<<He responded with rhetoric pasted from some web site
I responded with what you asked for when you attacked me earlier in the thread.
<<That is a lazy way to debate.>>
Lazy? Finding and searching for support for my position as you demanded and posting it the same way you time and time again post in these threads and you think it's lazy? You POS,you've called me everything but a whiteman today. Answer the godamn challenge or STFU!
Facts Russ,you aren't God here. You put your opinion in but By God it's time you learn to respect others opinions.
Christy Taylor says, "How have we, the people of planet Earth, chosen to distribute our wealth? I would have to say we have chosen very poorly. According to a report by the United Nations the combined wealth of the world's seven riches men could "wipe out poverty and provide access to basic services for the quarter of the world who live in severe need". Also, "the assets of the world's 358 billionaires exceeds the combined annual incomes of countries with 45% of the world's people. That's about two and a half billion people." Somehow, there has to be a better way."
How does fact become class warfare and envy? It is just a pity that each of us can't own the memory of a lifetime of grinding poverty in addition to our own experiences.
We might want to look at the growth rate in desparity between rich and poor over time and compare ours to other societies. I seem to recall, for example that American executives make 50 or even 200 times workers wages but in Japan the difference is only 5 to 1.
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
· Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
· Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
· Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
· The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.
The lesson of the past 20 years, hopefully learned for all times, is that when American entrepreneurs and workers are liberated from heavy-handed and intrusive fiscal policies, punitive tax rates, and destabilizing monetary policies, the U.S. economy's growth potential is almost limitless. If Washington officials can resist four key prosperity killers -- high inflation, big tax hikes, re-regulation and trade protectionism -- then more decades of technology-led growth is clearly possible.
From 1982 (the first year of the Reagan tax cut) to 1989, the top tax rate was chopped from 70% to 28%. Despite the deep recession of the early 1980s, federal receipts grew from $618 billion in 1982 to $991 billion in 1989. After inflation, this was a 24.1% increase in tax collections.
<< American executives make 50 or even 200 times workers wages >>
I don't remember the exact years involved, (and since Russ won't respect me if I go and look up the facts, I won't), Just 30 years ago executives made only 15 times as much as the workers. Uh Oh, there's more of that class warfare talk.
It is? Why? Specifically why? I don't want to hear some nebulous BS about the "rich" getting a tax break on the backs of the "poor". That's a crock, always has been a crock, always will be a crock. It is nothing but class warfare and the politics of envy.
Economics is NOT a zero sum game. The fact that one does better than another does not mean the other is hurt. Money is NOT static. It is dynamic and changes every year. Money ebbs and flows and ALWAYS provides more leverage when left in private hands. ALWAYS.
You seem to think that the fat, bloated, incompetent DC bureaucracy is better at managing your money than you are. I'm surprised that you could believe something so obviously ludicrous. You are much smarter than that.
Don't give me some drivel about the deficit, either. It was created by a spendthrift Congress controlled by your democrat buddies who decided that it was just fine to flush $1.40 for every dollar they extorted from the taxpayer. The only thing that Reagan did wrong was to sign the ridiculous budgets that these thieves drafted.
Some facts about the Reagan years:
The USSR was crushed and the Cold War ended.
TAX revenues nearly DOUBLED as a result of the rate cuts. There were no TAX cuts, RATES were cut.. It is an economic FACT that when you lower rates, revenues go UP because money stays in the far more efficient private sector. This was proven as early as 1961, when Kennedy lowered rates.
The 1980?s saw the highest level of charitable giving in history. Why? Because when Federal Piggy is stealing less of our money, we have more to give. BTW, your buddy Gore contributes practically nothing to charity. He?s very generous and compassionate, but only with other peoples money.
You accuse Tom of ?And you show you know nothing of economic principles.? Now, let?s see you prove how much you know: Again, tell me specifically why Reagan?s policies were an economic failure.
I took your challenge. I answered the call. You don't have any facts,you only have your own narrow, myopic opinion.
What I put in my answer to this post was my support for my opionion: that yours is a total fabrication aimed at gendering an argument, and you goaded me into it by attacking and then insulting my intelligence.
I told you about the reagonomics I know and as the majority of economists in this country know. The info has been researched and debated by the finest minds in this country. You have yet to back up a damn thing about what you support,and you attack me.
I'm sure the members can decide who is sincere about debating this issue.
Here we go again. For some strange reason, i get the feeling that certain folks on the discussion board are neither going to understand, nor want to understand rational, logical arguments. So be it, the case needs to be stated, if nothing else so that the same folks cannot claim ignorance of the truth later on in defense of the indefensible.
First of all, can we dispense with the so-called economic theory? FOr example, your stupid baiting comment of "the rich got richer, while the poor got poorer" is so patently false and pathetic, that it's hardly worthy of comment. If you really and honestly think that the standard of living for ANYONE in this country has declined over the last 20 years (since when Reagan took office), or really at any time during our recent history, then you are living in denial and need to go see what real economic hardship is. Even assuming that you were correct in the assertion (which you are not, you trolling class warfare shill) the technological progress has enjoyed over since the beginning of the current economic expansion in 1981, the every single person in the country is better off in real terms than ever before. Even the so-called "poor" in this country enjoy a standard of living that is better than even the ultra-wealthy would have dreamed of thoughout most of the world's history. Let me list the ways:
1. an increase in the average lifespan of the citizenry to 76+ years and growing.
2. a miniscule portion of the population suffering from basic survival needs, such as food, water, shelter, basic sanitation, etc.
3. an economic, social, and public works infrastructure unparalleled in world history.
4. Greater security from the eternal threats of hostile invasion, plague, and famine, than enjoyed by any nation in history.
5. Full access to an open and democratic system of government, and economic system which allows nearly total freedom to pursue one's own economic goals.
6. A level of technological progress which has freed more people from the requirement of backbreaking work, in order to meet basic subsistence needs, allowing an unprecedented number of citizens to pursue higher-level callings such as artistic endeavors, educational achievement, and personal efforts to achieve self-actualization.
In short, EVERY American citizen enjoys a standard of living which is higher than that any precedent country in ALL HISTORY. That the poor are getting poorer is a complete and utter load of bullshit, designed simply to stir feelings of class envy, period. To state or believe otherwise is to deceive oneself.
You would think that the demonstration of the failure of socialist thought, demonstrated in the collapse of the communist Soviet Union, would have put stupid zero-sum based, socialist line thinking to rest permanently. I suppose that the dream of the ivory tower elites has an ability, like the undead, to defy any efforts to dispatch permanently. Let's go back to college for some basic Economic theory and truth, shall we?
First of all, if you learn and come to understand nothing else from this post, realize one of the key truisms of life, and economics:
Capital (i.e. money) is agnostic in regards to economic or fiscal policy. Capital naturally tends to flow to where it will be used most efficiently (that is, receive the highest return). In micro terms, that means that when presented with a choice of investments, investors will normally choose the one with the highest projected return (adjusted for such factors as their tolerance for risk, personal and moral imperatives, and other personal subjective factors). Simply put, all else being equal, an investor will choose an investment with a projected return of 20% over another with a return of 10%. In macro terms, capital flows normally go to where the most total value for the aggregate of investors will be realized (and thus, in a greater sense, where the most value for the economy as a whole will be realized).
Implicit in the calculations done by each individual investor and consumer (and the larger economy as a whole, since the total of investment and consumer choices equals the economy) is what value the product, service, or investment, offers to the person making the choice. The one which is perceived to offer the greatest value receieves the capital. One of the computations done in order to calculate value, is consideration of the tax effects of the decision.
Reaganomics and supply side economics can and does work, but eventually with declining returns. Let's examine why. Before Reagan took office, the top marginal income tax rate was 70%. Reagan cut all rates, but especially the draconian top rates. Why ?
Because those who pay the top rates are the ones with the majority of the investment capital, that which provides the fuel that makes the economics work, allows businesses to expand, research products, create jobs, and keep the virtuous cycle going. But what happens when you remove investment capital by "soaking the rich" with high marginal tax rates?
Those who were in the top bracket previously were (understandably) very shy about commiting capital to the markets, when Uncle Sam would take 70% of their investment gains away from them in taxes. Given that they'd only get to keep 30 cents of every dollar, and factor in the risk assumed in commiting the capital, and that probably worked out to negative returns for them. So they didn't commit any capital for the most part, they simply used the capital for consumption instead, where at least it would only be taxed once (investment gains are really money taxed for the second time around). Results - instead of the virtuous cycle, the vicious cycle: STAGFLATION. Instead of being invested, and the capital naturally flowing towards where it would be most productive, an artificially high tax rate removed the incentive to invest. The capital was used for consumption instead, resulting in higher inflation, which led less investment to be made, and so the cycle went. Reagan broke the vicious cycle by lowering rates, making it worthwhile for people to pursue investment rather than consumption again.
Now, to be fair, like i said, supply-side theory has a point of diminishing returns. At a certain level, further cuts in tax rates will not have a noticeable effect, and could even be counter-productive. But to say supply-side theory is flawed, is to ignore the realities of the market. The basic premise of the theory has been proven time and time again. Need more examples? How about the recent "Irish Miracle," Thatcher-era Great Britain, Australia - heck, even Latin America is starting to get religion now. Only in the socialist-leaning holdout countries of Europe (France, Finland, Norway, etc.) and in American liberals, is the idea of lowering tax rates not considered a good idea.
Of course, maybe some of the more liberal readers would be happier in tax happy France, where socialism still holds potent sway, unemployment is over 12%, and the tax rates are approaching 80%. But at least you have your precious social programs and government handout programs, like socialized medicine. Of course, you'll be getting your ass handed to you economically by places like the US, Ireland, and Hong Kong, and your standard of living will be going down in real terms, but who cares? You'll have your socialized medicine!!!!
In fact, here's a ticket. In fact, we'll charter you a jet... take your other liberal friends with you. All 10 of you that are left.
What numbers would that be? You mean the ones you just referred to, that appear nowhere in any of my posts?
However, since you have chosen to bait me with someone elses post, I would point out that, since the economy doesn't turn on a dime, the blame for the recession of the early 80's would certainly have to lay at the feet of Reagan's predecessor. But, then, you already knew that.
Very logical, and nicely spelled out. Too bad nobody will actually read it.
Thanks Russ.... hey, isn't it amazing how those folks always screaming about "the rich getting richer" never seem to want to acknowledge their own good fortune, and be willing to be taxed at the "rich person" confiscatory tax rates? After all, they're pretty "rich" compared to someone from say, Eritrea...
I think that anyone that uses that expression about the rich and poor ought to immediately have their tax rate raised to 99%, so that they'll know what it will feel like, should they ever, by some miracle of God, happen to come into money. Of course, for them, they will have "earned" their money, and shouldn't have to pay the high rates.
Just goes to show that there is no limit to the hypocrisy of the liberal.
One thing you're wrong about, Russ, is that nobody will read it. Come to think of it, maybe you're right. I'm a nobody and I did read it.
My thought was this about it. Now that we know the truth of Regonomics and it starts to be practiced by the Chineese, they will start to eat better. If we feed them one egg a day, it will require the entire wheat production of Australia to feed the hens. If they eat fish like the Japaneese, it will be the world annual catch. If they drive like we do, well you get the idea. One thing people do with wealth is consume and polute. We may be mites on a fresh cheese. Hay, life is good!
What numbers would that be? You mean the ones you just referred to, that appear nowhere in any of my posts? >>
Your numbers might very well be true. If they are, so what? >>
Thirty years ago executives made 15 times more than the average worker, today it is 200 times more. Remember those numbers? Now I will repeat what I said about what you said about those numbers, if you see no problem with those numbers...thought may not be one of your strong suits.
Good read.Thank you. I see alot of value to what you relate to but I do not think it paints the whole picture. I have no desire to re-visit the 80's days of no jobs,high mortgage rates,bank closurers,frozen wages,no investment into the GDP and all of the other nightmares of the era.
You may ask why. My career at the time placed me in board rooms of fortune 500's companies like Getty oil, and Peat .Marwick,and Mitchell,Honeywell,IBM,ITT. At that time,those who had he ability to make large financial decesions that would have saved them money over the long run, withheld all purchasing and investment dollars STRICTLY because of the shakey financial status of the Reagon plan of trickledown. IE: The spicket was turned off! Entire corporate structures had to revamp.Laws effecting the way they did business changed,and as that was going on,interst rates went through the roof. Then they couldn't borrow the capital to make improvements or invest in R&D or plant expansion.
I may not be articulate enough to express my feelings in those days,but over the years it was labeled as reagonomics and it depends on what side of the issue you are on as to how you percieve its value.
It seems even you don't give it the thumbs up. You seem luke warm to it also.
Now, in reference to something you said, FOr example, your stupid baiting comment of "the rich got richer, while the poor got poorer" is so patently false and pathetic, that it's hardly worthy of comment. and Even assuming that you were correct in the assertion (which you are not, you trolling class warfare shill) ,who are you talking about here?
<< On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. >>
<< Despite the deep recession of the early 1980s,... >>
My only comment about these quotes from Ornery's post was: "Heh."
Then I addressed your previous question to me:
Your numbers might very well be true. If they are, so what? >>
Naw, this is ridiculous, you ridiculed my reading comprehension skills, how about you go back through the thread and figure it out.
It's not like it is going to get through your arrogant, egotistical, republican addled thinking anyway.
It strikes me that each comes to this issue with preformed opinions. The ability to regurgitate economic theory, somebody elses bias-influenced guess, in the political and economic spheres can be impressive, buy perhaps only somewhat less truly factual than general opinion. Different universities have economics departments teaching desparate theory. You say Cato and I say Nato. I think most people believe what is most favorible to their personal interests to believe. Certainly, those who haven't given much thought to how people come to their opinions or paid any attention to how unconscious people are could be missing a component of knowledge even more important to their understanding.
"At that time,those who had he ability to make large financial decesions that would have saved them money over the long run, withheld all purchasing and investment dollars STRICTLY because of the shakey financial status of the Reagon plan of trickledown"
That's not the best chart, but it clearly illustrated that the steepest climb in interest rates were under Carter. They peaked early in Reagans years in office and then starting declining.
Tripleshot, I think you need a different theory. High interest rates made it difficult to borrow and and made it more difficult to justify an risky expenditure due to the marginal difference between interest rate rate of return and the return on the investment. Reagan by lowering interest rates and lowering the tax rates made corporate investment more attractive thereby increasing jobs. It worked.