, including $6 million apiece for the two CEOs. (Hat tip to attorney Stephen B. Meister.)
Voters are on to all this. So politics may indeed be motivating Barney Frank's turnaround. But I'm going to credit him with more than that.
I think Chairman Frank watched these government behemoths descend into hell and then witnessed the financial catastrophe that ensued. And I think he has come to realize that the whole system of federal affordable-housing mandates that was central to the real-estate collapse -- including the mandates on Fannie and Freddie and the myriad bad decisions made by private banks and other lenders in response to the government's overreach -- simply needs to be abolished.
Noteworthy is the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has come to a similar conclusion. Geithner told a recent Washington conference on the future of housing finance that the system needs fundamental change. He said, "We will not support a return to the system where private gains are subsidized by taxpayer losses."
Of course, the withdrawal of housing markets from government programs, and the onset of a reinvigorated private sector for providing mortgages, must be done gradually over a period of years. But it is possible that the federal mortgage madness is coming to an end.
We will have to see if Congress really does say goodbye to Fan and Fred, as Republicans like Jeb Hensarling are advocating. Equally important, we will have to see if the federal affordable-housing mandates created by Congress and implemented by HUD and banking regulators are similarly repealed.
And then we will have to see if reformed federally guaranteed housing insurance includes larger down payments, stricter underwriting standards and greater reliance on private capital markets, lenders and insurers. In other words, we need to see if housing will be restored to a market-based system and removed from the government-backed system that has proved so disastrous.
The broader lesson here is that government planning doesn't work. And if left to their own devices, market processes will work. I don't know if President Obama gets this. But my hat goes off to a man who does, Chairman Barney Frank.
Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report and co-host of The Call.
This is why I get angry,This was the question.
Who originally offered all of the "Creative Financing" and accepted the loan applications?
You cut and paste a lot of stuff from Larry Kudlow who I actually used to listen to and watch. Nice try ....Do you get paid to do this?
First, I do not use Larry frnk for anything, this was the first time and only because I could not find the transcripts of the show, so I used his article on the interview. I usede it to back up the first part of my post.
As for your Question, my appology for mistaking the question. When I first read it I thought you meant who started all the creative financing and that was what I was answering. Totaly my fault for misunderstanding the question
As to answer your question, look for the trial od Wells Fargo who is being sued by the DOJ on that very subject
"First, I do not use Larry frnk(sic) for anything,(should be a period, then capitalize next word) this was the first time and only because I could not find the transcripts of the show, so I used his article on the interview. I usede(sp) it to back up the first part of my post.
As for your (Q)uestion, my appology(sp) for mistaking the question. When I first read it I thought you meant who started all the creative financing and that was what I was answering. Totaly(sp) my fault for misunderstanding the question(.)
As to answer(grammar) your question, look for the trial od(sp) Wells Fargo who(which) is being sued by the DOJ on that very subject"
One thing you never have to do is tell us when you cut and paste and when you are speaking yourself. The difference is immediately apparent. LOL.
Her Der, I don't watch fox. I only have a TV because I got it free with my new mattress. I use it to watch DVDs comfortably.
(Beauty and the Beast is still a good movie!)
PS - the article posted by your friend thebrucebeat pretty much agreed with me - the real problem was that the companies knew they would be bailed out.
Fox News is a fictional network. They admitted it in court and the judge upheld their right to lie to their viewers. It's an eight year old story and when the judgement was made no news org would touch it. And conservatives were simply further encouraged to tell their lies about 'liberal, activist judges'.
I would love to know the court decision, or some sort of reference to this decision. -- Not saying you're inaccurate, but I'm just curious.
This will give you the full story. It isn't as black and white as it is often portrayed, but it is still a terrible condemnation of the news practices followed by the company.
It's sickening, but not technically a law suit to defend their right to lie, although the result of it protected just that.
The the owner, Rupert Murdoch hacks into the cell phones of 911 victims? Shame on Rupert and Fox for taking his marching orders!
I guess you didn't read the whole thing. Your twisting! go back and read it again. also please show some facts.
Why would anyone want to read your bullsh!t when we know the facts. Go rot in the hell of the material world where you belong. Sorry, you alone probably dont deserve this, but I'm so sick of being nice to agenda based @ssholes like you. Go ahead and report me. It only proves how much of a p*ssy ur.
You have got this wrong - the saying is -
"life is a sh!t sandwich - the more bread you got, the less sh!t you have to eat"
Or, you have to eat a lot of sh!t to get a bit of bread.
The liberal idea of "trickle down" is based on misconceptions of how taxation and tax revenue works.
One thing we do know - government spending affects changes in the composition of the employment market and the spending and hiring actions of the private sector.
http://mercatus.org/publication/does-go … conomies-0
http://mercatus.org/publication/does-go … mic-growth
During the heralded days of Bill Clinton unemployment was low, the budget was "balanced", portions of the national debt were paid off and there was a surplus(at least according to partisans).
Also, government spending in relation to GDP declined for the longest period since the end of WWII.
We are driving that spending back toward war levels and what is the consequence? Is it the increased rate of government spending that is drying up the resources otherwise available for middle income Americans?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ … chart.html
The cost of poor economics education among Americans is astronomical. The conflict is always cast in the form of envy, greed, sloth, avarice, gluttony and the end result is the economy continues to suffer in the hands of amateurs and punishes those who freely choose to be ignorant. The religion of liberalism has been the ruination of the American economy and will continue until economic liberty becomes as important and sexual liberty.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/ … s/quiz.asp
The laffer curve doesn't work in a credit crisis. Hoover had trickle down. It was called percolation and the man was banished from politics forever for believing in it.
You're standing up for the Laffer Curve?
you are aware that Art Laffer, the individual who invented the curve, not only failed to predict the bust, but also laughed at those who DID predict it, right?
In fact, Art Laffer owes the Austrian Economist Peter Schiff a symbolic penny. Laffer refuses to pay up because he's a wretched low-life scum bag.
"I'll bet you a lot more than a penny!"
Here's him weaseling out of it:
Economists and their fuzzy little formulas can be down right dangerous. Remember this little $4.5 billion Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton fiasco?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_ … Management
Welcome to the new world order - this is how the whole world is going - heading on back to virtual slavery.
I know this, it is effecting me,I want to fight back
The only ways to fight back are to refuse to take out too many loans, cut your driving, don't bid for something that costs too much and teach your friends and children to do all the above;
What does "cutting your driving" have to do with "the federal reserve printing trillions of dollars out of thin air"?
If you truly want to fight back at the SOURCE of the problem, then buy Gold and Silver coins, and begin using them as currency. Screw the laws, and put true money back in it's rightful place.
And who will be the merchants that will accept that currency?
Man, I wish that I could deny logic by simply not thinking the way that you do. That'd be grand.
If YOU decide to buy gold and silver, then surely YOU would accept gold and silver as currency.
Right now, doing so is against the law.
If not thinking means deciding to not change to a currency that is not usable in our economy, I guess you're right.
Take your bullion and go to 7-11 for a Big Gulp and see if you leave thirsty.
So you agree, the fact that using gold and silver as money is illegal prevents the population from changing currencies?
You agree that fiat money is foolish?
Glad we're on the same page.
(PS - if I went to a seven eleven and gave the clerk a gold ounce for a smoothie, the guy would take it and run out of the store.)
Yes, making things illegal usually discourages the public from doing them.
I suppose I can agree with that innocuous statement.
And thus... the reason why using gold and silver as currency is...
... say it with me, now...
Brucebat, you're just wrong here.
Gold was money until 1973
UNTIL 1973 -- just 40 years ago. The dollar was taken off the gold standard because -just like today- the government couldn't repay it's debts. Just like today, the government had resorted to printing green sheets of paper to pay off debts instead of honestly repaying with real money that it had. JUST LIKE TODAY, the government had to pay off its debts with monetary inflation. JUST LIKE TOMORROW, this led to the stagflation of the 80s.
You're ACTUALLY arguing that people wouldn't accept gold and silver as money if it were legal to do so?
Then when I point out that "actually, yes they would. All of humanity has done so consistently for the last 6000 years or so (maybe longer), and has only stopped some 40 years ago", you say that my argument is "circular".
Oh well, can't argue with a cactus, I s'pose.
You're wrong. Get off your high-horse and look around. Gold IS money, it has BEEN money for 6000+ years, It still IS money -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/30 … wanted=all -- it's just that it's ILLEGAL money.
If you want to put 40 years of history up against 6 millennia, go ahead. You'll be proven wrong.
You suggested an act of civil disobedience by using gold as currency in the current climate.
I am saying that is useless and will be completely ineffective, particularly considering that very few people actually possess any.
Where did I say that people wouldn't accept gold if it was legal? I never made that argument, nor did you. You were suggesting using it now, when it is illegal. I said that was absurd, and stand by that. Please don't load my lips with something completely opposite of the point I made.
Trying not to get snippy with you, but when you start making personal attacks you're pushing my ability to not strike back. What "high horse" have I been on? I've been commenting strictly on your arguments, and accurately, I think. Totally mischaracterizing my argument is going to make you look very manipulative and untrustworthy.
I am not arguing about the gold standard. I'm saying your suggestion of using it in today's environment is silly.
Does that make it clear?
Yes, the reason things are made illegal is to discourage the public from doing them.
Your argument here is fascinating and groundbreaking.
If you want to fight back, buy silver and gold.
Until the Faux News Network says it, no one on the right will believe it or admit it.
those with money get the laws passed in their favor...
as my father always told us growing up."money talks and s*it walks"..sad but true..
money is power and those without it have no say
I'm still rather fond of the Dylan line that says
"Money doesn't talk, it swears"
I've never heard that one before, 'Money talks, s**t walks' plenty of that around. People that have more money than sense.
I believe money trickles up not down.
One old established company in America has only lost money one year in the last 100. They guarantee employment, overpay and profit share!
I know first hand that in the many businesses I have owned run or managed my employees were well paid, happy and motivated.
You are not going to get peoples best by robbing them blind while paying shareholders 14%.
I believe underpaying is yet another form of stupid short term profit thinking, which is what caused the financial meltdown in the first place!
I agree. When a large corporation pays a semi-reasonable salary to top executives but then adds 10 times that figure in stock options that are valuable only if the stock market rises that year it becomes inevitable that short term profits will take precedence over long term viability.
American companies, at least, have become enamored of such short term gains and it is costing them dearly in the long run. Employees become little more than cogs in a money making machine, to be used up and thrown away as necessary to maintain a large one year profit and make the stock price go up. The long term result is that those companies can no longer compete with companies that value their employees enough to keep them and their expertise.
The impetus behind offering stock options was a law that forced a cap on direct compensation for executives at $1 million. Like most changes in the economy it is a direct response to changes in broader conditions. The government interference in the economy is such a change. Time and again, we have seen business twist and turn, contorting to fit the new rules forced upon it by the over weening, over reaching state.
http://taxhistory.tax.org/thp/readings. … enDocument
Yes, corporations twist and turn in an effort to bypass misguided and stupid legislation from our leaders.
And, as usual, those misguided laws attempting control of something that isn't their business to control end up causing havoc to the country. So what else is new?
Looking in from the outside at American business is an eye opener.
I watch all the US car workshop shows.
The way the bosses in these shows speak to their employees on the workshop floor would see them going broke, looking for a new job or nursing a sore jaw in Australia.
The levels of arrogance are mind boggling to me.
Talking down to people like that here would mean having no workers........they would walk.
Walk over here and you may not find another job for quite a while,no matter how good you are.
Yep! I get that.
What I don't get is the short sighted view of many employers or why they feel they have the right to talk to people they employ like they are dirt simply because of a job shortage.
Well this is America and you do not have to take the job if the owner is a dI@k. He will lose in the long run. I have not seen many people actually complain about this. sure you have an a$$hole owner here and there but most owners just pay what they can and you take it if you want. If you want more jobs then you need to tell the dems to stop taxing and making business hard on companies and they will not leave! it is very simple.
Yes Simple and not looking for entitlements! You can spew your nonsense all you want. The American people woke up last election and the same will happen. Talk to me after the election.
I guess this isn't America and you are forced to work where you do not want to. Funny!
"I know first hand that in the many businesses I have owned run or managed my employees were well paid, happy and motivated."
The many businesses?
Couldn't keep them running?
What a stupid ignorant statement!
I have had a terrific run in business since I was 23 and often had several running at once under management.
I just happen to enjoy business. Sorry, no failures to report.
Don't be ashamed, not everyone can run successful businesses.
I believe you...
Well you should although I know you want proof!
I live in a large city on almost 4 million, and I am well known in Melbourne and can prove up what I have stated.
One of my businesses was begun when I was a kid in 1968 and it is in a prime position on one of our busiest highways and still going like a rocket.
The current address is Nepean Highway Moorabin.
Look it up if you like, the business is called "Bikes and Bits"
It changed the face of motorcycle shops in my city forever.
We were the benchmark for customer service in the industry for over 23 years.
I have owned most of the decent motorcycle businesses in this town. Designed my own restaurant, ran an international consultancy, gave my first speech to SWAP on how to run a successful business when I was 24.
I worked bloody hard for my success, and am not going to cop this sort of ill informed crap.
I have this debate with friends and business owners often about paying a living wage and unions. The business owners insist that trickle down economics works and benefits all.They insist unions and higher minimum wages hurts growth. I say that the lower wages and benefits people earn will put businesses out of business since their customer base will have less and less to spend.Who do they think will buy their products?the average family has less income and wages so they can't spend like they used to.
why cant they see this?
Well said earnest, If we could just get our idiots in the District of Criminals to pay attention, we might have a chance of pulling out of this mess. Of course it would help if they actually wanted to fix the problems we face.
I have a Hub about class warfare that discusses this. Since Reagan hit the scene, the wealthy of this country have been on an unprecedented roll. Taxes and incentives have gone their way, de-regulation has gained traction and benefitted the owner class, and their incomes have skyrocketed, while the working class has stagnated, not keeping up with inflation and actually losing wealth.
The lowering of the tax rates on the wealthy has not achieved any trickle down effect. This is not debatable, but rather is very easily quantifiable.
If this is not recognized and reversed, we will cannabilize ourselves into global irrelevance or global violence.
And the working man will volunteer to die on the front lines. It will be the only place to get a paying job. We are already seeing this now.
What really got me is that we are having the ongoing talks about raising the debt ceiling and we have the amount of tax payer holding the bag for corporate welfare and subsidies.So the whole idea of if we let the corporations hold on to more money they will create jobs, where are they? We deregulated the financial sector and they screwed the world economy then the Fed bailed them out and we pay for it,where are the arrests? Ratings agencies rated that junk triple A and we're worried about what they rate America? Those involved shouldn't even exist any more for that debacle, credibility 0. They want to cut social security,medicare and medicaid before govt handouts to millionaires and billionaires,you must be kidding?
Trickle down is part of supply-side economics under Reagan (at least I can find no mention of it prior to reagan). According to David Stockman (book: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed), he stated that there never was any real understanding of it - by anyone, including him. He was employed basically to make “Reaganomics” sound good. Had the DEMS agreed to Reagan's balanced budget demand, America could hv got it's economic house in order in 1982. But the DEMS knew darn well that their cradle-to-grave socialism couldn't survive without running huge deficits. The envious ones in this thread, who so despise those who have earned their wealth and are enjoying their right to keep what they earn, need to put the blame for the wealth gap squarely where it belongs - the Democratic Party.
No, I'm not really complaining about the wealth part,what bothers me is how this approach screwed up opportunity for the rest of the people of America and how that wealth effectively bought our government. Where are the jobs that are promised with this approach?
"Where are the jobs that are promised with this approach?"
The biggest difference between a republican and a democrat - IMO - is that the DEMS see the gov't as the economic engine of a political system (ie. Socialism). The republicans believe that economic opportunities are created by the people (not the gov't), and that the gov‘t should only supply superficial regulations for the good of the country. The DEMS socialist scheme has ruined what was once a great county. Mr. slave, go out there and find your own opportunities. Gov't doesn't owe you this!
I have a job and I am not looking for a hand out .Our economy is in the toilet,or because it may not be for everything is good ,right? Trickle down doesn't know right or left ,only have or have not. Crawl out from the rock you're under.
Then how come Boner and crew blamed Obama for the unemployment rate?
All that "vote for us, and we'll get jobs"...what was that?
And how come you people say "Tax cuts create jobs", and it never happens?
What are we listening to....lies, distortions or propaganda?
It's policies that either are job-friendly/people friendly/humanity-oriented or not. That is what gvt does--makes polices.
And under Repubs, all it does is make policies that favor the Uber wealthy class...sorry, that's proven history.
Why OH WHY, are we back here AGAIN????
Your rhetoric misrepresents the position of democrats on business as the source of jobs or the engine of the national economy.
Liberals believe that business, government and the economy exist to serve the needs of the people. Its the function of government to keep free markets free by breaking monopolies and protecting consumers from predatory practices.
Robust regulation and vigorous enforcement send chills up the spines of CEOs who will pollute the environment, strip away workers rights, and legislate away liability for what they do.
Hughes, the RESULTS of the DEMs employ, tax and regulate fits by description. People who create businesses (wealth and a tax base), left the US. Your Democratic Party is to blame. 6 to10 million jobs (who know the real staggering number) hv left this country over just the last 20 years. Have the DEMS ever tried to prevent business flight to foreign countries? I can't think of any instance. Give businesses the incentive to stay (i.e. lower taxes and limit regulations). opportunities (jobs) will return to the US. Oh, and install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Enough of ripping off the future generations. Still a chance to save america...but time is running out.
Wall Street is sitting on two TRILLION that they are not investing in growth and jobs.
Your suggestion that the people who have wealth and create jobs have left the country is pure right-wing fiction.
"Wall Street is sitting on two TRILLION that they are not investing in growth and jobs"
Invest in what sir? People (wealth producers) don't want to do business any longer in the US. Why? DEMS taxes,rules and regulations! I've got money to invest in business. But I want nothing to do with employees. Maybe a get in and get out quick scenario I'd take. But nothing long term. I want nothing to do with your political party’s taxes, rules and regulations. Among the none envious ones, I think my attitude is pervasive.
"Your suggestion that the people who have wealth and create jobs have left the country is pure right-wing fiction."
Sure about that mr. Hughes? You ought to visit the port of LA. Cargo ships as far as the eyes can see. Those sir, represent lost manufacturing jobs. Then there's the outsourcing. Ever heard of that? Very big (billion dollar big!) business.
So what you are saying is that if you can pay third word wages and pour benzene straight into the ground your OK?
If you have a court system that refuses to enforce property rights SO HORRIBLY that they allow people to pour poisons chemicals onto other people's property, then...
... no that's still illegal. It's just that the jerk-nugget court system needs to be changed.
(PS - our government court system allows WAY too much pollution compared to a privatized system).
Evan, you've not been taking your pills again have you?
Oh john, your blind subservience to idiotic government policy is the only insanity going on around here.
As opposed to your blind subservience to idiotic private company policy?
Tell me, do you think Rupert Murdoch would do a good job of overseeing the press?
The reason why supply side economics doesn't work is because in order for any theory to work, it has to be universal. I agree with the Austrians that people need to save, invest, and the government needs to keep out. I agree that the GDP is a horrible economic measure and that rampant consumption in and of itself doesn't build a great economy.
However, this saving and building capita way of life must apply to everyone, not just the currently rich. Supply side economics put the rich in a "Godly" like position where we all must depend on them for jobs, jobs, jobs. If the rich don't feel like supplying the jobs or want to supply them overseas, we're so out of luck.
A far superior model is people actually get paid well enough to leave aside a decent amount of cash that they can save up to one day build businesses of their own. This encourages independance and less dependance on some sort of overlord class.
The difference between the people depending on a big government to live (socialism) or depending on a select few of feudal lords (Reagonics) matters little. . .
Also, what many must consider, is that to a lot of people, a job isn't a blessing on Earth, but a means to an end. Many of us hope to one day "enterprise" our way out of work, but ruthless supply side economics prevents that by squeezing all the time, energy and resources out of those found at the very bottom. It's hard to generate the savings and plant a seed if you're struggling to feed yourself. You could have the best idea and a sharp mind, but it will matter not in such an environment. . .
For those of you guys out there who are unfamiliar with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, here's an 8 minute overview of it all:
Oh, and for those unfamiliar with the notion that, yes, economists disagree and that there are multiple schools of economics, here's a few quotes that should probably help you pick which school is right for you:
Keynes (Trickle down / Keynesian / Modern economics):
"In the long run, we're all dead"
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slave to some defunct economist."
Hayek (the Austrian School):
"The curious task of economists is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design."
Here's a fun illustration of the different schools:
The "Boom or Bust" video was awesome!
The notion that economies are machines and can be geared to what ever speed or disposition one chooses from a mathematical formula is a dangerous one that has resulted in the problems we are facing right now.
The liquidity trap that Keynes feared exists now with banks and businesses holding aproximately $2 trillion in cash. It is the very Animal Spirits that Keynes seeks to name then ignore that govern how well an economy works. Obama's hostility toward business has trapped those very Animal Spirits, the ones Hayek and Von Mises understood must be truly free if an economy is to remain strong, responsive and prosperous.
The argument between Keynes and Hayek has played itself in other social sciences. The idea that human behavior can be quantified as one would a physics experiment is foolish.
Trickle down - the stupid name latched on to by those who do not understand economics - is real and does work. We are currently living in an economy in which the trickle has been dried up - intentionally - by an amateur who believes what his grand mother told him every minute of every day -"Barry you are so pretty and smart and every body loves you."
Our economy is in ruins because Barrack Hussein Obama is still being told every minute of every day that he is the smartest, prettiest, most beloved president ever.
YES! I think they are waiting for the Baggers to bust up the unions, remove all regulations and job safety measures, and wait until we are begging for jobs, and will take any job at any pay!!
You know what they say..it's a buyer or a seller's market. They want to hold all the cards, IMO.
Just to break in here...but what about the reckless behavior??
Oh, the gvt made me do it??
Don't blame me.....the gvt had a gun to my head??
Let me guess...they FORCED the banskters to hide all their money in Swiss accounts too?
Do the crime...DO THE TIME!
I did not steal anything.
Stop TRICKLING down the restitution on me!!!
LMC - if someone gave you $700 billion, would you A) spend it in the most profitable way possible, or B) say "man, it's so wrong to be given $700B, I'll just burn it because I'm a good girl".
... obviously, B) would never even enter your mind.
Your point is exactly why "trickle down" never works. Spending the money on the most profitable paths doesn't lead to spreading that wealth among the working people. It leads to increasing the bottom line of the "haves".
Trickle down is a mirage that has never worked and the numbers don't lie.
A wise petroleum owner was once asked how he becamse a billionaire. He said because I spent wisely, I invested in people. I helped people to make money or even become millionaires.
He invested in others opening gas stations all over the country, hiring tens of thousands of employees. His charitable donations were many, he believed strongly in giving. Yet he was hated and despised for being rich.
Funny, he ivested his own money to put people to work, but because he got rich, along with many who worked for him, he was vilianized. Sound familiar? THats what is going on today. People of wealth who took risks and were rewarded for it, employ thousands, give generously, have charitable foundations, but are demonized. What if Bill Gates said oh trckle down never works, the government will take care of me. Where would his tens of thousands of employees be today?
When did America become a place where every job is to make you wealthy? I only wanted and expected no less than a fair wage to live comfortable. Anything more would require a risk on my part. And when I took it, I employeed hundreds of people. Not just directly working for me, but the contractors I hired who hired employees. So trickle down does work.
Your story is very touching, yet the economic reality of the country paints an entirely different picture.
Hyperbole of argument, suggesting that working people are expecting to become wealthy due to trickle down is spurious and childlike. No one has that expectation. They simply don't expect to be robbed and betrayed by their own wealthier countrymen.
But to have their incomes contract, their buying power eroded, their ability to pay for essentials, save for their future, educate their children to continue a growth trend in their family history as well as the countries tragectory, is not what they signed up for.
Anecdotal stories are delightful, but only useful in argument to support the data of the overall trend, not to suggest that data is inaccurate due to some individual exception.
Deal with the reality. The rich are getting very VERY rich, and the rest of us are slip sliding away.
No point in showing you all the CBO and GAO reports showing when true growth occured, when GDP was good, when people were actually employed, what actually spurred growth. You already claim to know. Sorry that Government has wasted so much money on recording unemployment, GDP, Tax revenues and more. We should have just asked you.
Snide, but not evidence.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart … ica-2010-4
There are 16 charts at this site that will put the distribution of wealth in our country in perspective. Trickle down was the greatest scam by the finest bunko men this country has produced.
What a joke, not one government chart in the lot, sorry charts from left wing Professors are useless as Ross Perot charts. None of it based in facts.
Here's who they really are. Founders include a guy who was convicted of fraud as a Wall Street insider. Real left wing extremists. LOL.
Where do you get your knee-jerk reactions? You don't show any contradicting evidence in regard to any of the charts or information, you simply ignorantly attack the source with no back up to support that attack either.
What a hopeless post.
Hey, this was your evidence, not mine, So do not cry because I exposed you as a fraud. A right winger? Really? Here is a part of what your link shows. Look who is with them NY times, NPR, oh yea they are really a far right group. And I stand by my quote of ALL the charts are not government charts or reports. So since you insist I show off my Knee jerk reaction as you called it, you did not realize one thing. I read it before I responded so at your request here is why I showed you charts were bogus. Stop crying and using phony sources, stop trying to correct spelling when you know you are wrong.
Business Insider is a U.S. business news website launched in February 2009. It is the overarching brand beneath which fall the Silicon Alley Insider (launched May 16, 2007) and Clusterstock (launched March 20, 2008) verticals.[clarification needed The site provides and analyzes business news and acts as an aggregator of top news stories from around the web, each with an "edgy" commentary. Its original works are sometimes cited by other, larger, publications such as The New York Times and domestic news outlets like National Public Radio. The online newsroom currently employs a staff of 45, and the site reported a profit for the first time ever in the 4th quarter of 2010 WOW SO FAR TO THE RIGHT< MAYBE IN YOUR DREAMS, BUT NOT IN REALITY!!!!!
OK here are those charts. Notice how many comt form Bloggers. WOW What reliable government reports those are.
Chart 1-This chart shows average income of the top 1% as a multiple of average income of the bottom 90% (via The Nation). A left wing weekly journal of opinion, featuring analysis on politics and culture. Founded in 1865.
Chart 2- Source: Institute for Policy Studies A left wing study group
Chart 3- Source: Institute for Policy Studies A left wing study group
Chart 4- Source: Professor G. William Domhoff George William (Bill) Domhoff is a research professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His first book, Who Rules America?, was a controversial 1960s bestseller arguing that the United States is dominated by an elite ownership class, both politically and economically. His articles, books and studies all lean far left.
Chart 5- Source: Institute for Policy Studies A left wing study group
Chart 6- Source: Institute for Policy Studies A left wing study group
Chart 7- NYT
Chart 8-NBER Wojciech Kopczuk, Columbia and NBER Emmanuel Saez, UC BERKELEY and NBER Need I saw Left wing here?
Chart 9-NYT Enough said
Chart 10-No source cited-Great reliable source
Chart 11-No source cited
Chart 12- Source: Economist-That’s right folks, it says Economist, does not say who, so it must be true and must be accurate. And BB says I do not support my claims. Really
Chart 13-Source Piketty and Saez(2001) Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez 2 left wing economists, Hey maybe chart 12 is their’s. Guess we will never know
Chart 14- Source: The Map Scroll- it is A Blog About Maps and the World
Chart 15- Source: Afferent Input From one neuron to another... A blog on bloger.com
Check again. Charts 6 and 7 cite federal bureau sources. The Economist is a well known mainstream journal. Not surprised you are not familiar with it. You do very lame research.
With all your diatribe, you have not even tried to disprove any of the information that came your way. I wonder why that is?
I know, I'm against trickle down economics. It's an idiotic policy.
Trickle down economics is a direct symptom of the Federal Reserve's "hey let's give companies across the world trillions of dollars we just printed out of thin air" policies.
If you're against trickle down economics, demand a gold standard.
Where are you at. One post you are for it, the next you are against it Unless I misunderstood your other post
Not to be a jerk, but you probably did mis-understand the post.
I'm not for trickle down economics in anyway shape or form. Printing money out of thin air, stealing money from the public, and then giving the ill-gotten money to politically connected jerkwads is a horrible idea.
*Actually, re-reading what I wrote, my post is kind of confusing if not taken in context.
I said, basically, that if people give you a lot of money, you'll spend it without caring.
LMC was acting like the businesses should be blamed for their spending the money.
I, on the other hand, was blaming the government for handing the money out.
Trickle-down economics is indeed a silly economic philosophy. On the other hand, capitalism is certainly not trickle-down economics or any notion of Reaganomics. The problems in the United States today stems from corporatism, not capitalism, but confusing the two concepts as being synonymous has helped fester misconceptions about the free market.
I want to know--WHO are they formulating our policy for?
What and who are we paying taxes for?
Cause, it hasn't been US since 2000. IMO
WE sunk. Who have we kept afloat?
I am not sure how I feel about trickle down economics, yet I will say this - the US economy is down because everything is being produced outside the US now. This is also why there are fewer and fewer jobs.
I do think the people with "the money", are afraid of the economic climate now so they are not investing. As a result, there are ever fewer jobs being created. The sad truth is that the "little guy" does not create jobs, its the guy with the money. If they are getting taxed or regulated more and more, then they spend less and less.
And the fact of the matter is cutting their taxes still won't stop them from investing overseas. Insanity is the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and it still not working. Supply economics hasn't worked for thirty years running. The supply side economics philosophy is what enabled them to outsource overseas in the first place.
You want a solution? You can start by seeing yourself as more than a "little guy" at the mercy to some rich overlord class who needs to take care of you. Change in attitudes can make a big difference.
The truth of the matter is: THEY DEPEND ON US!
We feed them, we protect them, we cloth them, we take out their trash, we power their mansions, etc. The rich are lazy and can't even lift their own fingers to pick up after themselves. How is that for a change in perspective?
Do we truly need a rich overlord class to survive? The sooner the illusionary power breaks, the better.
Many of the "big guys" used to be "little guys".
If you look at the riches people in the world, the names change frequently.
Absolutely right. What we have witnessed over the last two years is a President who uses his pulpit to brow beat and degrade businesses and business owners. We have seen a monumental expansion of business regulation. We have seen the government reach into entire industries and compel their submission.
The result, businesses are hunkering down, protecting what they have and risking as little as possible. It is fear that Barry has inspired in the job creators and then he wonders where the jobs are.
It is trickle down poverty. He has pushed his policies for over two years and what is the result? The only thing that keeps our economy from being in a "depression" is its resiliency, something long predating Barrack Obama. We are growing at a paltry 1.5% when an economy in a real recovery should be screaming hot.
If trickle down doesn't work than why was the growth in GDP during the Reagan recovery over 7%??
Because the 7% didn't trickle down. It coagulated at the top and never impacted working people. The wealthy saw their incomes skyrocket and the rest of the country saw their incomes stagnate and in fact reverse in terms of buying power.
When you are talking "trickle down", you have to show a result where the people in the lower half of the economy are benefitting, and you can't show that, not during Reagan or any time subsequently.
Would you prefer the spastic thrashing about of the current administration or the Reagan Years?
Quite honestly the Reagan years were the seed of our destruction. Trickle down began the slide toward a division of wealth in this country that is unsustainable and crippling. What was your favorite part of Reagan?
His tax increases?
Negotiating with Iranian terrorists?
Cut and run from Beirut?
Secret weapons deals?
Enough with the whitewash of the Reagan years. It was class warfare at its most venal, and the slide toward economic armaggedon had begun.
Tellingly, you didn't respond to the reality mentioned in my post. You simply avoided it altogether.
Well done. When cornered, change the subject.
David Leonhardt sums up and moves on. His final economics column is worth reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/busin … laise.html
It's a great read, Ralph. Leonhardt is certainly more reasonable in his thinking than many of the political leaders I see on TV these days.
I do not think in honesty, trickle down ever really worked for all people.
The Business types remind me of a History account I read about Rockafeller, throwing dimes to people from the back of his limo as he rode past!
I'd rather start out and make my own, my knees are to stiff to bend and beg for dimes. We all need to stand in the face of this Congress and Senate, it is time to folks, it is time.
My favorite part of the Reagan legacy is the scramble by the current president to create the notion in the uninformed that he is just like Ronald Reagan. My second favorite part is the Dervish whirl liberals get in when R.R's name is mentioned. The entertainment value of the Reagan legacy is priceless.
Also unresponsive to the issues.
Open a thread about Reagan. You may learn something. As for trickle down, there is no evidence it accomplished what its name implied.
So amusing. There are times when it is just so easy. The Whirl just happens. The greatest post war period of economic expansion is the legacy of Reagan.
There is a difference between GDP and how it effects the mass of the population.
The growth went straight to the top, and continues to do so. To prove trickle down, growth is not enough. You have to show the growth of the means of the lower and middle classes, and you will not be able to do so. It hasn't happened.
This is the second time I've made this point and you have yet to address it. Let us all know if you decide to do so.
Equally amusing to me is the idea that one can be brow beaten or bullied or cajoled into responding. I am trying to think of why anyone's opinion that I am not married to or voted for matters to me. At all, ever. Oh yes, it doesn't. So I respond to what I want, when I want, how I want and on my terms.
I long ago abandoned the idea of arguing toward an end because I couldn't care less if anyone does or does not agree with me about anything. I use my time and mind as I see fit and that is all.
Have a good day. Check out your beloved Realclearpolitics numbers today. Interesting trend continues.
Why respond to my posts at all, then, if you don't want to address what's in them? Just post independent of me without replying to me. Nobody is forcing you to hit "reply" under my name, but if you do, at least make your floundering relevant.
You have a good day, too!
Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living
GDP can be determined in three ways, all of which should, in principle, give the same result. They are the product (or output) approach, the income approach, and the expenditure approach.
The most direct of the three is the product approach, which sums the outputs of every class of enterprise to arrive at the total. The expenditure approach works on the principle that all of the product must be bought by somebody, therefore the value of the total product must be equal to people's total expenditures in buying things. The income approach works on the principle that the incomes of the productive factors ("producers," colloquially) must be equal to the value of their product, and determines GDP by finding the sum of all producers' incomes.
Example: the expenditure method:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or
Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put. Production can be used for immediate consumption, for investment in new fixed assets or inventories, or for replacing depreciated fixed assets. "Domestic" means that GDP measures production that takes place within the country's borders. In the expenditure-method equation given above, the exports-minus-imports term is necessary in order to null out expenditures on things not produced in the country (imports) and add in things produced but not sold in the country (exports).
Economists (since Keynes) have preferred to split the general consumption term into two parts; private consumption, and public sector (or government) spending. Two advantages of dividing total consumption this way in theoretical macroeconomics are:
• Private consumption is a central concern of welfare economics. The private investment and trade portions of the economy are ultimately directed (in mainstream economic models) to increases in long-term private consumption.
• If separated from endogenous private consumption, government consumption can be treated as exogenous, so that different government spending levels can be considered within a meaningful macroeconomic framework.
This method measures GDP by adding incomes that firms pay households for the factors of production they hire- wages for labor, interest for capital, rent for land and profits for entrepreneurship.
The US "National Income and Expenditure Accounts" divide incomes into five categories:
1. Wages, salaries, and supplementary labour income
2. Corporate profits
3. Interest and miscellaneous investment income
4. Farmers’ income
5. Income from non-farm unincorporated businesses
These five income components sum to net domestic income at factor cost.
Two adjustments must be made to get GDP:
1. Indirect taxes minus subsidies are added to get from factor cost to market prices.
2. Depreciation (or capital consumption) is added to get from net domestic product to gross domestic product.
So if one sector experiences exponential growth and another remains flat, the GDP will suggests overall growth.
What do you think you have proved?
1. Wages, salaries, and supplementary labour income
Look at what is part of the GDP. Guess you missed that one
Part. That's the point.
Wages and salaries include those of the upper income earners as well.
Do you think you have made a point? I can't see it.
I am done, you never will get the point or any point for that matter. Believe what you want.
The real problem is you aren't capable of defending your position. Did you know several of the charts I directed you to DID come from the U.S. government? You didn't want to look at the evidence because you can't fight it.
Take care. I feel your frustration.
The truth will set you free.
I am free, free to see when someone is trying to snow people. I did respond to your post and exposed you charts for what they were and all their sources. There was not one Govermnet souce there as I said. I looked at your evidece and showed it to be false. I do not fight like you want to. I just post the facts, and the fact is you were wrong and used false info to try and back it up. Time for you to move on
Look again, my friend. You have been shown up once again.
You never showed any of the information to be false. You attempted, unsuccessfully because of your poor reading skills, to show that all of the sources came from left leaning sources. That does nothing to prove their accuracy or lack of same. It proves you have an ideological bigotry toward data.
You don't understand what proof is. You can't read very well. You are the perfect right wing victim. You can be trained to believe anything.
BB, All you do is attack when called on the carpet. Nothing new here. Same old practice.
The fact your sources are not credeible goes to the heart of the issue. Just because you post something you believe we all should just accapt it. When we show you were inaccurate, you go into the same attacking tirade. It is so old, its so predictable. But when someone posts a report you do not like, you are on the same attacking tirade. Time for a new gameplan
Charts 6 and 7 cite U.S. bureaus. The Economist is a well known journal.
You can check these out if you want. You blew it. You are making a fool of yourself now, trying to defend your obvious error. Anyone can look up what I'm saying on that website. It's right there. Are you hoping people won't look? You are leaving me speechless. I'm embarrassed for you.
Just admit it and move on. You haven't proved any of the charts to be false. Some are certainly from progressive sources. That fact alone does not disprove the information they contain. Should we say the same about conservative sources? That would be the corollary argument.
Who puts more money back into the economy ? 1 family making 1 million OR 20 families making 50,000? Then maybe out of those 20 families 10 are tradesmen and 4 want to start their own business and need workers. Trickle down is BS.
Maybe we should take all the money and wealth put it in a big pile then divide it up equally then there would be even more "contributed" to society.
For whom do those 20 families making $50,000 work? Could it be the one making $1000000? If so then the one making the million contributes what they are making plus what the others are making by making their jobs possible.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that government actions distort an economy that would run just fine with a minimum of government involvement. Perhaps if government would confine its activities to policing force and fraud then there would be more and more gainful employment.
Check out the state of our economy in the late 1800's to the early 1900's, the period of laissez-faire economic policy from the fed. That was your free market at work, and it led to violent revolution from the underclass and the beginning of federal regulation on industry.
It was a grand time for the working man.
Really, that was your example? I was thinking about the worker's paradise that you would compel upon us.
Your post doesn't show any knowledge of that period, the laissez-faire policies that created it, or the nightmare it became. Read my hub about class warfare. It talks about that period. That was the free market at work, and it was horrifying.
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it, and that is exactly the path we are on.
I am quite aware of the turn of the previous century and the conditions found in American cities. Specifically the conditions in which new immigrants lived and worked. So we are now living in the past? What could you find acceptable from the 1890s? Food purity, water purity? So you would judge everything in 1890 by the standards of 2011? Brilliant.
Read the Hub.
I'm talking about the results of a free market where industry is unregulated and unprincipled. The current climate is trying to recreate this freedom, and the results are already being felt.
We can talk about environmental issues elsewhere.
Why aren't you responding to the issue brought up in my post?
You believe that there is an increase or a threatened increase in freedom for businesses to ride rough shod over their employees and the public in general. I find that claim to be fantastic and inconsistent with reality so what can I say.
I also find it amazing that one equates a free economy with one bent and twisted by corruption in the government. Businesses are barred by law from much of the abuses they engaged in over a century ago. You would put in the hands of regulators authority that should never have been delegated to the administrative branch( a sub set of the Executive as identified by that elitist, racist prig, Woodrow Wilson)
Subjecting business to laws created by the Executive is a clear violation of the Constitution but what the hell it is just a piece of paper. I want a free market not a crazy one. You want a market regulated by a distant centralized authority - we used to call that communism now we call it liberal.
Call it what you will.
It gives you safer food and water, cleaner air (which the Republicans are trying to undo by eliminating the EPA), protection against monopolistic practices. It prevents so many kinds of abuses that you simply take for granted, and the proponents of deregulation would love to unwind.
The business of business is business, and it has no responsibility for the general welfare. That is the job of government, and it is stated in the COTUS. Regulation is how that welfare is protected.
If we had truly free market what would happen to the lobbyists?
Just back up to Uncorrected's reply to me, How did the family making the 1 million get to that point ? Did it fall out of the sky? Or were they or their parents one of the ones making 50,000 at one point?
Since most wealth in America is held by first generation millionaires then it is likely they were part of the $50000 club.
So, 20 families buying food, cars (not German btw) ,homes, insurance, fuel oil.electricity,medical attention,computers,cell phones , clothes ,,,,,,,,you get my point. That millionaire might only have 3 or 4 employees,let the people that will put the money directly back into the local economy get the tax break. Doesn't sleeping on all of that money make your neck hurt?
Apparently you still don't understand from where does that $50k job emerge from the ether? From spontaneous generation? It emerges from the activities of the $1000k. One creates many jobs. Those many jobs create more jobs und so weiter. Without the initial job creation - few people have ever become millionaires sleeping on their money - then the $50k jobs would not exist. It is simple.
" It emerges from the activities of the $1000k. "
What activities? Living better,running a business that still depends on customers.Your argument is flawed at best.
Nice try,the millionaire is not going to wake up and create a job for someone because they got a tax cut.Jobs will get created because the demand for products and services rises, this will require more workers to meet this demand.Who is purchasing the increased goods and services? The 1 millionaire or the 20 pee-ons? The 20 families.
http://novovirtu.com/2010/11/22/the-lie … economics/
It's a myth that wealth creates jobs, no employer pays wages out of capital.
The workers generate the money that pays their wages, the wealthy just take a big slice of that.
What do they do with that money John? Eat it, burn it or circulate it back through an economy?
They sure as hell don't circulate it back through an economy!
Really? I am wondering how that happens? They must be eating currency. I had a dollar bill sandwich the other day, since a dollar is cheaper than a salami. It wasn't very good. I have had pate de foie gras and cavier - they taste much better than currency.
They aren't millionaires because they spend it.That would require they save it wouldn't it ? Are they really helping the economy or hurting it?
What does savings and investment do in an economy? Isn't one way of investing creating jobs? After all don't workers produce excess value and isn't the investor a recipient of that excess value? So what do millionaires do with their money? As money winds its way through an economy it creates more value - it is called a multiplier. So do they hurt an economy?
The wealthy make a great deal of their income in capital gains and dividends, paying a meager 15% before loopholes.
It's the little guy that moves the economy, which is why Bush exorted the public to keep buying, buying, buying after 9/11. Without the worker bees, the whole shell game grinds to a halt.
What do you imagine would happen if all those "rich" people didn't pay capital gains taxes? Would the world end or would there be an increase in investment and savings? From where does capital gains come? Isn't it in job creating investment to start with? Consumption alone does not drive an economy. Just as the activities of the many are necessary so are the activities of the few. This class warfare garbage is worthless.
I just don't understand why liberals hate working people so much that they want to punish them and their employers. Doesn't the $1000k person work? Don't they produce a needed product or service? Don't they create jobs? When they have more money available don't they spend, save or invest it? Doesn't business run on available capital from investment, savings and consumption? Do any of those $50k people make products that are consumed by the $1000k person? Who is a more efficient allocator of resources the individual who is closest to the market or a distant elite? Who has the best, most contemporary information on how resources can be most efficiently used? The business owner, the consumer or the bureaucrat?
Two points, UV.
Companies currently have an enormous amount of available capital that they are sitting on and not investing. When dividends became non-taxable, companies went crazy offering them and not investing in their companies infrastructure, like human resources, when they could take the short term gain. No they don't always make good decisions for the greater good.
Second, the 50k guy may be someone starting out with their own company, not an employee. Start up companies often are extremely modest when they begin, and grow into something substantial. But why do you like to denegrate the 50k'ers? In every society everywhere throughout history, most people are the worker bees. The ruling classes have nothing without them. The only reason they are pooped on is because there are enough of them to make them replaceable. That is why they mold into collectives. The abuse of them is always predictable. One hundred 50k'ers that buy fifty houses create a much bigger firestorm in the economy than one fat cat that buys two or three. Improvements, mortgages, furniture, growing families and on and on all create a huge impact on the economy. One wealthy dude who has his needs primarily taken care of with all the trimmings is not moving the economies needle very significantly. You need those 50k folks, and in big numbers. They are the engine of growth.
Other than the obvious class warfare garbage I do not disagree with some things you offer here. I do not denigrate anyone but those who place their faith in the state. Many small businesses make modest gross profits, so why do Democrats hate them and want to punish them with increased taxes. The $250,000 a year sighted by Barry and Joe as the great cut off point for the RICH would result in punishing people who work very hard and support those worker bees by providing employment. I just don't understand why Democrats hate working people.
As for why business and banks are sitting on TRILLIONS in liquid funds is because Democrats and the name-caller-in-chief - Barrack Obama, are panicking the "animal spirits."
The 250,000 threshold would not impact employment. Income is what is left after all expenses have been paid, and one of those expenses in the case of the small business owner is employee salaries. The only one impacted is the business owner. You are looking at about 7000 dollars difference in after tax income. If that significantly changes your lifestyle when you are making 250,000, you are seriously overextended in your debt.
The business owner making 150,000 would not be affected.
So it is your belief that the STATE has a greater claim to those $7000 hard won dollars than the business owner? Isn't that a sufficient amount to pay for a nice vacation to the Obama devastated Gulf Coast. Isn't $7000 enough to purchase a used car for your 16 year old thereby providing a small car lot a much needed sale? Isn't $7000 a good amount to give to one's church or parochial school or women's shelter or food bank or blood bank? Is the distant, elitist robber baron government better equipped to decide how that $7000 is best employed?
If you recall Barry's campaign the number slid from $250k to $75k. The problem with economic money transfers liberals love is that they eventually run out of other people's money.
Class warfare is the history of our nation. Read my hub on the subject. Class warfare isn't the issue, it's who's winning.
Since Reagan scammed the workers into thinking he had their best interests at heart, the "haves" have had the upper hand. Income distribution has been moving toward them for thirty years, and it is coming to a breaking point. If anyone has been the masters of income distribution, it has been the "haves", and those numbers simply don't lie.
This 30 year experiment has fallen flat on it's face.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo … lie-o.html
My point exactly,why give the wealthy another tax cut when the middle class not only needs it more but will put it back into circulation immediately.
Not taking sides here, but this IS a writers' site.
If someone's writing is consistently filled with typos and grammatical mistakes it does detract from their message.
Like it or not, we are judged by our ability to express our thoughts.
It would not occur to me -- on the natural -- to assume a physical affliction is behind someone's typos.
Thank you for pointing out that possibility, AV.
Not sure what my point is here, so I will shut up now.
Don't worry Mighty Mom, not many in this thread are making sense or a point for that matter.
Not a problem. I am just tired of people who think they know it all and are wrong most of the time. Then attack or correct spelling to cover it up or make it look like they are smarter than you.If you look at someones mis-spelling, you may find the letter that is wrong is next to the letter that would have spelled the word right. But then they try to talk down to you. I truly do not like snobs. Back when I was in the FDNY, I always amazed me when a wealthy persons home had a fire. They always yelled at us, threatened to sue if we damaged something. Can you believe it. Their place is burning and they yell at us. I even had one yell as we were entering the dwelling to wipe our feet!! 1/2 their home was in flames, shooting out the windows, but wanted us to wipe out feet. Unreal.
Maybe I take it to personal, maybe its my frustrations of how things are for me right now. Maybe I should shut up.
I know what you mean about spelling, but is it that important. Read this I found on the internet. I believe you will find it interesting
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty
uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal
pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a
rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't
mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer
be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl
mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.
Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed
ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling
was ipmorantt! tahts so cool!
If you are referring to me, you have yet to have shown where I have been wrong.
On the contrary, I have shown you have been mistaken in your evaluation of the source of charts I presented, and I have yet to have seen your apology for that.
That would be the high road. Admit you blew it and apologize. My respect for you would go up enormously. As it is, I see a poster without the integrity to admit a mistake and instead would rev up the vitriol to cover his silly mistake. Partisan screaming about where the charts came from does not disprove their validity. You have not even attempted to bring any data to the discussion that would contradict them. Thinking that calling them "leftist" would somehow be a confirmation of their lack of accuracy is more damning about your abilities to form an intelligent argument than your writing skills.
I won't mention your writing anymore. It's a real issue, but an obvious one. But your lack of integrity about when you make a very clear error in your criticism will not get a pass. Ever. You're a grownup and will be held to account for what you accuse people of.
Do you think I was referring to you personally, or is it a mold that fits you? Only you can know that.
"As it is, I see a poster without the integrity to admit a mistake and instead would rev up the vitriol to cover his silly mistake"
Now first, I have to admit I could not understand the Vitriol comment. I know it as a strong acid, so I looked it up and found it meant this as well-- abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will. Well I do not think I have shown any abusive or venomous language. Despite the fact we do not agree on some issues I hold no ill will let alone letting it become deep seated( I have more worries with my health issues than to have ill will toward you), and I surely am not censuring you. So I believe you have mis-used the word. But by telling you this means I have to stoop to your level. And I refuse to be that childish.
If you noticed earlier, as I know you did based on your response, I did admit a mistake as I always do and I always Apologize( and if you read my posts in other threads you would have seen I do) like I did to Modern. You were not even involved in that discussion. But you could not resist in jumping in. So how do you act to an apology, you go on an English teacher tirade. There is no other explanation except it was to be Vitriol.(bitter deep-seated ill will) I notice you do the same to other hubbers as well
"Thinking that calling them "leftist" would somehow be a confirmation of their lack of accuracy is more damning about your abilities to form an intelligent argument than your writing skills."
You are right that just calling them leftist does not show their lack of accuracy. But you have to have facts to base what you claim is true, and in the case of these lefties, it was all opinion. Some were rebellious professors, some were think tanks that go out of their way to push the left agenda no matter what they say, and some were just left bloggers pushing their viewpoint. Once more, just because you say it is so, does not make it so. Why is that so hard to understand?
You even admitted it yourself in a backwards way:
"Some are certainly from progressive sources. That fact alone does not disprove the information they contain. Should we say the same about conservative sources?"
Well that fact alone does not make them accurate either. Do I say the same about conservative sources, yes I do. I call out all sources not based on facts. It does not matter to me who provides the source, as long as it is accurate. I have used left and right sources once I do research to confirm there accuracy, just like I did on the sources of the charts. That is why I broke down the charts and posted the response I did. As for the people and organizations in those charts, I found the information mostly in Wikipedia (a source you cite quiet often and did so earlier in this thread) as to who they were and stood for. So my description of them was accurate, not knee jerk reaction as you claim it was.
I have seen you a lot here on the forums. You always strongly oppose someone who appears to be on the right side of the aisle or the post leans that way. That is fine, we all have our opinions. That is why there are Dems, Repubs, And independents like me ( I know we are in the minority, but with the garbage going on we will be growing). Some of you responses are dead on and accurate, some are not.
Like earlier in the thread, you pointed out Phil Gramm’s part in this, you were right. He did play a part in it. But then you posted an article from the times when if you read it, did go along with what Evan was saying. Your source was not a good one. You must have known so, for you did not challenge Evan.
Then DannyMaio was having a discussion with Earnestshub when you intervene and said:
“No Danny, it is you that is very simple” A clear attack not based on facts or the subject at hand. In fact that was the first time you posted to Danny in this thread. It was not about anything but attack. Why is that? It really goes to show your character, who you really are.
And you have the nerve to say I have no integrity.
If you like I will put together a highlight post of your vitriolic statements, but I doubt you really want that.
If you apologized for your error in your reporting on my citation, I certainly missed it. Copy and paste it so I can find it. I didn't see it in this thread.
As for your comment about the progressive slant of my charts, you specifically stated that you had proved them to be worthless and the only evidence you gave was because they were progressive. You didn't acknowledge the two charts that were from the U.S. government, still haven't as far as I know. Your post here is not convincing for me. Sorry. Since others on this thread are agreeing that you have a problem at the keyboard, it seems like you are trying to soften your position and make it sound like you weren't spewing venom. Unless you deleted your posts, the evidence is readily available to all.
Looking forward to seeing that apology that you say you directed toward me. Please do this. I am anxious to apologize if I missed your mea culpa.
First, when it comes to you in this thread, I did not apologize to you, never said I apologized to you, and I have no reason to apologize to you. You posted the false information, not me.Now what I actually said
"I did admit a mistake as I always do and I always Apologize( and if you read my posts in other threads you would have seen I do) like I did to Modern". Actually in review I even apologized to Evan. My point was I admit when I make a mistake. And you responded to my apologizing to Modern. You had nothing to do with that conversation but as I said before, "You were not even involved in that discussion. But you could not resist in jumping in. So how do you act to an apology, you go on an English teacher tirade".
And before you try to drag others into your tirades, you should really read first. See MM made a comment on spelling, but if you would have read the threads instead of jump into you haste, you would have seen MM took it back.
So go ahead, respond and tirade all you want, grade my spelling to your hearts content. If this makes your life happy and content, have at it
by My Esoteric2 years ago
The bottom line of President Reagan's Right-wing endorsed economic policy is that "if you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, it will, 1) Expand the economy, 2) Let the boat rise with the economy, and 3)...
by Mike Russo5 years ago
The next time someone tells you that Obama is destroying the economy, remind them that the stock market and corporate profits are at all-time highs.When they tell you that this hasn't helped them, remind them they've...
by ptosis6 weeks ago
yea or nea? Are you HAPPY! that the richest .01% get less taxes? I mean - they did earn it didn't they?Do they just work harder? Is everybody else just stupid and lazy? Hard work will only get you so far if...
by ledefensetech8 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_ … ma_economyAll I can say is: Oh my God!There's a story that right before the end of World War II Montgomery Ward, the guy who had the department store the same name, close...
by Sooner285 years ago
"To say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall...
by uncorrectedvision6 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.