Originally posted by zeeblebotExpectations, zeeblebot. That's part of the bottom line, or maybe you are more Keynesian than I thought.
it's the media's fantasy that people react more strongly to fantasies than to their bottom lines.
their bottom lines are always in play. their daydreams are in play once in a while.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerioni don't really expect ever to become rich according to the new dot-com income levels, barring a lucky lottery ticket. i don't have an MBA or any kind of business degree.
Expectations, zeeblebot. That's part of the bottom line, or maybe you are more Keynesian than I thought.
but every year, i get a big tax bite. i can FEEL that.
and another thing. rich people are in control of their income. if the government taxes them more, they're not going to feel it much. they're going to pass it on to us, the little and middle-little people. and the government is going to spend it on benefits for government workers, etc., etc.
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessIf people started buying only what they needed and not what they wanted, the World economy would contract by at least 50% in one year and the World economic crisis that would ensue would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.
Your taxes are going higher very soon. Get over it and stop buying 40 inch tv's.
Buy what you need instead of what you want. You'll end up with plenty of money
Originally posted by sh76But the system is underpinned by a notion of sustainable growth. Which means we have to be fed more and more want expectations by advertisers, otherwise the system would collapse!
If people started buying only what they needed and not what they wanted, the World economy would contract by at least 50% in one year and the World economic crisis that would ensue would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.
And somehow this need to want more and more for less and less, with the attendant bubble/crash gyrations of world markets, which apparently is the inevitable fruit of this Pavlovian arrangement, is supposed to be preferable to tyranny is it?
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76you assume that nothing would replace the lost productivity from manufacturers that don't have as many people buying their goods.
If people started buying only what they needed and not what they wanted, the World economy would contract by at least 50% in one year and the World economic crisis that would ensue would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.
Staples will never contract. People always need food, clothing etc. It's the discretionary items that would contract.
However, with that excess cash, consumers would be free to purchase other items and boost the productivity of other companies by purchasing their goods. Retirement savings anyone? Investing in companies helps those companies become more innovative and produce more jobs. Solar panels anyone? Hybrid/electric cars anyone? Private schools/university education for their kids anyone?
What you lose in one area, you replace in another.
Originally posted by zeeblebotwell if you are in a low income tax bracket then suck it up. Even a 5% tax hike in the lowest bracket amounts to only a few bux/day.
my tv is 27 inch. 15 years old.
Stay outta the coffee shop, or only buy 1 pint at the pub instead of 2.
Regardless, Obama said he isn't raising taxes for your income bracket so stop crying about milk that won't even be spilled.
Originally posted by kmax87Nah, don't buy into the argument that says we need to spend spend spend as consumers.
But the system is underpinned by a notion of sustainable growth. Which means we have to be fed more and more want expectations by advertisers, otherwise the system would collapse!
And somehow this need to want more and more for less and less, with the attendant bubble/crash gyrations of world markets, which apparently is the inevitable fruit of this Pavlovian arrangement, is supposed to be preferable to tyranny is it?
Most economists have said americans, in particular, actually need to SAVE more than they are now. You can't save if you keep spending.
Originally posted by uzlessHowever, with that excess cash, consumers would be free to purchase other items
However, with that excess cash, consumers would be free to purchase other items and boost the productivity of other companies by purchasing their goods. Retirement savings anyone? Investing in companies helps those companies become more innovative and produce more jobs. Solar panels anyone? Hybrid/electric cars anyone? Private schools/university education for their kids anyone?
Those other items are also wants and not needs; so they couldn't buy those things either under your ideal rule.
Solar panels anyone? Hybrid/electric cars anyone? Private schools/university education for their kids anyone?
All of those things are wants, not needs.
Your premise is a catch-22. Don't spend money on things you want so you'll have more money to spend on things you want.
You may think that "Private schools/university education for their kids" is a more important and worthwhile expenditure than more beer at the local pub every night or a 54 inch HDTV. But from an economic perspective, they have essentially the same impact on the economy.