[Ratmagiclady]

Well, Ginge, you're simply incorrect on your economic theories, and obviously being a hypocrite trying to paint 'liberals' with a 'brush' you made up and then complaining that the policies you speak in support of are criticized cause you're being pigeonholed or stereotyped or something.

And your little theory of economics there is simply incorrect, ...come down to it, wealth represents human effort and our resources, as shared among a community. When the few percent of people who own half of it don't produce anything at all, it's not 'their money' they 'spend' that makes people's lives exist.

They don't 'create' real wealth, they just push it around and take a big cut.

Even if you're in the middle, what you have relies on people to have less: cheap labor, cheap goods, others paying a bigger percentage of their income than you to keep the prices down, people to work and pay the rent and mortgage on your real estate investments, and stocks, ...it all has to exist in balance, as a system.

Making that system more ruthlessly competitive, zero-sum, and most especially not making it more friendly to those who skim off the top, inflate imaginary wealth, and walk away with big profits when things crash.... doesn't generate more 'winners,' ... it doesn't mean the poor lack 'incentive,' ...it simply means that hard work and even talent simply pay off less, and for fewer people.

But, frankly, you're being all too typically-'conservative' right here, by accusing others of what you yourself are doing right here.

Well, Ginge, you're simply incorrect on your economic theories, and obviously being a hypocrite trying to paint 'liberals' with a 'brush' you made up and then complaining that the policies you speak in support of are criticized cause you're being pigeonholed or stereotyped or something.

And your little theory of economics there is simply incorrect, ...come down to it, wealth represents human effort and our resources, as shared among a community. When the few percent of people who own half of it don't produce anything at all, it's not 'their money' they 'spend' that makes people's lives exist.

They don't 'create' real wealth, they just push it around and take a big cut.

Even if you're in the middle, what you have relies on people to have less: cheap labor, cheap goods, others paying a bigger percentage of their income than you to keep the prices down, people to work and pay the rent and mortgage on your real estate investments, and stocks, ...it all has to exist in balance, as a system.

Making that system more ruthlessly competitive, zero-sum, and most especially not making it more friendly to those who skim off the top, inflate imaginary wealth, and walk away with big profits when things crash.... doesn't generate more 'winners,' ... it doesn't mean the poor lack 'incentive,' ...it simply means that hard work and even talent simply pay off less, and for fewer people.

But, frankly, you're being all too typically-'conservative' right here, by accusing others of what you yourself are doing right here.

Well we could all make money like algore does. Cheat people out of it while supplying no useful product.

[shooz]

So then, you do discount the conservative congress that did nothing to stem Bushs insane spending?
At least during Clinton regular folks could earn an honest living.

[GingeM]

You may have noticed, actually I guess you didn't notice, that surplus happened once a Conservative congress was elected and thwarted Slick's spending.

Shhh... You'll confuse the poor dears... All government is good... and the bigger the better...

[Ratmagiclady]

Shhh... You'll confuse the poor dears... All government is good... and the bigger the better...

Not confusing, simply an untrue assumption on his part, actually.

[GingeM]

Well, Ginge, you're simply incorrect on your economic theories

It's funny. It's very easy to say "you're wrong" and walk away... I note however, that you omit to provide a viable economic theory...That's "drive-by economics". Your first major flaw is demonstrated here:-

come down to it, wealth represents human effort and our resources, as shared among a community.

Wealth is defined as an abundance of resources. It does not have anything to do with being "shared among a community" though, before you get pedantic, a community may have wealth. Your error is that you believe that you are entitled to a share of the resources of everyone else. What makes you think you have any right to something someone else owns? How is your quoted statement above any different to communism?

[jeffkrol]

In the final analysis no-one is ever employed by the poor.

Seems to be plenty of Fed and State jobs....... both of which are "poor" so to speak... Sorry couldn't resist.

[Parallax]

...................... Your error is that you believe that you are entitled to a share of the resources of everyone else. ..............

There is a term for that. Its called "liberalism".

[jeffkrol]

Rupert:

[*]has been out of work for maybe three months in his 52 years alive

Started working a 4 months old huh.......
Economic theories.......... for fun

Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936; the interpretations of Keynes are contentious, and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics to justify government stimulus programs for their economies.................. Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU

Basically, Washington's economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes's central theme: the modern capitalist economy does not automatically work at top efficiency, but can be raised to that level by the intervention and influence of the government. Keynes was the first to demonstrate convincingly that government has not only the ability but the responsibility to use its powers to increase production, incomes and jobs. Moreover, he argued that government can do this without violating freedom or restraining competition. It can, he said, achieve calculated prosperity by manipulating three main tools: tax policy, credit policy and budget policy. Their use would have the effect of strengthening private spending, investment and production.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842353-1,00.html#ixzz0nkkg82Zm
Back to the future.............
for later
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/27/why-the-deficit-commission/?xid=rss-topstories

Perhaps the central political challenge of serious deficit reduction is that there's only one easy villain. Health reform had profit-obsessed, claim-denying insurers. Financial reform has mortgage-swindling, economy-tanking fat cat Wall Streeters. With budget matters, there's no foil for reformers to play against. People love their government goodies and hate paying for them, plain and simple. Whoever tries to raise taxes or cut entitlements quickly becomes the monster. And that's why presidents try to shield themselves with bipartisan commissions -- the recommendations provide a way to argue for change without being the progenitor of unpopular policy. George W. Bush had to use "The President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security" in his privatization push. Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress needed the "National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare" before touching said program in the late '90s.

Pretend for a moment the bipartisan deficit commission made unprecedented proposals that blew the most ballyhooed budget complaints out of the water. They could recommend constitutional amendments banning government bailouts, Keynesian stimulus and congressional earmarking outright. They could eliminate all non-military foreign aid, put a permanent cap on defense spending at current levels, outlaw future tax cuts or close every tax exemption on the books. All of these things are politically unfeasible, many of them are ill-advised and none of them will ever happen. But let's pretend. After all that, America's long-term fiscal outlook would still be dim.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/27/why-the-deficit-commission/?xid=r...#ixzz0nkqfWqFf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/wall-street-journal-edito_b_567714.html
for later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Keynesian_resurgence

[GingeM]

Jeff:

Seems to be plenty of Fed and State jobs....... both of which are "poor" so to speak... Sorry couldn't resist.

You have me... I forgot about them...

Started working a 4 months old huh.......

There are days it feels like it...

As to Keynesian economics... That's the idea that people who, (for the largest part), have no knowledge or experience of economics that are elected by people who, (for the largest part), have no knowledge or experience of economics should try to control the actions of those who have studied and worked all their lives to manage economics. By Keynes standards we should be having people who once watched a program on TV about heart surgery go ahead and carry out a few heart operations... Never mind... Congress just, practically, mandated that with it's healthcare bill...

[Oldschool]

You may have noticed, actually I guess you didn't notice, that surplus happened once a Conservative congress was elected and thwarted Slick's spending.

But what has this to do with our jobs going overseas during the Slick administration?

You mean like from 2000 to 2006 when we had a conservative president and a conservative congress? What happened to the surplus then?

[GeneV]

A level playing field for 3 or 4 generations and many are still on wellfare? My good friend Eldean says he doesn't know whether to love LBJ or Curse him.
A

How long is a "generation" in your understanding and when did the playing field become "level?"

Do you think that discrimination vanished on July 2, 1964?

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 03:52 PM ----------

There is a term for that. Its called "liberalism".

In the European or American sense of the word?

What is the term for a system that says whatever you can grab of the resources shared by the world is yours?

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 04:10 PM ----------

Is it that we tolerate less crime and corruption or is it that we have more money which lead to more drug abuse, or is it something else entirely? Seems like that statistic is just the start of a very long process to get to the root cause.

If you want to get people off welfare, if you want to stop illegal immigration, if you want to stop the mega corporations, repeal the minimum wage laws.

Thank you
Russell

So you are saying we should pay everyone here less, so that we won't attract immigrants?

[jeffkrol]

This is almost impossible to prove wrong..........

Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving, or underconsumption, and not enough consumption, or spending, in the economy. It also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth.

I see it every day.......... Most of the wealthy around here spend overseas, not at home...
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-keynesian-economics.htm
As all things implementation and flexibility are key, unlike your "philosophy", whatever that is.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/LE11Dj04.html

[GeneV]

Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

Better discipline.

[Parallax]

Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth.

That part is very easily proven wrong. If the government takes a dollar out of my pocket today and gives it to you, and you then come into my store tomorrow and buy something with it; that does not promote economic growth. I won't have any more money tomorrow than I had yesterday. It was my damned dollar to start with!

In fact, I have less because now there is going to be some amount of profit shown on the books from that sale and I will end up paying taxes on it, AGAIN.