The Reason for the Economic Decline of America

The utter lack of the knowledge of basic economics and the belief in government to solve all problems by taking other peoples money under threat of violence is appalling. It is also apparent that the Marxist propaganda is effective if one can really believe this tripe. Giving the government more control and money only increases the corruption and waste, which is what is proposed. To quote O'Rourke" Giving power and money to the federal government is like giving whiskey & car keys to teenage boys."

a reply to: babybunnies

who cares about party...

JFK was a stupid punk who got elected by pointing out a problem (missile gap) where there wasn't one.

his successor, Johnson, gambled in realpolitik, escalating the vietnam war to keep from coming off as a commie-sympathizer.

Nixon too had to play realpolitik, and with a fairly left-wing congress he seemed to be in the right-place under the right-pressures. Smart enough to get us out of vietnam, and pass some legislation for the pressing issues of his day.

Thankfully Nixon, and congress, had the sense that Deregulating the financial industry was a bad idea... people still remembered 1929 back then...

though some of his actions had some nasty impacts later on.

a reply to: billyjack

We should give control of resources to scientists and engineers and the like. Let them build us a utopia . I'd sure love some endless renewable energy among other things.

I guess we're only gonna get the pain rays, spy bots, and robotic soldiers though

a reply to: billyjack

That sounds like you're simply unable to accept the reality of the situation.

Marxist it ain't, you're drinking the Right-Wing flavor-aid if you think it' "Marxist" to suggest that society needs some level of wealth-redistribution in order to balance out the divide between capital and labor.

a reply to: tavi45

Technocracy.

the issue with a technocracy, is electing/selecting the technocrats in charge.

such a measure should be according to ability, (IE the most able/best choice) but in reality will likely devolve into a series of political favoritism. With Conflicts of Interest all over the place.

this leaves us with another choice, somehow ensuring that whomesever chosen has a mix of antipathy, conviction, mixed with a willingness to compromise.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: tavi45

Technocracy.

the issue with a technocracy, is electing/selecting the technocrats in charge.

such a measure should be according to ability, (IE the most able/best choice) but in reality will likely devolve into a series of political favoritism. With Conflicts of Interest all over the place.

this leaves us with another choice, somehow ensuring that whomesever chosen has a mix of antipathy, conviction, mixed with a willingness to compromise.

Why is the best always the ideal? In most job applications the best doesn't even apply or if he does is filtered out by HR, or politics that week to eliminate the strong. Someone who can do the job is what's important. Being the best is pretty much an irrelevant skill. I say this having actually been the best at some things in my life.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: billyjack

We should give control of resources to scientists and engineers and the like. Let them build us a utopia

. I'd sure love some endless renewable energy among other things.

I guess we're only gonna get the pain rays, spy bots, and robotic soldiers though

I just spit my tea all over the keyboard!
Have you ever worked with a bunch of scientists and/or engineers?
Obviously not, or you wouldn't hold an illusions about them being able to "build us a utopia." They can barely organize a professional conference.
This country was created by people who were tired of others having control of their life and destiny. It is hard work to determine one's own destiny. Handing it off to someone else just doesn't seem to be what the founders had in mind.

Increased borrowing and spending from the early '80s to the present.

a reply to: monkeyluv

to make up for stagnating wages and increasing prices.

Which is inevitable in capitalist systems.

a reply to: monkeyluv

What??? Capitalism actually reduces prices...

Protectionist policies make it impossible for developing markets to compete. They are inherently socialist and not economically viable from a global perspective.
It appears to me, the American middle class grew out of the credit provided to it, not a bad thing that.
According to some sources, it would require 3 planet earths for all the world's people to live in middle class comfort.

The unfortunate results of globalism is continuous down pressure on wages, as jobs that do not require a degree of excellence are farmed out to the lowest bidder.

It is no longer possible to be middle class, you either differentiate your skill set from the middle, or join the oversupply of out source-able, averagely skilled workers.

It is not unfair, that genuine equity is the only thing that can keep any economy from collapse.
It is not unfair, that genuine capital is the only driver of progress.

In the middle ages, it was the black death that tipped the scales back to where the average man became valuable again.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: monkeyluv

What??? Capitalism actually reduces prices...

It doesn't because of combinations of inflation, the value of real wages not rising, etc.

a reply to: monkeyluv

Do you even know what causes inflation? Hint, it isn't capitalism or anything that has to do with a truly free market...

Capitalism actually drives DOWN prices through competition. This is a basic fact of economics.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: monkeyluv

Do you even know what causes inflation? Hint, it isn't capitalism or anything that has to do with a truly free market...

Capitalism actually drives DOWN prices through competition. This is a basic fact of economics.

What causes inflation is a combination of increasing credit and increasing demand.

Increasing credit is driven by capitalism as profit and returns on investment increases money supply.

Increasing demand is driven by increasing population and prosperity, both of which are driven by capitalism.

Finally, a free market actually leads to the opposite given capitalism, as increasing amounts of money are concentrated among fewer people.

Your posting is well thought out, and researched. I could not agree more with what you have said. Where does the military industrial complex fit into all this? As military budgets grew so did all those contracts.

a reply to: monkeyluv

WHAT?? I feel like you are combining middle and high school level economics/social studies and forming your own opinion...

You are completely off on what causes inflation. Inflation can be caused (and most commonly is) by Demand-Pull inflation, but that is actually the GOOD KIND of inflation. Fiscal policy and Cost-Push are the bad kinds and are not related to capitalism or the free market. Those are usually related to government regulatory agencies.

Increasing credit also has little to do with the free market and capitalism, as in a truly capitalistic economy interest rates drive themselves. The USA (and every major country) has a central bank that artificially inflates/deflates interest rates. Again, this has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with crony capitalism/government meddling in the financial market. Artificially low interest rates cause an economy to grow too quickly and cause hyperinflation. This is what the FED does in the USA.

Also, capitalism has nothing to do with driving population growth...I am not sure why you would think the two are even related. Prosperous countries actually see a leveling off of population growth, and some even see a decline.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: monkeyluv

WHAT?? I feel like you are combining middle and high school level economics/social studies and forming your own opinion...

You are completely off on what causes inflation. Inflation can be caused (and most commonly is) by Demand-Pull inflation, but that is actually the GOOD KIND of inflation. Fiscal policy and Cost-Push are the bad kinds and are not related to capitalism or the free market. Those are usually related to government regulatory agencies.

Increasing credit also has little to do with the free market and capitalism, as in a truly capitalistic economy interest rates drive themselves. The USA (and every major country) has a central bank that artificially inflates/deflates interest rates. Again, this has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with crony capitalism/government meddling in the financial market. Artificially low interest rates cause an economy to grow too quickly and cause hyperinflation. This is what the FED does in the USA.

Also, capitalism has nothing to do with driving population growth...I am not sure why you would think the two are even related. Prosperous countries actually see a leveling off of population growth, and some even see a decline.

The global economy is essentially free market. That's why demand for goods and services has been rising worldwide. It's not caused primarily by regulations.

Credit has everything to do with free market capitalism. In fact, without it, there would be no modern capitalist system.

The Fed is actually a consortium of private banks. Worldwide, it's not governments but private financial companies that control the global economy. Also, they are the main source of credit, not central banks.

Capitalism has everything to do with the population boom. That's why the boom took place at the same time as the Green Revolution.

Finally, population rate increasing is slowing down because of increased prosperity, but that in turn requires continued increases in credit supply and resource consumption. That's why oil consumption and money supply has continued to increase worldwide, together with pollution. In addition, there's population momentum, which means we should still expect a very high global population coupled with high demand, but both taking place given lack of resources, global warming, and environmental damage.

a reply to: billyjack

Yeah trickle down has really worked.

Give the rich all they want, anytime they want it, for whatever they want for is the description of a rape.

To get taxes from people who advantage the society is not Marxism it's common sense to maintain the macro economy for all not the few.

You have a total ignorance of what Marxism is and what capitalism is or the recent history of this country

a reply to: Willtell

The rich already pay the majority of the taxes... How much more do you suggest they pay? What would you define as a rich person?