It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican economic theory, and its flaws

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
I see where you're trying to go with it, but I still say that the lower class loses money on the deal, because loans are usually taken out to buy EXPENSIVE things like Cars, and the like, with all the extra profit not drifting below a certain income level, you see what I mean?


And who makes those expensive cars Loki ?

Do you remember the ill concieved "Luxury Tax" and all the workers it put out of a job when the trickle down stopped because of it ? Rich people instead of buying boats and high end cars put their money offshore in response to the increased tax.

The middle and lower class lost out on that "tax the rich exercise" even you have to admit that was so.




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
That's a good point there, but the realism of the situation is that this long-revered theory of economics is a far cry from the panacea that it is lauded as.


Can you admit to me that this is your opinion?

Because you heard my opinion on the matter.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The people who make those expensive cars will be paid the same wage whether the car sells or not.

No one economic theory will ever be completely right, but I would like to se a revisitation of the 98 and 99 Clinton budgets...apparently something was done right in those cases. Tax and spend seems to be the most beneficial for the public sector.

When the country is ahead, everybody wins, and the exact opposite happens when we're behind.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by Loki
That's a good point there, but the realism of the situation is that this long-revered theory of economics is a far cry from the panacea that it is lauded as.


Can you admit to me that this is your opinion?

Because you heard my opinion on the matter.


Yes, I can admit to you that this is my opinion. I'll state it one more time.

Trickle-down economics are not good for America. I disagree with the policy, and find that the intent of the system is not fulfilled, when it is implemented.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
The people who make those expensive cars will be paid the same wage whether the car sells or not.


Oh this is so out of wack I am beside myself
Go to any union hall in detroit and try that statement on for size.

If the car does not sell there are no jobs when the factory shuts down no ifs ands or buts about it.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Unionization is exactly why this statement is true.

The economy is a big, scary place. The difference of 100, 500, hell, even 1000 cars isn't going to make or break the auto industry, and that's what the Unions have given you.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I don't bemoan the fact that some people have more money than I do - so what.
I do bemoan a tax system that rewards shelters, gimmicks and dodges (our current system) I would be perfectly happy to have "Joe millionaire" paying the same rate as I do without all the dodges.

I happen to believe that the higher the tax the greater incentive there is to find a way around it. Witness all the special loopholes in the current system.

The money whether saved and deployed as investment capitol or spent on consumption is a far more economically efficient use than sitting in offshore accounts or some other tax dodge scheme.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Unionization is exactly why this statement is true.

The economy is a big, scary place. The difference of 100, 500, hell, even 1000 cars isn't going to make or break the auto industry, and that's what the Unions have given you.


The number of autos under discussion is a lot more than a few hundred when the idle rich in this country are considered to be those making more than $200,000 thou a year.

PS: unions have done squat for me and they don't guarantee employment IMHO they limit employment.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki

Trickle-down economics are not good for America. I disagree with the policy, and find that the intent of the system is not fulfilled, when it is implemented.


Now theres a good question that might help this discussion and others understanding of it, Please explain "the intent of the system" as you understand it?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The 'intent of the system' as I see it is to promote economic growth, through targetted tax cuts to the rich.

As the data shows, these cuts are neither dependable, nor long-lasting, in the effort to affect such change.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
The 'intent of the system' as I see it is to promote economic growth, through targetted tax cuts to the rich.

As the data shows, these cuts are neither dependable, nor long-lasting, in the effort to affect such change.


Ok that helps, Thanks

Correct me if I'm wrong but did not everyone get the same percent tax cut in the most recent round - so we're not discussing fairness of a percentage but rather an amount paid period.

What we're really discussing here is that in order for income redistribution to be forced upon some people they should pay a higher rate than others simply because they committed the crime of making to much money?

That about it?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
LOKI, firstly?? Get over the name thing.

Lets look at how you are making a fool out of yourself.

Banks invest the money in the form of loans. They invest the money in other businesses. What does this mean???? Well, if your head wasn't so deeply implanted somewhere, you would be able to see clearly. If they invest the money in a busniess via a stock for instance. That business does what? It either reinvests it itself OR, it expands. It hires some new employees. Maybe they will buy some more equipment. Maybe it will give some employees a raise.

If it again banks it...start this process again. Eventually....someone will get that money and sign your paycheck. Thats just the way it is. And the money doesnt stop with you. because you invest, you bank, and you spend.

As long as the money keeps changing hands...the economy is good. IT IS WHEN YOU TAX MORE THAT LESS MONEY CAN MOVE AND THE ECONOMY IS "SLOW".

If the rich guy buys a corvette.....who made it?

If the rich guy buys a house.....who built it?

If the rich guy opens a new business to MAKE MONEY FOR HIMSELF....who does he hire?

What if you invest in something like gold as an investment? Who did you pay for that gold, and what do they do with the money.

Tell me LOKI, where am I going wrong here?

Tax us less....INCLUDING THE RICHEST. We will all be happier. The free market will dictate everything if you let it do so without governemtn intervention. You are truly blind to reality. Sorry, but it must stink starting a thread that makes you look like a fool.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
LOKI, firstly?? Get over the name thing.

Lets look at how you are making a fool out of yourself.

Sorry, but it must stink starting a thread that makes you look like a fool.


Please control the name calling its not necessary to make your point



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
LOKI, firstly?? Get over the name thing.

Lets look at how you are making a fool out of yourself.

Banks invest the money in the form of loans. They invest the money in other businesses. What does this mean???? Well, if your head wasn't so deeply implanted somewhere, you would be able to see clearly. If they invest the money in a busniess via a stock for instance. That business does what? It either reinvests it itself OR, it expands. It hires some new employees. Maybe they will buy some more equipment. Maybe it will give some employees a raise.

If it again banks it...start this process again. Eventually....someone will get that money and sign your paycheck. Thats just the way it is. And the money doesnt stop with you. because you invest, you bank, and you spend.

As long as the money keeps changing hands...the economy is good. IT IS WHEN YOU TAX MORE THAT LESS MONEY CAN MOVE AND THE ECONOMY IS "SLOW".

If the rich guy buys a corvette.....who made it?

If the rich guy buys a house.....who built it?

If the rich guy opens a new business to MAKE MONEY FOR HIMSELF....who does he hire?

What if you invest in something like gold as an investment? Who did you pay for that gold, and what do they do with the money.

Tell me LOKI, where am I going wrong here?

Tax us less....INCLUDING THE RICHEST. We will all be happier. The free market will dictate everything if you let it do so without governemtn intervention. You are truly blind to reality. Sorry, but it must stink starting a thread that makes you look like a fool.


Everything you said is true...

In a Geopolitical vacuum.

The difference is that the US has a world economy that is dependent upon it, as well as the other option for businesses, outsourcing...

I'm not saying that your ideas have no merit, simply that they do not work in the world as we know it. It is too easy for someone to open a swiss bank account, and hide his assets from the IRS in order to use loopholes...in essence, trickle-down economics work like communism works: everyone has to be in on it, and if there are people not cooperating, the system will not work.

Basically, and again, I'm not calling you stupid or foolish, tax-and-spend is a much better policy, in that it makes no assumptions as to the goodwill of the 'rich' man, and goes simply off of hard facts, and most importantly, money that the system has in it's coffers.

Oh, and PS. I did ask you nicely to type my name correctly, Seapeople. Could you, perhaps?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Loki,

I am very happy that you at the very least can see what I am saying. You may very well be the first liberal I have ever talked that was set in his ways, and yet still had the presence of mind to acknowledge how things work.

As for your swiss bank accounts, that is an immensly large point. Yes, you can put the money into a swiss bank account and "hide it". You can do a lot with your money to just sit on it. But its the greed you speek of that can eliminate most of this. If you just sit on money, you dont make as much as you would investing it with strategy. Most people will take the oppurtunity to make more money. With that being said, even those swiss bank accounts invest that money into american businesses. Just as you can invest in overseas business yourself. The fact that we do live in an economy that is globalizing is important, but remember that it is globalizing around American money. Everything references itself to the US dollar.

Now, one other point I think is relevant. Socialistic wealth redistribution is also a nice thought in theory. There is a problem though. Todoys society is not like the days of "robin hood". Back then, they traded animal pelts and stones. Tools and even teeth (so I've heard). There was only so many things to go around. So evening the playing field stood a greater likely hood of success. Today is a different story. Money is most often never seen. It is all numbers in a computer somewhere. Often there is no materialization of it...ever. It is a product of creation. Each individual has the oppurtunity to create his own wealth. In social, communist, and tyranical societies, money is distributed. Often you are told what you can make. In a capitolist society, wealth is created. It truly is based off of our faith in the economy. For instance, the value of a stock.....:

If someone believes the company will do well in the future, they would be willing to pay more for a certain stock. That means that the value of the stock has increased. That persons "faith" in the economy has just invented money...that wasn't there before. The increased value of the stock, be it $1, $5, or $100 is literally just a creation based on faith.

This means that when people buy this particular stock, that the company will have money to more money to spend on... you pick whatever.

You can say that the value of the stock can't really go higher than a particular amount of money...because there is only so much money to go around. But in todays American economy, that is just not the case.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Republican economic theory is not flawed so much as it's distroyed in practice.

Mainly because of all the environment created to cause subsidies on industry like US Steel, Shipbuilding, and the Merchant Fleet.

These are examples, but the trade deficit can not continue as it is now, and we need to concentrate on getting money back to the people.

Republican economics work much better, or would, if we could eliminate 50+% of the Federal Government and it's programs, to include the IRS and income tax.

We need to clean up the system so much, that we might as well just start from scratch.

Banks and personal fund are a far cry from the total of the economic climate in America.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Ok Loki lets correct some of yur misconceptions.
1) The rich bank thier money
No they don't thats why they're rich. The poor bank thier money whch is why they're poor. Of the several hundred clients I still retain, all of whom make over 200k per year none, not a single one keeps more than 20-30 k in the bank, and all have multimillion dollar investment portfolios consiting of Stocks, private placements, real estate, Businesses etc.

2) The rich get rich by being chep
No the rich get rich by being smart. Rather than spending thier money on expensive dinners, movies, etc. They invest thier money in things which will appreciate in value. Instead of buying a new stereo sytem every year or wasting money on video games, etc. They make thier money work as hard for them as they do to earn it. The poor stay poor becuse the little bit of dscretionary spending they do have they waste. If you live at or above your means you will never be wealthy, you have to live below your means.

3) Banks make money through usury, in other words by lending money out for interest. This money is borrowed primarily by the middle class in the form of mortages. They do also have investments of thier own usually corporate and government bonds. Corporate bonds allow corporations to expand, government bonds finance the governments programs.

4) Capatalism teaches people to be greedy so they hoard money.
Wrong again, Loki because the fact is as I stated earlier hoarding money does not make money. If you keep all your money under your mattress and never spend it you are losing money due to inflation. If you have it in the bank you are barely keeping up with inflation. Only by putting that money back into the economy in one form or another will you get rich or stay rich.

5) If a car doesnt sell it doesn't affect wages.
OK then explain to me why the airlines are laying off workers? Why do automakers lay of workers when sales go down? Why do contractors have lay offs when new housing starts decline?

The simple fact is Loki that it take at least a year for a cut of the top tax rate for the effect to be felt in the economy and even then other factors take precedence. However the key to long term growth is a low tax rate across the board. People only move thier funds offshore when taxes are high enough to justify it. If you need any further refutation of your theroies look at what happened to the british economy afte the maximum tax rate was increased above the 90% mark in the 70s



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Republican economic theory is not flawed so much as it's distroyed in practice.

Mainly because of all the environment created to cause subsidies on industry like US Steel, Shipbuilding, and the Merchant Fleet.

These are examples, but the trade deficit can not continue as it is now, and we need to concentrate on getting money back to the people.

Republican economics work much better, or would, if we could eliminate 50+% of the Federal Government and it's programs, to include the IRS and income tax.

We need to clean up the system so much, that we might as well just start from scratch.

Banks and personal fund are a far cry from the total of the economic climate in America.


Well, that's a good point. Starting from scratch would be a good Idea, but then you'd run in to complete disagreement about what would be the best way to run things.

I personally VERY strongly support tax cuts in beaurecratic departments, and I know I'll catch alot of flak for saying it, but when half of the taxes taken from my paycheck go to buying weapons, I find myself thinking that the military needs a budget cut. I'm sure that there are ways that the Military can make money in its own way. (I am, by the way, very adverse to physical violence, in any form.)

As for a revamping of the current system, I think that many will benefit from a look at some of Krugman's ideas on the subject of macroeconomics. He's a pretty smart guy, and knows what he's talking about. Aside from brief spats of theoretical rambling, he's fairly understandable, too.

(Oh, and one more thing...for all of you who will come to tell me that my facts are not to the exact letter of corectness...I only go off of what I hear and read. I was not aware during Reagan's presidency, and I'm not quite 20 yrs. old yet. I've still got things to learn, but strong ideas are beginning to form.)



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 06:44 AM
link   
You are going to think this is political spin itself Loki, but remember what you are reading and hearing. It comes from a media that is clearly biased to the left.

I know all about fox news. They are defenitely biased to the right. You will have trouble trying to find one other major media outlet like that without it being at least somewhat biased to the left. This goes for newspapers and magazines too. Not that they are not out there, but its tough. There are some good places to get the other side of the story. Try reading some of the reports from the heritage foundation. This is a conservatively biased organization, but it does present things in a factual manor. Compare it to something similar with an oposite point of view.

There is something that is has been tossed around as a joke and insult to the current president. He once used the term, "Fuzzy Math" while describing something Al Gore was trying to say I believe. Remember that politcal spin will come from both major political parties. Sift through that, and get a hold on politics and money alone. Reject the non economic issues for starters, and ignore them. Abortion, gay rights, church and state. Get all those things out of your head.. and get the anger and hatred towards the oposing political party out of your head too.

Thats when you can see things more clear.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I disagree that the military needs a budget cut.

The only thing effective about the military, is it's ability to fight. Logistically it is no better than the rest of the federal government.

I think that by closing all overseas bases, and reconcentrating our energy, we could cut large portions of military spending without hurting our military.

Adversely, I think we could help them, by which I mean we could take a portion of the savings, and apply that to making the military benefits competative to the marketplace, and make it into a qualtiy option for people looking for a good job to get them out of poverty.

The military is hurting for doctors, lawyers, and all other high paying services. If it was competative, we could get more quality from our military in general.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join