During this years Presidential Election, I've seen more ignorance displayed by my consituents than I have ever, ever seen before in my lifetime. Ever. From, and I freaking quote, "Reagan did away with all welfare...you just don't know enough poor people" to "Prop 200 [here in AZ] is a measure which violates civil rights" to "President Bush lost XX million jobs during his first term and turned a surplus into a deficit", I've learned that the key to many peoples propensity to vote for a certain party is, quite simply, a fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of the duty(ies) and responsibilities of both our President and the structure of our government as a whole.
Today, another thing that struck me as interesting is the debate between the policies of Reaganomics and the idea of deficit spending. Many people assert that the idea of cutting the wealthy's taxes in an attempt to create economic growth is unproven and totally ineffective, only serving to "widen the gap between the rich and the poor". Fundamentally, proponents of Reaganomics state that if the wealthy have more money to spend they will invest that money in ventures that create opportunity for themselves, in turn creating jobs and dumping that money back into the economy. I've heard many liberals say that the wealthy don't do this; instead they throw that saved tax money into the stock market, where it stagnates and does not "trickle down" to the common man. I disagree, simply because common sense states that if investors are confident enough to dump money into the market, economic growth will naturally result.
While I would tend to defend supply-side economics, I also see the merit in Keynesian Theory, which says that in times of downturn, raise spending, run up deficits and than once an upturn results, balance the budget by running a surplus and not spending the money that is coming in. The only problem is, were not saving that money, we're spending it, causing KT to remain presently to me, rather ineffective.
What are your thoughts and which one do you think is most effective? Sorry for the essay format, just making sure people got where I was going with this.
I will say, that having a Specialization in Economics (1975), does not qualify me for anything. My only point is that there are models for everything related to economics and they all think that they are correct. There was no model for 9/11, 3 or 4 hurricanes in Florida in a year, etc. Just like exit polls, most are just an educated guesses, and real life will prove them, wrong.
Schillinger's Theory of Macro Economics: Keynesian economics and J-curve Reagonomics are the same thing. It's just a question of who gets the first cut--the rich or the poor. Dumping money into the system on either end produces the same overall effect.
Here I am, trying to spur an intellectual discussion, but none of the rest of you fags want any part of it. Jeez, I should just leave and go cry somewhere. Why do you hate me? [img]/images/graemlins/sad[/img]
It's just a question of who gets the first cut--the rich or the poor. Dumping money into the system on either end produces the same overall effect.
Do you Really believe that? You have to be kidding me. What about taking Use and output into account?
Dumping an X quantity of money into a poor base will have a lower productivity and multiplying effect than placing same X quantity into a rich base.
In a poor base because the size of the sample will be larger than a rich base, each person will have less dollars to be productive with. They will at BEST spend the money on durable goods at worst, use it to leverage a purchase that they will eventually default on. Because of the lower amount, The use of the funds will not be put into innovation and will have a much lower impact on an overall economy that the Rich base option.
In the Rich base option, fewer people will receive amount X thus concentrating larger funds into fewer hands. Combine that with education, innovation, business acumen, access to influence and skill The likelihood of utilization for innovation increases. Since we do not live in a static pie economy, The overall residual effects of these innovations create economic forces that are far more substantial than the poor base simple reintroducing the money back into the economy in the form of a purchase.
It all boils down to the fact that JOBS ARE BETTER THAN HANDOUTS. You can not create jobs without innovation and capital. A cash hound out to 50,000 people that need it might buy each of them a durable good. An economic investment to 100 people might create 10,000 jobs, so now you have only 40000 that need a handout....and a better economy in which to do it.
Jobs are better than handouts, but Dems love those handouts! So that's your basic economic policy of each party. What I do know is what I witness personally - and every rich guy I know is re-investing in new startups and opportunities all the time. When they have more to work with - they work with it. Its amazing to watch. I'm talking about guys who never have to work another day - nor do their kids - or their kids. But they are always looking to help little guys like me get going and start something new. Innovation is this country's strength.
If the po' folk get more money - they spend it on that sweet made-in-china SoundDesign boxboard stereo system at KMart. That may be a bit generalistic - but I see it all the time
A guy just say today, that the "Minorities" are pissed because Kerry was not elected. They thought that they would get a welfare pay raise. He was sitting in a Steak&Shake, when he heard them all bitching. "Fuck Bush this, Fuck Bush that, Fuck Bush, he ain't for the "Poor" man". What they should have said that Bush is not for the "Lazy" man.
For me, handouts to the lazy, drunks, dope heads and Foreign Aid (so you will be my friend) is just pissing money away.
I guess the economy of South Dakota is down, since Tom Daschle could not bribe the Indians to vote for him.
It's just a question of who gets the first cut--the rich or the poor. Dumping money into the system on either end produces the same overall effect.
Do you Really believe that? You have to be kidding me. What about taking Use and output into account?
Any extra money you give to the poor they will immediately spend. Whether it is at McDonald's, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, etc., it will end up in the hands of business (and, perhaps, shareholders) the next go round (unless, of course, they spend it on crack, in which may take a little longer to cycle back). Business, or the wealthy, will then do just what you said--invest it in some productive endeavour. Which, in turn, may provide some jobs for some poor people.
Now, if they (the poor) buy, say, a Chinese DVD player, some of that money will leave our economy. But the same holds true for tax breaks for the rich. A rich person may buy a Bavarian sedan, or a corporation may place a plant in Calcutta.
So, again, from my perspective, dumping money into the system pretty much results in the same end result--it kicks the economy up, at a future price which must be repaid (in any of a number of ways). And whether you dump the money at the top end or bottom probably doesn't make much overall difference from an overall economic perspective. Someone merely gets the "first cut." But it all cycles around again and again. For that reason, I find no particular moral distinction between Keynesian and "trickle down" economics from a results or moral perspective.
Linear Mode
