"Trickle Down Economics" Fails AGAIN

[Zanzibar]

Once again, just like in the late 80s, Trickle-Down causes short-term recovery followed by longer-term disaster. (http://finance.yahoo.com/)

It all traces back to the energy prices. Bill Richardson, as Energy Secretary under Clinton, completely missed the boat on preventing the soaring energy costs that sapped up a significant portion of the disposable income for the middle class, which is what ended the roaring 90s economy.

That was seven years ago. Can't blame Clinton for this one, folks.

In seven years under Bush, the Administration's policy seems to be 'take it in the shorts.' Oil prices at record levels, and no help for the working poor to help control electricity and natural gas prices. Thus, EVEN MORE disposable income isn't disposable anymore.

The energy prices have completely derailed the economy, and the Republicans want you to believe it's not their fault. But it is.

If you give tax breaks to the top earners, that money gets diluted. Some of it goes to offshore investments, thus IMMEDIATELY stopping any potential of helping our economy. More of it goes to investments into businesses that are fighting for - you guessed it - the same dwindling pool of disposable income. It would help if unemployment was HIGH, but it's not, unemployment is currently quite low.

The answer is a shift of the tax burden back onto the top earners, just like it was before Bush took office. Transfer those tax breaks to the middle class and the economy will start moving again.

Any time you argue against the buying power of the consumers, your economy tanks.

Gah. Conservative theories fail AGAIN.

[NSFW]

I'm broke. How does this help/hurt me?

I agree it sucks.

[snubber]

All I know is I feel I can't buy shit even with a decent salary in this economy, and my savings dwindle every month due to a diving stock market. I blame whomever is at fault!

[Rifter]

hmmm... So, you are saying the ABYSMAL economy that Clinton left Bush with... that he then turned around, was a failure?!?! I have to disagree there.

Hell, Reagan pulled our country out of a nasty recession after Carter. For the most part, Daddy Bush left Reagan's policies carry through his term, which Clinton inherited... and started tinkering with. Eight years later, and Bush junior takes over a country falling into recession... and then 9/11 hits... which really put our economy into a nose dive. He cut taxes to everyone, and helped stimulate our economy.

I WILL admit though, if we could get the damn Democrats to drop all the contraints on energy production, we would be in a better position. I can also blame the current administration for not pushing hard enough to start drilling in ANWAR, as well as try to get more nuclear power plants online.

You are quite insane if you try to lay this RIGHT at Bush's feet.

[claws]

What would you suggest they do about the oil prices?

[Vermillion]

What would you suggest they do about the oil prices?

Start a war?

[iHap]

What would you suggest they do about the oil prices?

Search for aliens! :D

[SuicideKing]

Heh so funny how we see things entirely differently. The tax cuts for the rich blather gets me everytime. Ah well, not going to see eye-to-eye on this, so no point engaging in lengthy discussion. Just imagine I quote Rifter, as he's pretty much nailed it. Oil price =supply and demand period. US needs to do more with nuclear and clean coal (we have tons of coal) and finally start drilling in ANWR...

[Terran]

Conservative theories fail AGAIN.

I didn't realize your expertise extended beyond Democratic standard-bearing and into the field of economics!

Thanks for the insights!

[YoungAlCapone]

This will not end well, but I definitely want to see it.

I guarantee that there are some lengthy rebuttals being furiously typed out this very moment.

[Rambilin]

Ah the good old "rising tide raises all ships", voodoo economics or trickle down. In theory it should work great, give a break to big business big business hires more people due to the savings and everyone wins. Too bad it doesn't take corporate greed and ineptitude into consideration. Oh well that is why we have ceteris paribus to fall back on.

[BlackMako85]

I love how top voodoo economists say we're heading toward another recession, when we've yet to recover from the last one.

On a somewhat related note, the day this summer that the DOW broke 14,000, a guy I worked with started on a rant talking about how this is proof to all the naysayers that war leads to a guaranteed economic boom. I said nay then, and I say nay now.

More on topic, I lost respect for the Bush administration and the 2000-2006 Republican congress the day that they cut the capital gains tax while raising the federal student loan rate. I'm a firm believer that the only thing that can change the long-run quality of life of an economy is a change in the rate of growth in technology, and I'll be damned if that's going to increase with the godawful education system we have going now.

[Terran]

I'll be damned if that's going to increase with the godawful education system we have going now.

The more money the federal government pumps into educational loans, the higher educational costs go up, and the larger the student's debt at the end of his/her degree.

Of course, that's real economics, which I doubt we'll see much of in this thread.

[pirateTITAN]

We need more nuclear plants. Never understood why the governments been so wary of them; the damage and potential damage that could be caused by nuclear power pales when compared to the total destruction caused by oil.

Yeah, my simplistic theory. Get more nuclear power plants running.

[BlackMako85]

The more money the federal government pumps into educational loans, the higher educational costs go up, and the larger the student's debt at the end of his/her degree.

Of course, that's real economics, which I doubt we'll see much of in this thread.

First, the problem doesn't begin with post-secondary education. Secondly, you're assuming that the number of students able to receive a college education is fixed and/or that the cost of a college education is linearly dependent or worse on the number of students enrolled in said school. This is not necessarily the case. I'm not going to say "Free college for everyone!" is the end all solution for economic woes, but in the long term a more educated (secondary and earlier included) workforce is able to produce more efficiently than an uneducated workforce, thus improving quality-of-life across the board.

Lastly, don't pull one quote out of my post, then make a assholeish remark about it not being "real" economics.

[JimmyDanger]

I still don't see how -

Tax cuts for higher income earners possibly stimulating economic activity>

Investing in education (a slightly longer term proposition) to create a more skilled workforce that can command a higher market rate internationally for more developed skills/services/products to stimulate economic activity.

[BlackMako85]

I still don't see how -

Tax cuts for higher income earners possibly stimulating economic activity>

It is expected that a high-income earner will invest the money. An increase in overall investment should stimulate an economy through an increase in production and short run booms in technology. However, based on what I've seen/read, upper class and lower class tax cuts have an equal effect on the long-run health of an economy (in most cases); thus causing the situation to turn into a "It's fair to cut the taxes to the people who pay the most vs. Let's help out the lower class" debate.

Personally, I'd rather see a balanced budget before any sort of tax cuts. The increase in the national debt has more of an effect on our economy than it's given credit for amongst the general population.

[Deadend]

What it comes down to... never underestimate the right wing(nuts) capability to BLAME IT ALL ON CLINTON.

[Terran]

Lastly, don't pull one quote out of my post, then make a assholeish remark about it not being "real" economics.

Let me correct that.

See? I fixed it.

Oh...and your economic model is fucked.

[BlackMako85]

Let me correct that.

See? I fixed it.

Oh...and your economic model is fucked.

In your 35 posts, you've done nothing but defend conservative economics, and jump into the futility that is an internet debate on abortion, taking the "ZOMG dead babies" side. Biased much?

Also, notice how my post did not insult your view on economics, merely disagreeing with you? And your only rebuttal is that my view on economics is "fucked"/not "real". Come on, man, at least attempt to not look like a complete conservative jerkoff.

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Come on, man, at least attempt to not look like a complete conservative jerkoff.

Are you saying that all conservatives are jerkoffs, or that he is a jerkoff that happens to be conservative? Because, don't y'know, if you didn't mean to, you did just say that all conservatives are jerkoffs. Now, is it just me, or is that a fucked up generalization--one that makes you a jerkoff--regardless of political affiliation?

Note: What I really want you to do is own up to thinking that all conservatives are jerkoffs. The odds of you doing so are rather low, but if you do, I can likely get a real flame war going. My town is going through a cold spell, see?

[Rambilin]

Of course, that's real economics, which I doubt we'll see much of in this thread.

For simplicities sake use a simple Cobb-Douglas function of F(x1,x2) subject to the restraint of c1x1-c2x2-t(x1+x2)+TC=0 where x is output of a good and c is the cost of producing that good, TC is the total cost and t is the tax rate. Verify the first and second order conditions to verify that this is a well behaved function than show the optimal solution for the function. Afterwards show what a positive and negative change in t has on x1, x2. I'll give you a hint, start by taking the partial derivatives of x1,x2 and the Lagrange multiplier than solve for the Hessian matrix and use Kramer's rule to solve for equilibrium and your changes in t.

Once you solve for this very simple one firm model you can somewhat see why voodoo folks think the way they do.

[BlackMako85]

What it comes down to... never underestimate the right wing(nuts) capability to BLAME IT ALL ON CLINTON.

Yeah, but Clinton fans have no problem taking credit for the economic jump that was the dot com boom. I love the man to death for his balanced budget, I'll be damned if he's going to get credit for that one.

[Karmakin]

The problem is that is true (that cutting from the top results in more production) in an economy where there's a shortage of capital/investment. I don't know how anybody can say that's the case in a situation where all the ratios are way off the charts like they are right now.

But Zanzi has it wrong as well, to be honest. Energy prices were not the cause of the end of the dot-com boom. What happened, is that during the 90's, a lot of that tied up capital got loosened and distributed as actual investment. Most of those companies never made a penny, but they bought fixtures, made use of local services, hired employees paying good wages, etc. Trickle down worked in this case. The thing is that this wasn't triggered by lower taxes, it was triggered by an apparent opportunity.

When it became clear that opportunity was overrated, the tap turned off, and the boom ended.

Taxation focused on increasing "investment", goes into the queue, so to speak. To the back of the line. Until that line is empty (and frankly, that line will NEVER be empty), raising the amount of investment does little to help the economy.

During all other times, business operates according to demand. They produce the number of products that they expect to sell. So if you want to create jobs, you increase that number. A 800 buck rebate, unfortunately, is probably not going to do it, as the personal debt loads are simply staggering.

The personal fundamentals right now are very, very bad. Costs are going up and wages are going down or stagnating. (Average wages ARE increasing, but that's because of the inflation at the top of the food chain in a number of industries).

The problem is that making those fundamentals better is very difficult, and require not short-term stimulus, but long term planning and action. Things such as lowering financial barriers to education (not so much so more people can go, but so that the people that do go are not stuck in debt for long amounts of time), infrastructure projects to create jobs to create upward pressure on wages, health care reform, energy reform, etc.

The problem is that the economy is one of those problems that is so big that when you start to think of the enormity of it all, brains start to shut down.

[BlackMako85]

Are you saying that all conservatives are jerkoffs, or that he is a jerkoff that happens to be conservative? Because, don't y'know, if you didn't mean to, you did just say that all conservatives are jerkoffs. Now, is it just me, or is that a fucked up generalization--one that makes you a jerkoff--regardless of political affiliation?

I still don't think that me calling one dude a conservative jerkoff insinuates that I think all conservatives are jerkoffs. Given that I am often prone to errors in my ability to get my thoughts onto paper, I apologize for any possible misinterpretations. I smell flamebait, but I don't really care. I don't picture this thread going any further than it already has.

[Vermillion]

The problem is that is true (that cutting from the top results in more production) in an economy where there's a shortage of capital/investment. I don't know how anybody can say that's the case in a situation where all the ratios are way off the charts like they are right now.

But Zanzi has it wrong as well, to be honest. Energy prices were not the cause of the end of the dot-com boom. What happened, is that during the 90's, a lot of that tied up capital got loosened and distributed as actual investment. Most of those companies never made a penny, but they bought fixtures, made use of local services, hired employees paying good wages, etc. Trickle down worked in this case. The thing is that this wasn't triggered by lower taxes, it was triggered by an apparent opportunity.

When it became clear that opportunity was overrated, the tap turned off, and the boom ended.

Taxation focused on increasing "investment", goes into the queue, so to speak. To the back of the line. Until that line is empty (and frankly, that line will NEVER be empty), raising the amount of investment does little to help the economy.

During all other times, business operates according to demand. They produce the number of products that they expect to sell. So if you want to create jobs, you increase that number. A 800 buck rebate, unfortunately, is probably not going to do it, as the personal debt loads are simply staggering.

The personal fundamentals right now are very, very bad. Costs are going up and wages are going down or stagnating. (Average wages ARE increasing, but that's because of the inflation at the top of the food chain in a number of industries).

The problem is that making those fundamentals better is very difficult, and require not short-term stimulus, but long term planning and action. Things such as lowering financial barriers to education (not so much so more people can go, but so that the people that do go are not stuck in debt for long amounts of time), infrastructure projects to create jobs to create upward pressure on wages, health care reform, energy reform, etc.

The problem is that the economy is one of those problems that is so big that when you start to think of the enormity of it all, brains start to shut down.


All I see is 'blah blah blah, facts facts facts, blah blah blah'. Dude, you are never going to get your point across unless you can remove all your punctuation (except !), capitalize every other word and call someone a momar. This is the freaking internet.

So your post should read:

".COM was total LOLERCOPTER. My pay suxor and I gotz freaking retarded billz. Bush (total warmonger fuxor) thinks 800 bones is gonna fix that. LOL. WE IS SCREWD!!!111!1!!"

[BlackMako85]

All I see is 'blah blah blah, facts facts facts, blah blah blah'. Dude, you are never going to get your point across unless you can remove all your punctuation (except !), capitalize every other word and call someone a momar. This is the freaking internet.

So your post should read:

".COM was total LOLERCOPTER. My pay suxor and I gotz freaking retarded billz. Bush (total warmonger fag) thinks 800 bones is gonna fix that. LOL. WE IS SCREWD!!!111!1!!"

The funny thing is, you trying to dumb down your post couldn't get it to the levels of stupid seen on the majority of the internet. :D

[Vermillion]

The funny thing is, you trying to dumb down your post couldn't get it to the levels of stupid seen on the majority of the internet. :D

You know, I take that statement as a true compliment. Thank you very much :)

[BlackMako85]

You know, I take that statement as a true compliment. Thank you very much :)

I demand it be sigged!

[Vermillion]

Done and done good sir.

[Terran]

In your 35 posts

Nothing better to do than post-history-surf?

Man...it's bad enough to post on a forum. Reading post histories? Try the soaps, as they're the equivalent of most forum threads/posts here and elsewhere.

[BlackMako85]

Done and done good sir.

Hot damn, I should make friendly remarks more often.

Nothing better to do than post-history-surf?

Man...it's bad enough to post on a forum. Reading post histories? Try the soaps, as they're the equivalent of most forum threads/posts here and elsewhere.

No. I read two threads.

Alright, this thread has outlived its usefulness to me. I've got some xboxing to do.

[MJBuddy]

Big discussion today regarding this blamed the removal of the gold standard and Nixon's removal of the international gold standard primarily as the cause of our economic woes.

The removal of these aspect basically gave the gov't a liscence to....print money, creating funtime inflation boom.

How to get back on a gold standard? I dunno. That'll take a lot of work to figure out, pure and simple.

And by pure and simple I mean INCREDIBLY FUCKING COMPLICATED.

Your small thread doesn't begin to touch the years of discussion it would take to simply figure out the exact way we approached our current situation or how to correctly adapt to it.

Trickle down economy has almost nil to do with it, however. The topic never even came up, except for the fact that historically Reagan held off a recession with it, but the gov't kept it's expenditures even higher as a result of the upturn, basically offsetting it.


Edit: BTW, semi-brag. The professor running the discussion, and the head of our economic department, was just made Ron Paul's economic advisor.

[BlackMako85]

Big discussion today regarding this blamed the removal of the gold standard and Nixon's removal of the international gold standard primarily as the cause of our economic woes.

The removal of these aspect basically gave the gov't a liscence to....print money, creating funtime inflation boom.

How to get back on a gold standard? I dunno. That'll take a lot of work to figure out, pure and simple.

And by pure and simple I mean INCREDIBLY FUCKING COMPLICATED.

Your small thread doesn't begin to touch the years of discussion it would take to simply figure out the exact way we approached our current situation or how to correctly adapt to it.

Trickle down economy has almost nil to do with it, however. The topic never even came up, except for the fact that historically Reagan held off a recession with it, but the gov't kept it's expenditures even higher as a result of the upturn, basically offsetting it.


Edit: BTW, semi-brag. The professor running the discussion, and the head of our economic department, was just made Ron Paul's economic advisor.

What school is this, if you don't mind me asking?

[jwbxx]

The oil deregulation act in 1998 introduced rampant speculation in the oil futures markets. Oil should be nowhere near 90 dollars a barrel if anything it should be priced around 60-65 bucks a barrel.

The presidents economic stimulus plan is a token measure to keep the mobb at bay. A tax cut will do little in this situation. It might help the ones at top so they can buy another bentley or whatever, but in the long run it will just create more deficits. I mean shit we're fighting two expensive losing campaigns in the middle east. We need every dime of tax revenue we can get our hands on.

I say before we start cutting taxes and lowering interest rates. We must assess what is going wrong with our current economic strategy. After that if I had to cut any taxes. I would focus on the middle class and poor.

The middle class and poor are the most susceptible to inflation, layoffs, high energy prices etc etc. And considering their consumption drives our economy, I think it's about time they receive some tax relief.

[Dr.Finger]

It all traces back to the energy prices. Bill Richardson, as Energy Secretary under Clinton, completely missed the boat on preventing the soaring energy costs that sapped up a significant portion of the disposable income for the middle class, which is what ended the roaring 90s economy.

That was seven years ago. Can't blame Clinton for this one, folks.

In seven years under Bush, the Administration's policy seems to be 'take it in the shorts.' Oil prices at record levels, and no help for the working poor to help control electricity and natural gas prices. Thus, EVEN MORE disposable income isn't disposable anymore.

The energy prices have completely derailed the economy, and the Republicans want you to believe it's not their fault. But it is.
Do you support drilling in ANWR?
Do you support drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
Do you support building 20 new power plants in the US?
Do you support building 20 new oil refineries in the US?

Unless you answer yes to all of those then nothing significant can be done about energy prices. Yes, the decision to push corn ethanol was a bad one, but other than that, and the things I mentioned, what can we do? Instituting price controls for energy and/or fuel will only result in rolling blackouts like California suffered through earlier this decade (all but the last 2-3 months occurred under Clinton's watch in a Democrat controlled state). We don't cont

People want cheap energy, but won't let anything be done to further that goal. The result? $4/gal gasoline, 100% increase in home heating oil. You want cheaper energy? Institute the four bullet points I outlined and you'll see a huge drop within a few years.

[Vermillion]

Do you support building 20 new power plants, one of which is near your neighboorhood?
Do you support building 20 new oil refineries, one of which is near your neighboorhood


Most people would say yes to the way you phrased it, but will hesitate with the above change. People want cheap energy, unless it affects them directly. I would not want a power plant near my home, as that would decrease my home value in a way that it would be difficult to make up with the decrease in the cost from the increased production.

You give me a fairly inexpensive and efficent solar alternative, and I'll have that bitch on my roof in a week.

[Banacek]

For the record, Terran is Johan being a douche.

Besides that, what we need to be doing is researching any and all means to get off our dependence of oil. That has to be our number one priority. Just think of all the issues it would resolve. I doubt we will though until it is too late.

[Johan]

For the record, Terran is Johan being a douche.

Kissy kissy? Why would I need an alter-ego to be a douche? :confused:

[MJBuddy]

What school is this, if you don't mind me asking?

Loyola University New Orleans.

[BlackMako85]

For the record, Terran is Johan being a douche.

You know, that thought crossed my mind. He seemed oddly absent in threads today, and those posts almost fit his style, minus a bunch of smiley faces and with significantly more douchebaggery.

[Banacek]

Kissy kissy? Why would I need an alter-ego to be a douche? :confused:

haha, you ninja edited your post. Oh well.

[Johan]

haha, you ninja edited your post. Oh well.

:D

You guys are good. I'll give you that.

I got busted. Dammit. :(

[Dr.Finger]

Most people would say yes to the way you phrased it, but will hesitate with the above change. People want cheap energy, unless it affects them directly. I would not want a power plant near my home, as that would decrease my home value in a way that it would be difficult to make up with the decrease in the cost from the increased production.

You give me a fairly inexpensive and efficent solar alternative, and I'll have that bitch on my roof in a week.Oh, I know. I'm convinced the whole Hydrogen fuel cell thing for cars is designed solely to get pollution out of places like Great Neck, Malibu and Silver Springs even if other places are inundated.

As for solar power. You should get a refund for putting solar panels on your residential property. That could make a huge difference.

I really have to write up my energy policy one of these days. It would change the world.

[BlackMako85]

You guys are good. I'll give you that.

I'd rather it didn't happen. All this is going to cause me to think my inductive reasoning is correct more often, which only leads to paranoia. Don't ask how, it just happens.

[Karmakin]

Oh, I know. I'm convinced the whole Hydrogen fuel cell thing for cars is designed solely to get pollution out of places like Great Neck, Malibu and Silver Springs even if other places are inundated.

As for solar power. You should get a refund for putting solar panels on your residential property. That could make a huge difference.

I really have to write up my energy policy one of these days. It would change the world.

Massive R&D dollars designed around getting the cost of creating affordable, effective solar panels, then once the technology is out there, getting them as many places as you possibly can. Like..on top of every roof. In the country..well..in the world really.

Not only will it help the environment, but it'll create a lot of jobs.

[MacD]

For simplicities sake use a simple Cobb-Douglas function of F(x1,x2) subject to the restraint of c1x1-c2x2-t(x1+x2)+TC=0 where x is output of a good and c is the cost of producing that good, TC is the total cost and t is the tax rate. Verify the first and second order conditions to verify that this is a well behaved function than show the optimal solution for the function. Afterwards show what a positive and negative change in t has on x1, x2. I'll give you a hint, start by taking the partial derivatives of x1,x2 and the Lagrange multiplier than solve for the Hessian matrix and use Kramer's rule to solve for equilibrium and your changes in t.

Once you solve for this very simple one firm model you can somewhat see why voodoo folks think the way they do.

Your notation could use some work: is x ever a multiplier there? Shouldn't you subscript to differentiate between x1 and x times one (or even c1 times 1 or c1 times x1)? And is your optimum a maximum or a minimum here (minimum I guess)? Also, what is F(x1,x2)....it helps to actually have an equation (e^x and x^c will solve VERY differently!).

As for Cramer's rule (I take it you mean that one), I prefer Gaussian elimination. Much faster on the back of an envelope.

Also, as a physicist in training, the use of 't' really fucks me up...small 't' is for time! :P

Also, it's such a shame that x1 and x2 are actually x1(o) and x2(o2), where 0 and o2 are variable costs of interlinked resources. Not only that, but x1(o) and x2(o2) are by definition linked to taxation. Seperating the t is just...obfusciation. Boundary conditions look more like x1(o)+x2(o2)=TC, with 0=(costs+t).

Anyway, the set you gave is pretty irrelevant to voodoo economics in reality: where is the correlation/term distinguishing between high income/low income? That distinction has to be made if 'trickle down economics' is to be discussed. Cost of production+taxes....that's just universal and makes no difference between rich/poor or whatever!

The real, basic fact of why 'trickle down economics' doesn't work is simple: money is an imaginary construct. The rich invest to make more money. They do this by investing their money in schemes run by other rich people. The 'value added' is not just fictional, but is kept within the rich crowd: put simply, the rich invest in schemes which are only accessible to rich people. The money is kept in circulation between rich people and does not trickle down. It's the (enfettered) capitalism engame.

[BlackMako85]

Massive R&D dollars designed around getting the cost of creating affordable, effective solar panels, then once the technology is out there, getting them as many places as you possibly can. Like..on top of every roof. In the country..well..in the world really.

Not only will it help the environment, but it'll create a lot of jobs.

Nevada + Superconductors = Victory. The only problem is keeping the lines cool enough, but hopefully the solar panels will provide enough energy to do so.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

In your 35 posts, you've done nothing but defend conservative economics, and jump into the futility that is an internet debate on abortion, taking the "ZOMG dead babies" side. Biased much?

Also, notice how my post did not insult your view on economics, merely disagreeing with you? And your only rebuttal is that my view on economics is "fucked"/not "real". Come on, man, at least attempt to not look like a complete conservative jerkoff.

Haven't you ever watched Fox News? That's exactly how many right-wing pundits behave.

"Don't agree with me? I'll mock you and take everything you say out of context while being a total asshat!"

[mister_slim]

Haven't you ever watched Fox News? That's exactly how many right-wing pundits behave.

"Don't agree with me? I'll mock you and take everything you say out of context while being a total asshat!"

A commie troop-hating liberal homosexual would say that.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Oh, I know. I'm convinced the whole Hydrogen fuel cell thing for cars is designed solely to get pollution out of places like Great Neck, Malibu and Silver Springs even if other places are inundated.

As for solar power. You should get a refund for putting solar panels on your residential property. That could make a huge difference.

I really have to write up my energy policy one of these days. It would change the world.


The whole hydrogen fuel thing smells really fishy to me. It seems like another tactic the auto industry can use to say "HEY LOOK, we're helping fix the problem!" while actually not doing anything. They did the same thing with electric cars at the beginning of the decade.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

A commie troop-hating liberal homosexual would say that.




I prefer 'pinkie terrorist leftwing faggot', thank you very much.


*Puts on his hammer & sickle short-shorts*

[BlackMako85]

Also, as a physicist in training, the use of 't' really fucks me up...small 't' is for time! :P

In all of my EE classes, since 'i' is used for current, we use 'j' for the imaginary number. I confused the hell out of one of my Math department TAs one semester. Damn inconsistent variables!

't' is time in my book. You're among friends.

[mister_slim]

I prefer 'pinkie terrorist leftwing faggot', thank you very much.


*Puts on his hammer & sickle short-shorts*

So I erred on the side of political correctness. You know how the mods have been lately. Those fascists.

[Schnoogs]

Conservative theories fail AGAIN.

Yeah...where as left wing ones like socialism and communism have been a roaring success. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Johan]

Yeah...where as left wing ones like socialism and communism have been a roaring success. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well...to be fair, he left that out! ;)

I mean, you wouldn't want him to pull back the curtains to reveal the stump that remains of the socialist/communist economic "tree" would you? :)

[Magnanimous Gnome]

So I erred on the side of political correctness. You know how the mods have been lately. Those fascists.


Eh, I haven't let that stop me. I'm ramping up my personal attacks. I will not be held down by the man! :mad:

Well I guess that depends on the man....ba dum pssh



Well...to be fair, he left that out! ;)

I mean, you wouldn't want him to pull back the curtains to reveal the stump that remains of the socialist/communist economic "tree" would you? :)


Actually, we've got a midget in the back spraying it down with Miracle Grow. ;)

[dotbomb]

I say lower the tax burden on all Americans but cutting federal spending. Name me a single president that has done that.

[dotbomb]

Oh and this thread is officially won...

http://i28.tinypic.com/zntoit.jpg

[Lord_Don]

Why would I need an alter-ego to be a douche? :confused:

Now that's sig-worthy.

[BlackMako85]

Oh and this thread is officially won...

http://i28.tinypic.com/zntoit.jpg

I vote me typing "conservative jerkoff" into the thread is what pulled that add up.

[Paltry]

Remember kids, voting is for dummies! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail)

[Johan]

Now that's sig-worthy.

LOL!

I squeeze sigs out like a rat drops turds. :D

[OrangePulp]

As far as solar power goes, you guys should check out Nanosolar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar), and some of the other upcoming thin-film solar cell production companies. The process results in solar cells that have less yield than traditional cells, but are much cheaper, and don't need heavy glass panels. Could see a big increase in solar energy production.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I still don't see how -

Tax cuts for higher income earners possibly stimulating economic activity>

Investing in education (a slightly longer term proposition) to create a more skilled workforce that can command a higher market rate internationally for more developed skills/services/products to stimulate economic activity.

Because just throwing dollars at schools doesn't fix the problem. Schools aren't failing because of lack of funds, but because students don't care.

What we need is programs that encourage parents to go to friggin' PTA meetings.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Nothing better to do than post-history-surf?

Man...it's bad enough to post on a forum. Reading post histories? Try the soaps, as they're the equivalent of most forum threads/posts here and elsewhere.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

This is bad posting. Right here. I didn't even have to dig into your post history to find it.

[Johan]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

This is bad posting. Right here. I didn't even have to dig into your post history to find it.

LOL! :D

Oh, I mean...BOOOOOO!

[Inverarity]

I say lower the tax burden on all Americans but cutting federal spending. Name me a single president that has done that.
Well, federal spending declined during the Clinton administration (expressed either as per capita spending or as a percent of GDP), particularly after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. It's one of the factors that balanced the budget and provided the surplus of the mid-to-late 90s.

I'd be in favor of broad tax cuts only if spending cuts are used to generate a sustainable surplus first, and even then I'd want the cuts to be gradual and conservative. We've already seen what can happen when events suddenly change and wipe out a 'safe' surplus.

[Banacek]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

This is bad posting. Right here. I didn't even have to dig into your post history to find it.

Someone didn't read the whole thread. :D

[MJBuddy]

Well, federal spending declined during the Clinton administration (expressed either as per capita spending or as a percent of GDP), particularly after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. It's one of the factors that balanced the budget and provided the surplus of the mid-to-late 90s.

I'd be in favor of broad tax cuts only if spending cuts are used to generate a sustainable surplus first, and even then I'd want the cuts to be gradual and conservative. We've already seen what can happen when events suddenly change and wipe out a 'safe' surplus.

Want to cut federal spending? Cut welfare and social security then cut the taxes. That would do 50000000x the benefit of income reallocations that Clinton accomplished.

Admitted, cutting spending is huge, but it was Reagan's cuts mixed with Clinton's lack of spending that made it work, as Clinton was kind've an ignorant fool when it came to economics.

[Inverarity]

Admitted, cutting spending is huge, but it was Reagan's cuts mixed with Clinton's lack of spending that made it work, as Clinton was kind've an ignorant fool when it came to economics.
Nothing unusual there; most presidents have been. They're generally at the mercy of their advisers when it comes to the nuts and bolts of economics, and I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. I wouldn't credit Reagan with any greater innate understanding of economics than Clinton, though- he just had a different philosophy of government, different overall goals, and different advisers.

[Beelzebud]

hmmm... So, you are saying the ABYSMAL economy that Clinton left Bush with... that he then turned around, was a failure?!?! I have to disagree there.

Hell, Reagan pulled our country out of a nasty recession after Carter. For the most part, Daddy Bush left Reagan's policies carry through his term, which Clinton inherited... and started tinkering with. Eight years later, and Bush junior takes over a country falling into recession... and then 9/11 hits... which really put our economy into a nose dive. He cut taxes to everyone, and helped stimulate our economy.

I WILL admit though, if we could get the damn Democrats to drop all the contraints on energy production, we would be in a better position. I can also blame the current administration for not pushing hard enough to start drilling in ANWAR, as well as try to get more nuclear power plants online.

You are quite insane if you try to lay this RIGHT at Bush's feet.

The oldest shell game in right-wing politics.

When a Democrat is in charge, and the economy is doing great, credit the Republican that came before him.

When a Republican is in charge, and the economy is performing like shit, blame the Democrat that came before him.

Fortunately many people are seeing that type of BS for what it is.

One thing is certain. Being a Republican means never having to say you're wrong.

[MJBuddy]

The oldest shell game in right-wing politics.

When a Democrat is in charge, and the economy is doing great, credit the Republican that came before him.

When a Republican is in charge, and the economy is performing like shit, blame the Democrat that came before him.

Fortunately many people are seeing that type of BS for what it is.

One thing is certain. Being a Republican means never having to say you're wrong.

Slight example of your ignorance on the particular topic:

Our current recession's primary cause is something President Roosevelt did. Economy is not a "I did someone on monday and friday the world was fixed!" science. The people that see the "BS that it is" are idiots. Sadly you're too right that many people are starting to think that way.

[Beelzebud]

Slight example of your ignorance on the particular topic:

Our current recession's primary cause is something President Roosevelt did. Economy is not a "I did someone on monday and friday the world was fixed!" science. The people that see the "BS that it is" are idiots. Sadly you're too right that many people are starting to think that way.

Oh so it's Roosevelt's fault that sub-prime lenders were giving people mortgages that they knew wouldn't be able to afford them?

I think the fact that we're funding the war in Iraq on money borrowed from China, causing our dollar's value to plummet, and the sub-prime mortgage fiasco is to blame.

But hey lets blame FDR. He was probably a commie!

[LongStepMantis]

I don't know shit about economics.

All I know is my bills are higher than ever, my take-home pay isn't even making a dent in my debt, and it looks like it will only get worse. FUCK!

Seriously, when are we gonna just storm Washington and start distributing pikes for heads to be placed on? I'll rent a bus and pick anyone up who wants to go when it happens. We can have an EvAv politician slaying party.
Punch and pie will be distributed.

[Ancalagon]

hmmm... So, you are saying the ABYSMAL economy that Clinton left Bush with... that he then turned around, was a failure?!?! I have to disagree there.

Hell, Reagan pulled our country out of a nasty recession after Carter. For the most part, Daddy Bush left Reagan's policies carry through his term, which Clinton inherited... and started tinkering with. Eight years later, and Bush junior takes over a country falling into recession... and then 9/11 hits... which really put our economy into a nose dive. He cut taxes to everyone, and helped stimulate our economy.

I WILL admit though, if we could get the damn Democrats to drop all the contraints on energy production, we would be in a better position. I can also blame the current administration for not pushing hard enough to start drilling in ANWAR, as well as try to get more nuclear power plants online.

You are quite insane if you try to lay this RIGHT at Bush's feet.

Surely spending lots of money on a war (whether the war is justified or not) is going to cause your economy problems? I understand that Bush's cronies have benefitted through contracting anyway, and thus it seems most of the money stayed in American hands, but still, its got to have some effect on the government itself.

[Johan]

One thing is certain. Being a Republican means never having to say you're wrong.

Assuming (logically, as per your implication here) that you are a liberal/democrat, this statement is hugely ironic! :D

One thing is CERTAIN! I, the democrat, have spoken the TRUTH! :D

I don't know shit about economics.

Pull up a chair! You'll fit right into our happy little club! ;)

[MJBuddy]

Oh so it's Roosevelt's fault that sub-prime lenders were giving people mortgages that they knew wouldn't be able to afford them?

I think the fact that we're funding the war in Iraq on money borrowed from China, causing our dollar's value to plummet, and the sub-prime mortgage fiasco is to blame.

But hey lets blame FDR. He was probably a commie!

He did take us off the gold standard and then make it illegal to own gold.


Which caused the inflation of the dollar.


Which in turn has led to the mis allocation of economic plans.


Which has, finally, caused this recession.


Over lending obviously is a cause, but it falls in the time line of problems caused by the overinflation of the dollar. I'm not personally attacking FDR, so pull the stick out of your ass; he did what he did, and answers for it. I'm not spinning anything to make him look bad, I'm simply stating that our problems today are caused by mistakes from before we were born.

[MJBuddy]

Assuming (logically, as per your implication here) that you are a liberal/democrat, this statement is hugely ironic! :D

One thing is CERTAIN! I, the democrat, have spoken the TRUTH! :D



Pull up a chair! You'll fit right into our happy little club! ;)

I like Johan's posts. Every time I refresh he adds more. It's like "Johan: The Extended Edition"

[Chrome Dome]

The answer is a shift of the tax burden back onto the top earners, just like it was before Bush took office. Transfer those tax breaks to the middle class and the economy will start moving again.

Any time you argue against the buying power of the consumers, your economy tanks.

Gah. Conservative theories fail AGAIN.

There is a really interesting section in Freakonomics about tax evasion. I don't recall the figures and I loaned my book out to someone else but I'll try to remember the jist of it. Everyone complains about audits from the IRS but relatively few are ever audited. If there were more audits of the self employed and small business owners the increase in tax revenue would cover almost the entire US budget deficit for the year. I'm not a huge fan of taxes but I pay mine like everyone else who works for an entity that reports their income. But there are douche bags out there who use resources provided by the government but avoid paying their share. We really do need more audits but what politician is going to put that on their platform?

[Beelzebud]

He did take us off the gold standard and then make it illegal to own gold.


Which caused the inflation of the dollar.


Which in turn has led to the mis allocation of economic plans.


Which has, finally, caused this recession.


Over lending obviously is a cause, but it falls in the time line of problems caused by the overinflation of the dollar. I'm not personally attacking FDR, so pull the stick out of your ass; he did what he did, and answers for it. I'm not spinning anything to make him look bad, I'm simply stating that our problems today are caused by mistakes from before we were born.

You left Nixon out of the equation, he helped get rid of gold too.

And thats a good thing. The gold standard was fine in a pre-industrial revolution economy, but wouldn't protect us at all today. If we had the gold standard right now, we'd probably be facing another depression.

The trillions we're wasting in Iraq has far more to do with our current financial climate, than the gold standard.

The only ones who want the return of the gold standard are the ones that also want America to be as it was in the late 1800's (Ron Paul I'm looking at you).

[MJBuddy]

Read earlier in this thread, I thought I took my shot at Nixon.

So is inflation protecting us?

Governments taking loans to "stimulate" economy and printing more money is protection?

Question: You support returning the country’s currency back to the gold standard. Is that correct?

Ron Paul: Not exactly. I’m for supporting the Constitution, and the Constitution still says only gold and silver can be legal tender. … The reasons I don’t like to say "go back" is because there were shortcomings in the original gold standard. What I reject, and the founders totally rejected, was a paper standard - creating money out of thin air. Spending money you don’t have. Printing it up. Causing inflation. Causing bubbles. Causing recessions. And wiping out the middle class. The middle class is getting poorer as the wealthy class is getting wealthier.

[Zanzibar]

Admitted, cutting spending is huge, but it was Reagan's cuts mixed with Clinton's lack of spending that made it work, as Clinton was kind've an ignorant fool when it came to economics.
Oh, come ON. Clinton enacted budgets that raised taxes on the top earners and cut taxes on the working poor. The result? Balanced budgets and the most powerful economy IN RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY.

Any time you put economic recovery in the hands of the middle class, the economy roars into action. Any time you put recovery in the hands of the top earners, the economy fakes you out by resembling recovery, followed closely by collapsing.

It's as simple as that. The buying power of 200 million Americans is what turned around the economy in the 90s. Perhaps it was on its way to recovery already, but it was the further expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit that really helped the economy go insane.

I'm gonna cut and paste something I've had on-hand for several years, and posted from time to time:

Do you know what caused the 90s boom? Clinton's targeted tax relief to the inner cities. Lowered the taxes on the middle class and working poor put money into the hands of those WHO WOULD SPEND THAT MONEY LOCALLY.

Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit put tax relief into the hands of the working poor, who saw their disposable income increase. They then SPENT that money in their local areas, thus everyone from the local mom and pop stores all the way to Wal-Mart (and thus the MANUFACTURERS) saw their profits increase.

Bush's plans of putting more money into the wealthiest Americans' hands does NO GOOD. The working poor and the middle class have seen their energy costs go up an average of over $400 yearly. That money comes STRAIGHT OUT of the disposable income, thus people have less money to buy luxury items (PCs etc) that was the backbone of the Clinton economy.

If the wealthiest Americans get more money, how does it affect the US economy? That money DOES NOT GO INTO POOR AREAS that need economic relief. The wealthiest Americans HAVE NOT BEEN AFFECTED by the energy prices to ANYWHERE NEAR the same extent that the working poor have. They still HAVE gobs of disposable income. Would you rather have 1 person have an extra $1,000,000 in disposable income in a rich area(that they won't spend), or would you rather have 1,000 people with $1000 to spend in poor areas?

'Fine,' you say, 'the wealthy will invest that money.' But where will they invest it? In new companies that will fight with existing companies for - YOU GUESSED IT - the SAME DWINDLING POOL OF DISPOSABLE INCOME.

That's like throwing more sharks into a swimming pool of fish that is already teeming with sharks. Soon the fish will dry up, leaving all these hungry sharks to feed off each other and die.

That, or they invest the money overseas, which takes it out of our economy altogether. What good is that money going to do the US economy when it's not able to be spent?

Clinton's economy was tailor-made to fix the ills of the Reagan/Bush years, where nobody gave a rat's a$$ about the working poor. Now we are returning to those days, and the American people who provide the backbone of this economy are suffering because of it.

[MJBuddy]

Oh, come ON. Clinton enacted budgets that raised taxes on the top earners and cut taxes on the working poor. The result? Balanced budgets and the most powerful economy IN RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY.

Any time you put economic recovery in the hands of the middle class, the economy roars into action. Any time you put recovery in the hands of the top earners, the economy fakes you out by resembling recovery, followed closely by collapsing.

It's as simple as that. The buying power of 200 million Americans is what turned around the economy in the 90s. Perhaps it was on its way to recovery already, but it was the further expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit that really helped the economy go insane.

I'm gonna cut and paste something I've had on-hand for several years, and posted from time to time:

There is NO basis for this, I'm sorry. You cut and pasted without source, without evidence, without basic principles. Fuck, the arguments you make are contrary to all evidence already explained in this thread. American consumers are living FAR above their means, meaning they still ARE buying PCs and sacrificing by going into debt.

The lack of spending is what created the surplus, not tax reforms. The tax reforms put us in a recession by the end of Clinton's term, most likely.

[Zanzibar]

MJ, why is the current plan of the 'stimulus package' to give a bunch of money to everyone so they can spend it?

[Zanzibar]

Here's a few quotes on how Clinton's 1993 budget helped out:

Experts Agree That President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan Helped Cut the Deficit, Lower Interest Rates, Spur Business Investment, and Strengthen the Economy. The economy and the budget are now working in a virtuous circle -- lower deficits have led to lower interest rates which have led to faster business investment which led to faster growth which led to even lower deficits. Experts agree that the President's 1993 Economic Plan helped create this virtuous circle.

· Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President's 1993 Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter."

· Business Week, 5/19/97: "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."

· Goldman Sachs, March 1998: One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for "the best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."

· U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: "President Clinton's budget deficit program begun in 1993... [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency."

· Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that... and I think we're seeing some benefits."

You can laugh at the source, since it's a Clinton/Gore White House site, but here's (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/Budget2000/surplus.html) where I found this info. Doesn't change the fact that these people said it.

[MJBuddy]

Here's a few quotes on how Clinton's 1993 budget helped out:

Experts Agree That President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan Helped Cut the Deficit, Lower Interest Rates, Spur Business Investment, and Strengthen the Economy. The economy and the budget are now working in a virtuous circle -- lower deficits have led to lower interest rates which have led to faster business investment which led to faster growth which led to even lower deficits. Experts agree that the President's 1993 Economic Plan helped create this virtuous circle.

· Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President's 1993 Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter."

· Business Week, 5/19/97: "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."

· Goldman Sachs, March 1998: One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for "the best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."

· U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: "President Clinton's budget deficit program begun in 1993... [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency."

· Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that... and I think we're seeing some benefits."

You can laugh at the source, since it's a Clinton/Gore White House site, but here's (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/Budget2000/surplus.html) where I found this info. Doesn't change the fact that these people said it.

Why are you attacking me on what I've already agreed with? Clinton's era was prosperous, because of his budget cuts. LACK OF FEDERAL SPENDING COMPLIMENTED PREVIOUS TAX CUTS.

It's like I'm speaking bipartisan english and all you hear is stupid right wing garbage. I don't really know what to tell you: Planets aligned and shit went right for 6 years then undid themselves as a result of a flaw that existed previous to all parties involved which was overlooked - the fact that we PRINT MONEY, then SPEND it, then perceive value from what we have created on the basis that *we created it*.

[Ancalagon]

Why are you attacking me on what I've already agreed with? Clinton's era was prosperous, because of his budget cuts. LACK OF FEDERAL SPENDING COMPLIMENTED PREVIOUS TAX CUTS.

It's like I'm speaking bipartisan english and all you hear is stupid right wing garbage. I don't really know what to tell you: Planets aligned and shit went right for 6 years then undid themselves as a result of a flaw that existed previous to all parties involved which was overlooked - the fact that we PRINT MONEY, then SPEND it, then perceive value from what we have created on the basis that *we created it*.

In all the examples cited in the post above by Zanzibar, do you think by the President's 1993 Economic Plan could possibly have referred to tax reforms as well as budget cuts? Do you not think that the seemingly unquestioned appraisal of his economic plan includes the tax reforms?

The lack of spending is what created the surplus, not tax reforms. The tax reforms put us in a recession by the end of Clinton's term, most likely.

Read my paragraph above, see if it makes sense.

Oh wait I must be a commie liberal.

[Zanzibar]

Well, don't move the goalposts then.

You claimed the tax reforms 'put us into recession by the end of Clinton's term,' then you claim that the tax cuts were complemented by spending cutbacks to reduce the deficit. The fact that revenue INCREASED because of the raising of taxes on the top earners doesn't help, eh?

The truth is, those CEOs that paid more taxes reaped the benefits of their companies doing better, so in the long run, they made out just fine. Bush's tax cuts for the top earners probably did more harm than good to the US economy than if he had focused the same amount of revenue towards the lower and middle classes. THOSE are the people who were crushed by the rising energy costs.

[LongStepMantis]

At least we can all rest easy knowing that at the rate things are going, there's won't be a middle class for very long.
Shine yer shoes guvnor!? ;)

[Johan]

I've got a package, and it's ready to provide you with some stimulus.