Sarah Palin, Keynesian Economics, Suppy-Side Economics and Ronald Reagan

Just read the OP, not further...but.
What is Austrian Economics?
mises.org...
The antithesis of Kensyian econ.
Good source, & like the constition, etc. assumes people (not govt, or [IMHO Corporations - which given personhood status for about a century has lead to where we currently find ourselves in the US]) have the ability to control their lives at a more local, rather than centralized Govt.

reply to post by Danbones


lol davy crocket is right charity is not the governments business hence the word usage charity

the governments chairty is entitlement

charity is a choice of goodwill

entitlement is not one and a gun to your head and property stolen

favorite quote by crocket

" you all can go to hell i'm going to texas!"

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by gorgi
reply to post by beezzer

 

Raising the highest tax bracket is not a bad thing. Since when has the idea of "the more one makes the more one pays" become so evil?

Yes it is a bad thing. Taking peoples money USED to be called robbery.

The idea of taxing higher income is not destroying the country as people here seem to keep claiming. Also putting the uneducated plumber up as a source is not very convincing.

Source.
I was pointing our OBAMA's words NOT the plumbers.

If you do not want taxes go to Somalia or Sudan ect.. They have almost no government or taxes. They have true freedom, right ?

Huh? This is about Obama vs. Palin. I don't understand.

Taxes are not theft. Its part of the law. If you do not like the tax law, run for congress and get it changed.

What Obama said was that he wants to raise the tax rate on the upper part of the income. Complicated ?

What I meant was that if you want a small government go there.

I Do, & I hope there is here soon.
2nd line.

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords
Just read the OP, not further...but.
What is Austrian Economics?
mises.org...
The antithesis of Kensyian econ.
Good source, & like the constition, etc. assumes people (not govt, or [IMHO Corporations - which given personhood status for about a century has lead to where we currently find ourselves in the US]) have the ability to control their lives at a more local, rather than centralized Govt.

Austrian economics is a joke. it is the opposite, in a way of Keynesian. Keynesian economics is a very profound theory and has an excellent track record.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

First of all, my general thought on economic theory is that different theories work under different circumstances and variable, and conversely circumstance and variables can make a perfectly sound theory fail at one point in time while they may work at another.

Agreed.

Obama, as did Bush before him, does participate in Keynesian theory. Regardless of what platform they claim, both absolutely believe in spending as a way of recovery. The problem is, the spending hasn't been in the correct place for Keynesian economics to work. Forget all the talk of stimulus and bailouts and everything else. in 2000, the Department of Defense budget was just under $400 billion. This year it is going to be just under $800 billion. The money is being redistributed right back into the government, alongside a bunch of fat cat contractors and corporations.

That in itself makes Keynesian Economics null and void.

Must disagree. In 2000 we weren't at war.

As to the rest, I believe trickle-down DOES work. Just looking at the boon we had in the 80's and 90's illustrates that. Whether Palin is going to adhere to it, and her previous record, scant is avaliable on the intraweb to analyze. But I am still working on it.

More to come.

reply to post by gorgi


And that's why we're as a nation speeding out of control towards insolvency?
Not IMHO.
But I would like to know why, given the past four years, govt. printing & spending out of control will fix any of our (US Corp) current dilemma's?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

First of all, my general thought on economic theory is that different theories work under different circumstances and variable, and conversely circumstance and variables can make a perfectly sound theory fail at one point in time while they may work at another.

Agreed.

Obama, as did Bush before him, does participate in Keynesian theory. Regardless of what platform they claim, both absolutely believe in spending as a way of recovery. The problem is, the spending hasn't been in the correct place for Keynesian economics to work. Forget all the talk of stimulus and bailouts and everything else. in 2000, the Department of Defense budget was just under $400 billion. This year it is going to be just under $800 billion. The money is being redistributed right back into the government, alongside a bunch of fat cat contractors and corporations.

That in itself makes Keynesian Economics null and void.

Must disagree. In 2000 we weren't at war.

As to the rest, I believe trickle-down DOES work. Just looking at the boon we had in the 80's and 90's illustrates that. Whether Palin is going to adhere to it, and her previous record, scant is avaliable on the intraweb to analyze. But I am still working on it.

More to come.

The boom in the later 90's was not a result of supply side. There was no boom in the 80's. There was high inflation and unemployment. Also there was a recession in the early 90's and that was a result of bad economics.

reply to post by beezzer


Thanks - intelligent replies/discussion.
Thats what i signed up for.
& while we may disagree to some level on things (& this is not just to you but everyone here of ATS), it's nice to be able to agree to disagree, rather than the ad-homonym-"you're FOS & I'm right" posts.
Thanks for being able to be a contributor, rather than a detractor in the forums/debates/etc. I've witnessed on this wonderful site over the years.

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords
reply to post by gorgi

 

And that's why we're as a nation speeding out of control towards insolvency?
Not IMHO.
But I would like to know why, given the past four years, govt. printing & spending out of control will fix any of our (US Corp) current dilemma's?

We are not heading towards insolvency.We can just raise taxes, but that is too logical. We need an insane idea to fix the problem.

To all, it's almost 4 am in Germany and I reallky need to sleep
Have a honey-do list tomorrow but I will not ignore this thread, please be patient.

I appreciate all input.
But dang it, I'm tired!!!!

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords
reply to post by beezzer

 

Thanks - intelligent replies/discussion.
Thats what i signed up for.
& while we may disagree to some level on things (& this is not just to you but everyone here of ATS), it's nice to be able to agree to disagree, rather than the ad-homonym-"you're FOS & I'm right" posts.
Thanks for being able to be a contributor, rather than a detractor in the forums/debates/etc. I've witnessed on this wonderful site over the years.

Hell, I'm here to learn as well. I don't just pontificate!
Thanks though, for your input and regards.

Beez

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Must disagree. In 2000 we weren't at war.

As to the rest, I believe trickle-down DOES work. Just looking at the boon we had in the 80's and 90's illustrates that. Whether Palin is going to adhere to it, and her previous record, scant is avaliable on the intraweb to analyze. But I am still working on it.

More to come.

Exactly my point though. In 2000 we werent at war, and our economy was doing well. Although, as soon asw Bush got into office, he began to increase DOD spending over Clinton, who cut spending drastically. And not coincidentally, under Clinton, we had a surplus. Hmmmm....but I digress.

Reaganomics failed long term. As I said before, it was a failure by 1991, when economic growth
was in decline. It was the reduction of DOD spending by Clinton as well as the Tech boom that re-stimulated the economy and helped it recover from the tail end of reaganomics.

as always, just my opinions....

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords
Just read the OP, not further...but.
What is Austrian Economics?
mises.org...
The antithesis of Kensyian econ.
Good source, & like the constition, etc. assumes people (not govt, or [IMHO Corporations - which given personhood status for about a century has lead to where we currently find ourselves in the US]) have the ability to control their lives at a more local, rather than centralized Govt.

Austrian economics is a joke. it is the opposite, in a way of Keynesian. Keynesian economics is a very profound theory and has an excellent track record.

Keynesian economics is just like Reaganomics -- a heavy merging of corporation and the state, ie, fascism. Only a moron can continue to praise this crap. Keynesian economics, Reaganomics keeps the U.S in a consistent state of war. From Reagan to Bush, Communism to Terrorism. This needs to end.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Last post of the night. . .
Clinton had a reublican congress for most of his time, Bush had a democrat congress. Not to excuse Bush. He signed the damned bills.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
You also don't know much about Keynesian Economics. John Maynard Keynes would have payed one man to dig a whole and another to fill it in order to stimulate the economy. He was about building from the bottom up. Unfortunately in the situation we are in, the whole was already dug. It was a bottomless pit dug by the banks to enslave us. Bush's and Obama's policy has been to try and fill this bottomless pit with money. Very different from what Roosevelt did.

Explain how Obamas' approach is different.

Obama's approach is another trickle down gimmick. Instead of bailing out the people he bailed out the banks. Very little money went to help people stay in their homes. Roosevelt had workforce programs that helped put people back to work. Obama gave a little money to the states to decide how they would use it. Most of his programs gave the money to the top and they decided how it would be spent.

If you give money to the poor and middle class, they will spend it. If you give a tax break to a rich man, he may not spend it. A business does not expand unless there is demand for their products. The poor and middle class create the demand. They are 98% of the population. An oil company does not hire people because you give it a tax break. Use common sense and read one book on economics. "The Wealth of Nations" is a good place to start.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Last post of the night. . .
Clinton had a reublican congress for most of his time, Bush had a democrat congress. Not to excuse Bush. He signed the damned bills.

Bush had a Democratic congress for his last two years and Clinton could have done better without the Republicans messing him up.

reply to post by spinalremain


And just who does it hurt when the wealthy buy a home? A realtor? Construction companies? Construction workers? Vendors and suppliers?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spinalremain

 

And just who does it hurt when the wealthy buy a home? A realtor? Construction companies? Construction workers? Vendors and suppliers?

You have a point, but how many homes will each wealthy person buy?

You ave to remember that the wealthy are the vast minority in this country. As I said before, over a long enough timeline, reaganomics HAS to fail. Filtering money through the wealthy for long enough creates stagnation, and eventually the wealthy continue to grow while the middle class, the majority, get stuck in decline.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spinalremain

 

And just who does it hurt when the wealthy buy a home? A realtor? Construction companies? Construction workers? Vendors and suppliers?

You have a point, but how many homes will each wealthy person buy?

You ave to remember that the wealthy are the vast minority in this country. As I said before, over a long enough timeline, reaganomics HAS to fail. Filtering money through the wealthy for long enough creates stagnation, and eventually the wealthy continue to grow while the middle class, the majority, get stuck in decline.

ah ok then what if the wealthy continue to buy produce, shoes, clothes, or any other product? Who does that hurt? I'm sick and tired of the foolish class warfare. Besides, what constitutes wealthy? Barry seems to think it;s anyone making over $250,000 a year. Considering what a dollar buys now, thats roughly lower upper class.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


So Obama is worse than Roosevelt!!!! Or better, depending on how you view Socialism.