Liberals are Economically Ignorant

[007]

Liberals are Economically Ignorant​

May 21, 2006 05:31 PM EST
by Jan Larson

The third in a potentially never-ending “liberals are” generalization series focuses on how liberals are economically ignorant.

As usual, the term “liberal” is meant to included progressives, communists, socialists and all others on the political left that, if left to their own devices, would turn America into a place very much unlike traditional America and very much worse.

Liberals don’t understand economics, but that doesn’t stop them from following a “liberal economic theory.” This theory is fallacious in its assumptions that the “rich” (who, according to liberals, are evil) only got that way at the expense of the poor, that government can actually pay for things and that businesses are no different than rich people, that is they are evil and must be punished.

Liberals abhor the concept of profit, especially “excessive” profit. Just what is excessive profit? Any profit that is more than a liberal thinks it should be. Surprisingly, I’ve never heard of a case where a liberal sold his or her house for less than market value or took less than the maximum profit.

Liberals get the vapors just thinking about “tax cuts for the rich.” Liberal economics dictates that you take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Most wealthy people didn’t get rich by accident nor did many poor people get there by accident either. People largely achieve their economic status by the decisions they make. Wealthy people start companies and create jobs. Poor people don’t. Who would you rather work for, a poor person or a rich one?

The recent run up in gasoline prices has gotten liberals in a lather about oil company profits. Too much profit! Those fat, greedy, cigar-smoking oil company executives must be laughing it up as they just keep raising prices higher and higher.

If liberals were capable of more than three seconds of thought at a time (the same amount as a typical goldfish), they just might figure out that if the oil companies were manipulating prices, why did it take them until five years into the 21st century to do it? I bought gas for 79 cents a gallon in 1999. Where were those greedy executive back then?

Liberals hate big companies. I don’t exactly at how many employees a company must have before liberals consider it a “greedy, rich corporation” but once that title is earned, liberals want to punish (i.e. tax) that corporation for being big. What economically challenged liberals don’t understand is just as coffee beans and milk are expenses for Starbucks, so are taxes. The price of coffee beans goes up, so does the price of a latte. Taxes go up, so does the price of a latte. Corporations don’t pay taxes only people pay taxes.

If only everyone was equally rich (or poor) would liberals be happy.

To that end, there are a number of liberal-backed initiatives around the country, notably in Santa Fe, New Mexico to raise the minimum wage. Again, invoking the three-second rule, if a $9 or $10 per hour minimum wage is good, why not $100 per hour?

The vast majority of minimum wage workers (1) live with others that is are not supporting a family, and (2) do not continue to work at the minimum wage for long. Yet superficial intellectuals (liberals) insist that the minimum wage should constitute a “living wage” and conveniently ignore the fact that jobs are inevitably lost as prices are increased to cover costs. Increased prices mean that the higher minimum wage ultimately doesn’t buy anything more than it did before and minimum wage workers are no better off.

In the world of liberal economics, the government would pay for such things as universal healthcare and fund everyone’s retirement. But, alas, as is the case with coffee beans, the government doesn’t pay for anything – only people pay.

The prosperity of a society does not come from the benevolence of its people – it comes from greed. The baker doesn’t bake bread because he likes bread. He bakes bread to make money. Similarly the hair stylist, mechanic and coffee house don’t exist to style hair, fix cars or make coffee. They all exist to make money. The society benefits the most when all are allowed to be greedy – fulfilling the needs of the society by pursuing their own self-interest. The more that are successful, the more others will try to achieve similar success.

A society that embraces liberal economics will stagnate, become more dependent on government and, in general, become less prosperous, e.g. France. There is time for the United States to avoid such a fate, but not if the liberals have their way.

Copyright ©2006 Jan A. Larson All rights reserved.

Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Nebraska, a Master of Science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University. He is also a contributing columnist on a number of websites including The Conservative Voice. [email protected]

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14755.html

 

[Mr.Conley]

Umm... delicious. Great article. Very informative. Truely sets the standard of modern economic thought. I dare not look through it again lest I be struck down by its glory.


Btw, you're adorable.

 

[007]

Umm... delicious. Great article. Very informative. Truely sets the standard of modern economic thought. I dare not look through it again lest I be struck down by its glory.


Btw, you're adorable.

Fag.

 

[Bullypulpit]

From what I've seen, it was "liberals" helped bring down the federal deficit to manageable levels under Goatboy's administration.

Chimpy and his merry band have erased that surplus and run up four of the largest budget deficits in American history. They have repeatedly pushed for tax-cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans while, purportedly, trying two fund at least two wars. They have thrown even lip-service to fiscal responsibility under the bus, as foriegn nations, some less than friendly to US interests, hold increasingly larger amounts of US debt thus threatnening not only national security, but national sovereignity as well.

SO, you tell me who has the better grasp on economics, and it ain't Republicans as they are now constituted. Have a nice day.

 

[red states rule]

From what I've seen, it was "liberals" helped bring down the federal deficit to manageable levels under Goatboy's administration.

Chimpy and his merry band have erased that surplus and run up four of the largest budget deficits in American history. They have repeatedly pushed for tax-cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans while, purportedly, trying two fund at least two wars. They have thrown even lip-service to fiscal responsibility under the bus, as foriegn nations, some less than friendly to US interests, hold increasingly larger amounts of US debt thus threatnening not only national security, but national sovereignity as well.

SO, you tell me who has the better grasp on economics, and it ain't Republicans as they are now constituted. Have a nice day.

Here are the economic numbers since the Bush tax cuts.......

Try and dispute them if you can

Job Creation Continues:
5.4 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003
Today, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 121,000 Jobs Created In June. The economy has created about 1.85 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.4 million since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.6 percent – lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

The Economy Remains Strong, And The Outlook Is Favorable

Since 2004, The U.S. Has Created About Twice The Number Of Jobs As The Rest Of The G-7 Countries Combined.
Employment Increased In 48 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In May. Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 33 states in May.
Real GDP Grew At An Annual Rate Of 5.6 Percent For The First Quarter Of This Year. This is the fastest growth in two-and-a-half years and even stronger than previous estimates. It follows economic growth of 3.5 percent in 2005 – the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation.
Productivity Increased At A Strong Annual Rate Of 3.7 Percent In The First Quarter. Productivity growth during the past five years has been at the fastest rate in nearly four decades.
Real Hourly Compensation Rose At A 3.2 Percent Annual Rate In The First Quarter.
Real Consumer Spending Increased At An Annual Rate Of 5.1 Percent In The First Quarter.
Industrial Production Increased 4.3 Percent Over The Past 12 Months.
President Bush Has An Aggressive Agenda To Create Jobs And Keep The Economy Growing

Growing The Economy And Reducing The Deficit Depend On Controlling The Spending Appetite Of The Federal Government. Every year since the President took office, the Administration has slowed the growth of discretionary spending that is not related to the military or homeland security. The President's last two budgets cut discretionary spending that was unrelated to the military or homeland security, and we are on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

President Bush Is Calling On The Senate To Join The House And Quickly Pass The Line-Item Veto, So He Can Sign It Into Law. The line-item veto, already passed by the House, would allow Presidents to target wasteful spending in large spending bills. It is an essential part of the President's strategy to reform the budget process and enhance spending discipline.

The President Has Expanded Tax Relief And Is Working To Make His Tax Relief Permanent. In May, President Bush signed into law a bill that extends the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. This legislation also contains an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch enabling millions of middle-income families to avoid paying higher taxes in 2006.

The President’s Tax Relief Has Helped Spur Growth By Keeping $880 Billion In The Pockets Of American Taxpayers. The Administration reduced taxes for every American who pays income taxes, doubled the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty, created investment incentives for small businesses, and put the death tax on the road to extinction.

Strong Growth Is Helping Raise More Tax Revenues For The Federal Government. In 2005, tax revenues grew by $274 billion, or nearly 15 percent - the largest increase in 24 years. The economy is continuing to grow, and tax revenues are growing with it. So far this year, tax revenues are 13 percent higher than they were at the same point last year, which is significantly better than projected.

Henry Paulson Will Be Sworn-In As Treasury Secretary This Coming Monday. Paulson has an intimate knowledge of financial markets and an ability to explain economic issues in clear terms. For the past eight years, Paulson has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Goldman Sachs Group, one of the most respected firms on Wall Street.


So now libs want to raise taxes and kill the growth of the economy.

 

[theHawk]

If you idiot liberals doubt the stupidity of your leftist economy beliefs, just look at Countrywide. Because of California's ultra-liberal anti-business laws the company actually put on a hiring freeze in California. Any new employee had to start in their Texas or Arizona branch, and they highly encouraged employees to move out to Tx or Az. The company saved over $20,000 per employee PER YEAR by doing this.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Here are the economic numbers since the Bush tax cuts.......

Try and dispute them if you can

Job Creation Continues:
5.4 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003
Today, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 121,000 Jobs Created In June. The economy has created about 1.85 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.4 million since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.6 percent – lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research this expansion started in November 2001 when there were 130,883,000 establishment jobs. There were 135,230,000 establishment jobs in June of 2006 for an increase of 4.347 million jobs. That's a compound annual growth rate of .71% and the worst rate of job creation in over 40 years. Even if you use the numbers starting in 2003, you get a growth rate of 1.5%, and that's STILL the worst rate of job creation in some 40 years.

The Economy Remains Strong, And The Outlook Is Favorable

Since 2004, The U.S. Has Created About Twice The Number Of Jobs As The Rest Of The G-7 Countries Combined.
Employment Increased In 48 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In May. Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 33 states in May.
Real GDP Grew At An Annual Rate Of 5.6 Percent For The First Quarter Of This Year. This is the fastest growth in two-and-a-half years and even stronger than previous estimates. It follows economic growth of 3.5 percent in 2005 – the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation.
Productivity Increased At A Strong Annual Rate Of 3.7 Percent In The First Quarter. Productivity growth during the past five years has been at the fastest rate in nearly four decades.
Real Hourly Compensation Rose At A 3.2 Percent Annual Rate In The First Quarter.
Real Consumer Spending Increased At An Annual Rate Of 5.1 Percent In The First Quarter.
Industrial Production Increased 4.3 Percent Over The Past 12 Months.
President Bush Has An Aggressive Agenda To Create Jobs And Keep The Economy Growing

According to a study by Global Insight, the top 10 areas of job creation for the years 2003-2005 pay on average $9000/year less than the top ten areas of jobs lost in 2001-2003. So these "new jobs" pay an average of $9,000 less per year than in previous years.

Growing The Economy And Reducing The Deficit Depend On Controlling The Spending Appetite Of The Federal Government. Every year since the President took office, the Administration has slowed the growth of discretionary spending that is not related to the military or homeland security. The President's last two budgets cut discretionary spending that was unrelated to the military or homeland security, and we are on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

<blockquote>(On 1/12/06)...the White House announced that the deficit would increase in 2006, "erasing the brief improvement last year and complicating President Bush's vow to cut the deficit in half by 2009." And, "even though administration officials and lawmakers have known for months that the next year's deficit would be higher, Mr. Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are pushing hard to pass nearly $90 billion in tax cuts for the next five years." [New York Times, 1/13/06]</blockquote>

Since 2003, the administration has deliberately overestimated the scope of the deficit so when the real numbers provided by the CBO came out, he could claim economic policies were "working". Smoke and mirrors does not constitute sound economic or fiscal policy.

President Bush Is Calling On The Senate To Join The House And Quickly Pass The Line-Item Veto, So He Can Sign It Into Law. The line-item veto, already passed by the House, would allow Presidents to target wasteful spending in large spending bills. It is an essential part of the President's strategy to reform the budget process and enhance spending discipline.

The President Has Expanded Tax Relief And Is Working To Make His Tax Relief Permanent. In May, President Bush signed into law a bill that extends the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. This legislation also contains an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch enabling millions of middle-income families to avoid paying higher taxes in 2006.

The President’s Tax Relief Has Helped Spur Growth By Keeping $880 Billion In The Pockets Of American Taxpayers. The Administration reduced taxes for every American who pays income taxes, doubled the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty, created investment incentives for small businesses, and put the death tax on the road to extinction.

According to a dynamic study released by the <a href=http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf>Department of the Treasury</a>, states that,
<blockquote>"An important feature of this model is that a permanent reduction in taxes, as compared to baseline, would lead to an unsustainable accumulation of debt."</blockquote>

As for economic growth, the report only projects a 0.7% increase in economic growth, even after a number of years, due to the tax cuts.

Strong Growth Is Helping Raise More Tax Revenues For The Federal Government. In 2005, tax revenues grew by $274 billion, or nearly 15 percent - the largest increase in 24 years. The economy is continuing to grow, and tax revenues are growing with it. So far this year, tax revenues are 13 percent higher than they were at the same point last year, which is significantly better than projected.

<blockquote>Many of the factors behind the increase in revenues in 2005 are temporary. The expiration of a business tax cut at the end of 2004 is leading to an increase in tax collections of about $50 billion this year, according to past estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. In this case, the increase in revenue stems from the termination of a tax cut, not from a tax cut’s effect in spurring the economy. The recent revenue increase also apparently reflects a rise in the stock market in 2004 that resulted in increased capital gains tax payments when tax returns for 2004 were filed earlier this year. This increase in the market, however, has not continued in 2005. Additionally, the corporate tax legislation enacted last October contained a provision (relating to profits that U.S. companies have earned abroad and kept overseas) that was designed to produce a one-time gain in revenues this year. The one-time gain will be followed by revenue losses in subsequent years. Another contributing factor is higher-than-expected inflation, which generates higher revenues. To the extent that 2005 and future revenues are higher because of higher inflation, this growth would be largely offset in later years by higher expenditures, most of which also respond to inflation. In fact, CBO’s new report projects faster growth of Social Security and other entitlement programs over the next ten years because it now expects faster inflation than it did in January. - <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-05bud.htm>Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a></blockquote>

SO, any gains in tax revenues are little more than a brief shower in a drought striken land.

Henry Paulson Will Be Sworn-In As Treasury Secretary This Coming Monday. Paulson has an intimate knowledge of financial markets and an ability to explain economic issues in clear terms. For the past eight years, Paulson has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Goldman Sachs Group, one of the most respected firms on Wall Street.

Mr. Paulson, a heavy contributor to Republican causes, will be little more than a cheerleader for the Administration's disasterous economic policies. He will also face conflicts of interest as he will be making decisions which will affect his financial losses and gains as he currently hoplds many stock options which cannot be immediately sold.

So now libs want to raise taxes and kill the growth of the economy.

No, just some of that vaunted fiscal responsibility that Republicans used to have as a core value.

 

[theHawk]

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research this expansion started in November 2001 when there were 130,883,000 establishment jobs. There were 135,230,000 establishment jobs in June of 2006 for an increase of 4.347 million jobs. That's a compound annual growth rate of .71% and the worst rate of job creation in over 40 years. Even if you use the numbers starting in 2003, you get a growth rate of 1.5%, and that's STILL the worst rate of job creation in some 40 years.

Bully, why would there be an explosion of job creation when we have the lowest unemployment rates of decades?

There will alsways be at least that 5% that leeches off unemployment(as long as we have it) instead of learning new skills or doing what it takes to get a job.

Are you in that 5%? I wonder why you are so adamant about your views on our current economy.

I really have to wonder who are all these masses of people are that you would have us believe cannot get a job. If you can't get a job in todays economy then you're either downright lazy or just stupid.

 

[Hobbit]

First off, anybody who thinks either party will show fiscal responsibility is naive. Right now, both parties are in favor of nothing other than what gets them votes. Only when fiscal responsibility begets votes will it actually be the agenda in Washington. Until that time, politicians will continue to buy votes with the wallets of their successors. It's like ordering filet mignon with truffles and then skipping out on the check. It's just wrong.

That being the case, I'd rather have Republicans in office than Democrats. Whenever the Republicans start spending a lot of money, the Democrats crticize them for not spending enough.

All in all, I agree with the article. Liberals want to heavily regulate the economy to keep people from being hurt, not realizing that hurting the rich and big business hurts us all and imposing limits on the economy wrecks the beautiful system of free enterprise. Look down at the keyboard you're typing on. Millions of people all contributed to making that keyboard, not because they just wanted to or had some mastermind coordinate them. No, each step of the process can turn a profit, so these millions of people work in perfect harmony, each unaware of any other but the few that surround him. Profit makes the world spin.

 

[catatonic]

Liberals are Economically Ignorant​

The prosperity of a society does not come from the benevolence of its people &#8211; it comes from greed.

Come on; All things, everything, is seriously evidence that the opposite is the case.

and lest I be called a troller,

removing a circular definition that a liberal is someone who makes the economy worse, can you please identify these people on this board or around, making the economy worse?

Oil prices are decided by futures markets and additional taxes, to make oil $1000/bl people that owned oil costing $1000/bl would have to not want to sell that oil, perhaps not thinking the oil would cost less the next day. Does that mean you can't "fix" oil price? Yes and no. What people can do is affect supply and demand (and taxes).

$7.75 is the current minimum wage adjusted for inflation, letting people spend on other than direct survival, spurring industries like technology that obviously are what would really drive an economy forward.

And I'm not hurting anybody by asking for stopping people from getting hurt. That is just self-evident.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, why would there be an explosion of job creation when we have the lowest unemployment rates of decades?

There will alsways be at least that 5% that leeches off unemployment(as long as we have it) instead of learning new skills or doing what it takes to get a job.

Are you in that 5%? I wonder why you are so adamant about your views on our current economy.

I really have to wonder who are all these masses of people are that you would have us believe cannot get a job. If you can't get a job in todays economy then you're either downright lazy or just stupid.

Sorry to disappoint you boyo, but I and my wife have good paying jobs, live in a nice neighborhood and own a home.

As for my views on the economy, they are shaped by a concern for fiscal responsibility and economic justice. Neither of which are on the GOP's or Chimpy's radar.

 

[red states rule]

Sorry to disappoint you boyo, but I and my wife have good paying jobs, live in a nice neighborhood and own a home.

As for my views on the economy, they are shaped by a concern for fiscal responsibility and economic justice. Neither of which are on the GOP's or Chimpy's radar.

Is it economic justice to have 1% of the taxpayers paying 34% of all federal income taxes?

Or the top 5% paying 55%?

Or the top 10% paying 66%?

Or the top 50% paying 96%

Please tell me how much more you want the producers to pay.

 

[theHawk]

Sorry to disappoint you boyo, but I and my wife have good paying jobs, live in a nice neighborhood and own a home.

As for my views on the economy, they are shaped by a concern for fiscal responsibility and economic justice. Neither of which are on the GOP's or Chimpy's radar.

"Economic justice"? I'm almost afraid to ask. But there is really no need to. This mentality is the essence of "economic liberalism". Take from the rich that which they rightfully earned on their own and distribute it to the "poor" that don't work hard or work at all. You know whats best for these people and how to spend their money.

I would certainly hope that "economic justice" is not on Bush's radar. You're talking about income redistribution.

 

[catatonic]

We can settle the question of economic justice like men and women.

 

[Bullypulpit]

"Economic justice"? I'm almost afraid to ask. But there is really no need to. This mentality is the essence of "economic liberalism". Take from the rich that which they rightfully earned on their own and distribute it to the "poor" that don't work hard or work at all. You know whats best for these people and how to spend their money.

I would certainly hope that "economic justice" is not on Bush's radar. You're talking about income redistribution.

A fair day's wage for a fair day's work, a living wage, adequate, portable, affordable health care for everyone, quality public education from kindergarten to college, a truly progressive tax structure. Not exactly communism, nor even socialism. Just a real shot at "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." for everyone. No guarantees beyond a living wage and health care.

As for the rich, if they've earned it from the sweat of their brow, It's not an issue. Investment income of the scale they rake in should be taxed at a higher rate than wage generated income. That would be a tax-break for us all.

 

[red states rule]

A fair day's wage for a fair day's work, a living wage, adequate, portable, affordable health care for everyone, quality public education from kindergarten to college, a truly progressive tax structure. Not exactly communism, nor even socialism. Just a real shot at "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." for everyone. No guarantees beyond a living wage and health care.

As for the rich, if they've earned it from the sweat of their brow, It's not an issue. Investment income of the scale they rake in should be taxed at a higher rate than wage generated income. That would be a tax-break for us all.

Is it economic justice to have 1% of the taxpayers paying 34% of all federal income taxes?

Or the top 5% paying 55%?

Or the top 10% paying 66%?

Or the top 50% paying 96%

Please tell me how much more you want the producers to pay.

Without investment, the economy would collapse. Why should anyone or any company take risk if they are going to make less profit?

Beside companies do not pay taxes - their customers do. Any cost to doing business is passed on to us

 

[Hobbit]

Is it economic justice to have 1% of the taxpayers paying 34% of all federal income taxes?

Or the top 5% paying 55%?

Or the top 10% paying 66%?

Or the top 50% paying 96%

Please tell me how much more you want the producers to pay.

Without investment, the economy would collapse. Why should anyone or any company take risk if they are going to make less profit?

Beside companies do not pay taxes - their customers do. Any cost to doing business is passed on to us

Only wealth can be taxed. Only individuals can accumulate wealth. Only individuals can be taxed. The corporate income tax is just a way congress can tax us up to our eyebrows and then get us to thank them for the favor.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Fag.

ygpm

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

A fair day's wage for a fair day's work, a living wage, adequate, portable, affordable health care for everyone, quality public education from kindergarten to college, a truly progressive tax structure. Not exactly communism, nor even socialism.

But these are all items in the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

We had rising wages, affordable health care, and quality education before became involved.