Bank in the 1980's, Ronald Reagan promised if tax breaks were made available to the wealthy, and those dirty old Socialist unions, and working class wages were held in check, and we did away with those nasty old "government regulations" the resulting profits our beloved business leaders reaped would result in more jobs, and prosperity for all because the wealth would 'trickel down". So here we are...decades later., and what did our beloved business leaders do? They exported tens of millions of jobs to China in the headlong pursuit of profits. Did it trickel down? Did they share the wealth, as good old Ronnie Reagan promised they would? Today the face of food stamps is not the lazy welfare bum, laying around, unwilling to work that the GOP portrays, it's working class families, whose pay is insufficent to put food in their childrens mouths, clothes on their backs, and shelter over their heads. All this while, executive pay packages and corporate profits have skyrocketed.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that it's going to trickle down? Are you really stupid enough to think that this "supply side" nonsense that conservatives have been peddling for 40+ years really works? Then believe this:
In America, when the wealthy exploit the working class, they call it "business". When the working class fights back, and demands a living wage and a few crumbs of healthcare, they call it "socialism"!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html
http://news.yahoo.com/face-food-stamps-working-age-americans-155417479.html
http://www.progressiveliving.org/editorial_offshoring_American_jobs.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/11/30/there-are-far-fewer-bears-on-the-stock-market-today-than-at-the-peaks-in-2000-or-2007/
Are you really "that" stupid??😞
Originally posted by techsouthThat's a matter of preference I suppose; I think a government should try to enact policies that help maximize the standard of living in a society. In the broadest sense, I equate "economic growth" with such an increase in the standard of living.
When did it become the government's job to spur economic growth?
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
Originally posted by techsouthSometime between the stock market crash and VJ day,it was revealed that the market does not self-correct by itself. The "invisible hand" stayed invisible.
When did it become the government's job to spur economic growth?
And just in case you misunderstand me, let me add that the government is not very good at spurring much. They jiggle money supply and tax rates and hope for the best. Their "job" is to preempt foment. Their job is to avoid insurrection.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by techsouth"Spurring economic growth" is a little vague.
When did it become the government's job to spur economic growth?
Wikipedia:
In 1913, "The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates....Its duties have expanded over the years, and today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, include conducting the nation's monetary policy, supervising and regulating banking institutions, maintaining the stability of the financial system and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions."
"Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability."
Originally posted by bill7181. Get out of the way by eliminating regulations which favor some business, and punish others.
I've been asking whodey that for 6 months...I'm still waiting for an answer!
2. Stop bailing out failed businesses, whether banks, or automakers.
3. Stop corporate taxes which make it attractive for corporations to go offshore.
4. Don't expect the ridiculous. It is not the purpose of a business to redistribute everything it earns for purposes of equalization. People ought to be paid according to their skills and abilities, not their claimed "needs".
Originally posted by JS357The process of controlling the money supply to adjust the economy has proved as elusive as herding cats in Thunderstorm.
"Spurring economic growth" is a little vague.
Wikipedia:
In 1913, "The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates....Its duties have expanded over the years, and today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, include c ...[text shortened]... targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting [b]economic growth and stability."[/b]
In the early years of the Fed, chairmen and members where all conservative bankers, who used their great power with a lot of restraint. Greenspan and Bernanke have dropped all pretence of restraint. Interest rates have been near an actual zero for a long time, removing a key factor in making people responsible in terms of borrowing. Then when debt is forgiven on the "too big to fail" canard, the little guy wonders why the rules differ for him.
On the thread title, wealth certainly can't trickle up. How much it trickles down depends on how little unnecessary interference the market gets from government.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow about government providing security? Protecting citizens from violence and fraud.
That's a matter of preference I suppose; I think a government should try to enact policies that help maximize the standard of living in a society. In the broadest sense, I equate "economic growth" with such an increase in the standard of living.