Reaganomics i.e conservative/libertarian economics succeeds at last.

We're all glad that an accidental outcome of keeping the economic model lubed and primed is that it has a beneficial effect to overall society.

I guess later on even wanting a Christmas bonus will look like an "entitlement", or "theft" or "immoral transfer".

 

I see your Englishwoman and raise you an Englishman: Charles Dickens.

No system is perfect...it's when we start idealizing these structures and becoming legalistic about them, contrary to the welfare of human beings, that we completely miss the mark, in my view.

 

essentially it is fascism/nationalism. they are as big government as any 'liberals', but not for the people, but rather for corporate interests. the government and the people are there to serve corporate interests.

they believe they can use the government and our military to impose themselves on other countries (see the bush doctrine and principle of nation building). the government is a tool to be used for the benefit of corporate entities (fascism). the military is to be used to control other nations and protect corporate interests overseas.

there is nothing free-market or capitalist about they way they operate - its fascism, pure and simple.

 

Plus, the CEO likes weed and hookers.

 

Those of us who weren't Black or Latino, but otherwise, I had a gas!

 

It's a global engineering and construction company. We don't do much actual business in the Netherlands, so that has little effect. But we can be headquartered in a lot of places, and based on the regulations and taxes that matter to a corporate headquarters, The Hague was much more attractive than the old headquarters in Chicago.

 

It's illogical to think one party is greater than the other. Both big parties operate the same way. Policies never get worked out because politics are in the way, and both major parties are to blame.

 

Actually, that's not what happened from 1960 - 2007. What actually happened is that production / non-supervisory workers remained flat or may have increased up to 16% (depending on which index you use to adjust for inflation):

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/04/has-middle-americas-wages-stagnated/

But overall, the top 10-15% of Americans have seen a definitive increase in income.

The Reagan revolution did help America overall, but it helped professionals and the highest educated the most, and manufacturing the least. Of course, part of that stagnation could be global trade (cheap oversees labor) as well.

So it's not going from $1,000 to $10.

It's more like most people went from $1,000 to $1,016. But the Rich went from $100,000 to $1,000,000

What has gotten us into trouble has been our consumption habits. We have become a society that borrows so much - to get homes, to make purchases, ect....now part of that borrowing is great, because it generates even more economic activity. Our credit cards create liquidity - but at a very expensive price.

And I think that it's our debt that has brought down our income. We borrow more, and thus have less even though we make more money. And we want more. More devices, gadgets, fancier luxuries. Our culture has exploded into one of aspirational luxuries and keeping up with the Jonese more than ever.

50 years ago people didn't have cell phone plans, cable bills, internet bills. They didn't go get all these surgeries or treatments. They didn't travel nearly as much. They didn't go to college in droves. They didn't buy video games. There wasn't a TV in every home.

In short, we consumed a lot less.

What has happened is that our economy is much much bigger than it was 50 years ago. The problem is that when the going gets slight tough, the pain of recessions are not absorbed by companies or corporations anymore. Not by stockholders, but by the employees.

When companies make less profits, in order to keep paying out dividends and such, they have to cut employees. In otherwords, the rich will get there's first, and then everyone else only when times are good.

This is our culture. It's not about Regeanomics. Overall, cutting taxes from 90% to 50% was the absolute right thing to do. It was a massive boast to our economic engine and spurred us out stagflation.

But we went too far in cutting taxes and what that did was to lower the support system that's required to keep everyone happy.

The average person feels the squeeze not because they make less, but because they want more than their parents did. And that's what we're going to have to see how it plays out.

For an economy to grow, money has to move fast. It has to be working. But when it's stuck in the form of an empty factory, or unused equipment. When it's held in an offshore account. When it's gets held. When people stop investing it or making it work our of fear - then the economy tanks.

That's what has happened. Fear and tightness in the credit markets are what's causing this crisis. Get money flowing again, get it investing and things will get back in gear.

The key isn't to redistribute wealth of the rich and poor. It's to make wealth ATTAINABLE. It's to make it so that hard work and ingenuity gets rewarded by the marketplace.

How do we get more Americans to get rewards? That's what I think our nation needs to figure out. Great Society programs are under so much scrutiny and attacked as handouts. But cutting capital gains taxes doesn't increase the wealth of a family of 4 making $80,000 when all they got is an IRA at best.

I don't think a 30% capital gains tax disincentivizes investment more than a 25% either.

There was a time when our gov't spent money on things that led to ingenuity across classes. It invested in scientific research, new technologies, and our education system.

We need that back. And I think that's the failure that Republicans and Democrats have made collectively.

 

I saw the title and thought this was a joke.

A more timely sarcastic subject would be "Keynesian economics succeeds at last!"

lol @ 40% of the stimulus already spent and nothing to show for it.

 

What makes you think there's nothing to show for it?

 

Sorry - to clarify, I wasn't referencing any type of change in my example. I was just commenting on the notion that distribution of income is irrelevant, and that all that matters is total income.

 

But the other extreme of the economic spectrum (government taking all economic functions over to ensure not opportunity but equality of outcome) is not the answer either. I suspect you would disagree.

 

You crippled your credibility quoting Rand and finished it off with this gem.

Go back and read Atlas Shrugged. What do you notice about Rearden, D'Anconia, Taggert, and Galt? Did they act like Bernie Madoff or Dick Fuld? Did they cook the books, pour toxic waste into playgrounds, let tainted peanut butter out to consumers all in the name of greed? No somehow their greed was MORAL and led them to strive and strive to push their companies forward no matter the obstacle and yet still never engage in anything risky or illegal for customers, shareholders, and the general public.

Rand showcases greed in an ideal situation with nothing but ideal and morally pure motives are pushing these Captains of Industry forward. How realistic is that? C'mon Rand where was the chapter about Rearden dumping chemicals like W.R. Grace or Taggert engaging in credit default swaps and mass overleveraging??

Trickle down/Supplyside/Reagan/Voodoo economics ironically like Communism/Marxism works in theory because in theory you control human nature. However both fail because of Greed whether it drives you to take advantage of others and engage in illegal activities or you don't work as hard because there is no incentive.

Communism/Marxism has been shown to fail and for the most part people agree that it's not the way to go. Trickle down has also failed but for some reason people still can't grasp that.

 

It is child's play to criticize, but another game altogether to suggest solutions.

I see a lot of hi-fiving in this thread. I don't like hi-fiving. It is easy blather on about how I don't believe in humanity and how much I hate Ayn Rand. The Lord of The Rings quote is worthless; there are morals and ideas to be gained even by reading things you vehemently disagree with.

That being said, I do agree with a lot of Philly's post above mine. Also, I sometimes wonder if the reason our economic system falters is because it's a very bastardized version of socialism and capitalism that can't make up its mind.

 

Yes, it succeeds (present tense).