Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Dad2three]

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic


MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!

This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.

Got it. You'll stick to the conservatives playbook, ad homs and NEVER explaining your side, because you can't. Conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers

 

[Dad2three]

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic


MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!

This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.

The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.

He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!

More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.


In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.

 

[Dad2three]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

PRINT LARGER --- YOU'RE STILL SAYING STUPID THINGS!

Maybe it will seem less stupid that way.

Got it, you'll stick with the low info ad homs

 

[Dad2three]

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

Wrong. They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because the 1% are taking all of the profits from their work. Jobs which used to pay a living wage, don't because all of that money goes to the top, not the people who produce the goods and services which are giving record profits to he corporations. It used to be that wages were equitable. The workers made a living, and those higher up made good money, and those at the top made an executive wage. Now those at the top take the lion's share, leaving good money for the managers and a pittance for the workers.

If wages had kept pace with GDP, people wouldn't need to work 2 or 3 jobs. People aren't paid according to their worth - they're paid the least amount their employers can get away with, and since minimum wages haven't been raised for years, that's not very much.

You really DON'T understand the income gap, do you?

1) Instead of spouting Huff Post headlines, why don't you look at the real numbers? Check out how much the top 25% have increased. See where the money is going .... see if you can figure out that the largest increases are for those technically qualified workers who can contribute to the new economy.

2) Instead of trying to blame the 1%, why aren't you asking why over half the workforce is unqualified to work in today's environment? Why aren't you asking why their public education is designed to meet a goal 50 years old, instead of what they need today to compete?

3) Instead of spouting liberal talking points, why don't you ask yourself what would happen to that GDP if you raised wages at a rate commensurate to the increase of GDP?

4) Instead of rattling off nonsensical Dem political rally cries, why don't you ask why 92 million people have quit 'looking for jobs', and why the disability submissions increased exponentially the closer they got to losing their two-year grant of unemployment?

5) Instead of whining, why haven't you come up with a solution to compete in the high tech economy with workers who are only qualified to compete with third world workers?

Ok --- that's five. When you come back with the answers, there will be another five waiting for you.

92 million people 'quit looking for jobs'? You fukking moron



Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":



But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

 

[Dad2three]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

Instead of looking for the reason for this phenomena, you look for someone to vilify. It's a lot easier that way, isn't it?

But, let's discuss it ... WHY is it more difficult for lower class persons in the US to advance than it is in European countries? I know ... you don't have an answer, you only have somebody to vilify.

The American economy is significantly more technically advanced than Europe. Because of our increased labor rates (inflated, when compared to Europe), we have to be more efficient in production than do our European counterparts. The average annual household income in the US is about $51K, but in Spain, it is $22k, Italy $24K, England, it is $26K, France $28K, and Germany $29K. Obviously, in order for us to maintain that difference, we must be more efficient.

In order to be more efficient, we must be more technically advanced. We can't do it based on common labor; we need specialized labor. Specialized labor requires education. When you look at the list of European countries, as their technical capability increases, so does their average income.

So, we know what we need - an educated, talented, and dedicated workforce - something we don't have. Only about 33% of our workforce has education above the high school diploma level, and about 11% have some increased level of formal technical training. That means, simply, over 55% of our workforce is not qualified to perform meaningful work at the increased technical level. While there are still jobs for those with high school degrees, there are fewer jobs and greater competition for those jobs. These are increasingly service industry jobs, whether it be changing tires at the Big O or handling customer complaints at the call center. The time has passed for itinerant labor. It's not a case of employers being unwilling to train the uneducated - there just simply are fewer and fewer jobs of that type available.

Our education system is not equipped to provide the technical expertise necessary to advance in our economy today. If you look closely at the numbers for income growth, you'll find a different story than is popular with Democrats and liberals. The growth of income levels in the 5 - 25% level workers is amazing. These are the software engineers who make $150K a year, or the financial specialist who makes 6 figure salaries. People who are qualified to function in our economy do quite well.

What does this mean? It means either our unqualified workers have to get up the gumption to go get trained, or the government needs to carry whole generations of non-workers. We know that the government has programs to help people increase their expertise - but, we also know that the people who need it most, aren't availing themselves of it.

We have to ask ourselves why --- when I can make $60K on welfare in Hawaii, or a nationwide average of $41K, without working, without trying to advance myself, why would I do it? This is the permanent underclass that we have created - those who are unqualified (because of our failing education system) and those who are unmotivated (because of our welfare system).

THAT is the primary reason why we have such a significant wealth disparity. Of course, it's easier to just vilify somebody else, than to actually admit it and attack the problem.

Got it, you'll stick with Heritage Foundation talking points and CATO LIES. $60,000 in Hawaii welfare? $41,000 nationwide? lol



When Welfare "Pays Better Than" Work - the Newest Welfare Queen Myth .

How it is at all acceptable for us as a society to let someone who works full time receive $15,000 a year in wages - which is what you get if you make minimum wage. The more you think about how little money that is, the more it feels like we're living in 1914, not 2014.

CATO'S (Koch Central) CLASSIFIER

"Of course, no individual or family gets benefits from all 72 programs, but many do get aid from a number of them at any point in time."


Good thing the US has MANY people making so much money to skew your 'average' right? lol

TRY

Median household income

Rank Country Median income (US$, PPP)

1

Luxembourg 37,178 2011
2

Norway 33,928 2011
3

Switzerland 33,669 2011
4

United States* 30,932 2012
5

Australia 30,077 2012
6

Austria 28,495 2011
7

Canada 28,404 2011
8

Sweden 26,644 2011
9

Denmark 26,421 2011
10

Finland 25,709 2012
11

Netherlands 25,333 2012

Median household income - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

AS CONS HAVE A WAR ON FUNDING EDUCATION, AND SUPPORT THE CORPS WHO WAGE FIX LIKE GOOGLE, APPLE, ETC RECENTLY DID! LOL



12

Germany 24,623

 

[Dad2three]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

Instead of looking for the reason for this phenomena, you look for someone to vilify. It's a lot easier that way, isn't it?

But, let's discuss it ... WHY is it more difficult for lower class persons in the US to advance than it is in European countries? I know ... you don't have an answer, you only have somebody to vilify.

The American economy is significantly more technically advanced than Europe. Because of our increased labor rates (inflated, when compared to Europe), we have to be more efficient in production than do our European counterparts. The average annual household income in the US is about $51K, but in Spain, it is $22k, Italy $24K, England, it is $26K, France $28K, and Germany $29K. Obviously, in order for us to maintain that difference, we must be more efficient.

In order to be more efficient, we must be more technically advanced. We can't do it based on common labor; we need specialized labor. Specialized labor requires education. When you look at the list of European countries, as their technical capability increases, so does their average income.

So, we know what we need - an educated, talented, and dedicated workforce - something we don't have. Only about 33% of our workforce has education above the high school diploma level, and about 11% have some increased level of formal technical training. That means, simply, over 55% of our workforce is not qualified to perform meaningful work at the increased technical level. While there are still jobs for those with high school degrees, there are fewer jobs and greater competition for those jobs. These are increasingly service industry jobs, whether it be changing tires at the Big O or handling customer complaints at the call center. The time has passed for itinerant labor. It's not a case of employers being unwilling to train the uneducated - there just simply are fewer and fewer jobs of that type available.

Our education system is not equipped to provide the technical expertise necessary to advance in our economy today. If you look closely at the numbers for income growth, you'll find a different story than is popular with Democrats and liberals. The growth of income levels in the 5 - 25% level workers is amazing. These are the software engineers who make $150K a year, or the financial specialist who makes 6 figure salaries. People who are qualified to function in our economy do quite well.

What does this mean? It means either our unqualified workers have to get up the gumption to go get trained, or the government needs to carry whole generations of non-workers. We know that the government has programs to help people increase their expertise - but, we also know that the people who need it most, aren't availing themselves of it.

We have to ask ourselves why --- when I can make $60K on welfare in Hawaii, or a nationwide average of $41K, without working, without trying to advance myself, why would I do it? This is the permanent underclass that we have created - those who are unqualified (because of our failing education system) and those who are unmotivated (because of our welfare system).

THAT is the primary reason why we have such a significant wealth disparity. Of course, it's easier to just vilify somebody else, than to actually admit it and attack the problem.

More long, bullshit from you?

Simple question Bubba

Supply side economics. DOES THE TOP 1% OR CORPS IN THE US NEED OR WILL THE EFFECTIVELY SPEND A TAX CUT? Yes or no? Record Corp profits, highest incomes. Half of ALL dividends go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US.Will they spend it in a recovery or will they park it with their money managers?

Your macro bullshit was tried in Chile and had the predictable results. Why is that?


How about HONESTY and the GOP's use of 'starve the beast' policies the past 30+ years? lol

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.



The results were exactly what liberals predicted

Chile the laboratory test

 

[Dad2three]

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

Let me help you --- it's time for your US economy tutorial. If you could, ask Dragonlady to sit in, because both of you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding.

It is your pronouncement that the way out of our current economic malaise is to "increase demand". Of course, you haven't talked about HOW you are going to "increase demand", but that's okay. Frankly, you gave yourself away when you said "increase demand", since that is a microeconomic concept that has no place in macroeconomic management. You are thinking of the classic 'supply and demand' model popular in microeconomics, rather than the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of macroeconomics. Most assuredly, they are two completely different theories and bear little or no relationship to each other.

For purposes of this discussion, we are going to use Real GDP as a measure of economic health. We know Real GDP is defined as today's GDP when measured in some past year's dollars. GDP is made up of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (NX), so the formula is Y=C+I+G+NX. Increasing any one of those will drive up the GDP. I'm going to assume that you are following the classic Keynesian model and proposing to increase consumption by increasing government spending.

Here's the problem - increasing consumption by pouring more money into the economy is self-defeating. It has a short-term positive impact that is quickly overridden by the consequences of such a move, as you shall see. First, while the left claims to believe in the Keynesian model, they, in fact, don't follow it. The classic Keynesian model proposes to 1) increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes, and 2) further increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. So, one at a time ...

Increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes - given that 47% of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes, this obviously won't work. You end up giving tax breaks to only those who actually pay taxes (thus, the hue and cry about tax cuts for the rich --- hell, they are the only ones who pay taxes, so, logically, any tax cut is for them!).

Increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. Logic says - lower taxes, increased spending - makes no sense. There's less money to spend. I will agree that increased government spending can have a short term positive impact, if it is held under control. When the economy starts to heat back up, the spending has to stopped (or funded by revenue only). However, when is the last time you saw our government slow down spending? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to rein in spending - they have too many votes to buy! They don't - so, this has to, necessarily, be a non-starter. If it doesn't, you end up with an $18 trillion national debt.

So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow.

The GDP is driven by aggregate prices. Simply, the lower the price of an item, the more that will be bought, thus, the more that will need to be produced. Since we know price controls don't work (Nixon tried it), the answer is to incentivize the producer. Create more shirts, the price of shirts go down. The price of shirts go down, the more money in the pocket of the consumer. the more money in the consumer's pocket, the more he is likely to buy something else (this is called the wealth effect - the consumer feels 'wealthier). The more money the consumer has, the more he will invest. The money he invests, the cheaper it is to borrow money and increase production (this is called the Interest effect). The more money there is to invest, the cheaper the interest rates. The cheaper the interest rates, the great potential for us to have foreign investment, where the return on investment is higher (called the Foreign Exchange effect) You increase C (go back to the formula - consumption). Increased consumption puts more people to work, and drives up the GDP.

The RIGHT answer is a carefully orchestrated combination of the two --- with the ABSOLUTE caveat that government spending has to be funded by revenue whenever possible. Keynesian economics, when applied during a time of recession, can be very effective. Supply side management of a recovering and boisterous economy is equally effective. The government borrowing money is ALWAYS bad - but a necessary evil sometimes to stimulate a moribund economy.

Now, the first thing I'm going to hear is "You didn't give a reference!!!" You're right, I didn't - this is simple level one hundred macroeconomic theory. This is already longer than War and Peace - references would have made it harder to follow. There are probably a thousand books out there that will tell you all this. I'm particularly fond of the Khan Academy course on macroeconomics - it's short, concise, and covers all the salient points. Failing that, simply go to the local library and pick up any macroeconomics 101 textbook. If you think I said something wrong, find a reference, and we'll discuss it.

Oh ... BTW -- there ARE Republicans who do understand economics.

A FUKKING LIAR. SHOCKING. $18 TRILLION DEBT? Oh I guess starve the beast policies like UNFUNDED tax cuts and UNFUNDED wars and Medicare expansions do that?


RECORD CORP PROFITS? ARE THE 1%ERS HURTING? IS THE US ECONOMY TO SMALL OR SHRINKING? OR IS THE MONEY IN THE WRONG FUKKING HANDS?



In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

"So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow."



PLEASE LIST THESE THINGS YOU SPEAK OF, ESPECIALLY DEMS 'CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE'? LOL

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture


June 16, 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

The global housing boom In come the waves The Economist

BUT YES, DUBYA DID CHEER-LEAD FOR THE BANKSTERS AND PULL REGULATORS OFF THE BEAT AS HE FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN THE BANKSTERS

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

Let me help you --- it's time for your US economy tutorial. If you could, ask Dragonlady to sit in, because both of you have demonstrated a very shallow understanding.

It is your pronouncement that the way out of our current economic malaise is to "increase demand". Of course, you haven't talked about HOW you are going to "increase demand", but that's okay. Frankly, you gave yourself away when you said "increase demand", since that is a microeconomic concept that has no place in macroeconomic management. You are thinking of the classic 'supply and demand' model popular in microeconomics, rather than the aggregate demand-aggregate supply model of macroeconomics. Most assuredly, they are two completely different theories and bear little or no relationship to each other.

For purposes of this discussion, we are going to use Real GDP as a measure of economic health. We know Real GDP is defined as today's GDP when measured in some past year's dollars. GDP is made up of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (NX), so the formula is Y=C+I+G+NX. Increasing any one of those will drive up the GDP. I'm going to assume that you are following the classic Keynesian model and proposing to increase consumption by increasing government spending.

Here's the problem - increasing consumption by pouring more money into the economy is self-defeating. It has a short-term positive impact that is quickly overridden by the consequences of such a move, as you shall see. First, while the left claims to believe in the Keynesian model, they, in fact, don't follow it. The classic Keynesian model proposes to 1) increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes, and 2) further increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. So, one at a time ...

Increase in-pocket money for the citizens by cutting taxes - given that 47% of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes, this obviously won't work. You end up giving tax breaks to only those who actually pay taxes (thus, the hue and cry about tax cuts for the rich --- hell, they are the only ones who pay taxes, so, logically, any tax cut is for them!).

Increase money availability by spending tax money on government projects. Logic says - lower taxes, increased spending - makes no sense. There's less money to spend. I will agree that increased government spending can have a short term positive impact, if it is held under control. When the economy starts to heat back up, the spending has to stopped (or funded by revenue only). However, when is the last time you saw our government slow down spending? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to rein in spending - they have too many votes to buy! They don't - so, this has to, necessarily, be a non-starter. If it doesn't, you end up with an $18 trillion national debt.

So, if that model doesn't work - and we have plenty of historical proof to say it doesn't (the most classic example is LBJ's sabotage of an effective and working economy, though Bush, aided by Democratic congressional interference with the market methodologies did a pretty damn good job, too) - what can we do? We need to kick start it somehow.

The GDP is driven by aggregate prices. Simply, the lower the price of an item, the more that will be bought, thus, the more that will need to be produced. Since we know price controls don't work (Nixon tried it), the answer is to incentivize the producer. Create more shirts, the price of shirts go down. The price of shirts go down, the more money in the pocket of the consumer. the more money in the consumer's pocket, the more he is likely to buy something else (this is called the wealth effect - the consumer feels 'wealthier). The more money the consumer has, the more he will invest. The money he invests, the cheaper it is to borrow money and increase production (this is called the Interest effect). The more money there is to invest, the cheaper the interest rates. The cheaper the interest rates, the great potential for us to have foreign investment, where the return on investment is higher (called the Foreign Exchange effect) You increase C (go back to the formula - consumption). Increased consumption puts more people to work, and drives up the GDP.

The RIGHT answer is a carefully orchestrated combination of the two --- with the ABSOLUTE caveat that government spending has to be funded by revenue whenever possible. Keynesian economics, when applied during a time of recession, can be very effective. Supply side management of a recovering and boisterous economy is equally effective. The government borrowing money is ALWAYS bad - but a necessary evil sometimes to stimulate a moribund economy.

Now, the first thing I'm going to hear is "You didn't give a reference!!!" You're right, I didn't - this is simple level one hundred macroeconomic theory. This is already longer than War and Peace - references would have made it harder to follow. There are probably a thousand books out there that will tell you all this. I'm particularly fond of the Khan Academy course on macroeconomics - it's short, concise, and covers all the salient points. Failing that, simply go to the local library and pick up any macroeconomics 101 textbook. If you think I said something wrong, find a reference, and we'll discuss it.

Oh ... BTW -- there ARE Republicans who do understand economics.

You seem not to be one of them.
How is it a boost to the economy when government taxes profitable enterprises to subsidize unprofitable ventures?

False premises, distortions and lies, the usual right wing garbage you come in with. I'm shocked

 

[Dad2three]

Spare change assumes that those of us on the left want government spending and lots of it. That is what we call a "false premise". There were a lot of them in his post.

What is needed is government investment in infrastructure and education. And not education that views science as witchery and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old. U.S. Education starting lagging behind other countries when parents starting deciding what they wanted their children to learn.

It's long past the time for this experimental patchwork quilt of education with public, charter and religious schools competing for students, to end. It's been an unmitigated disaster, creating one of the most expensive education systems in the world, but with the result that U.S. students are falling behind Europe and Asia in terms of quality of education. And they fall further behind each year.

.

You have your own fallacies.
Government does not "invest" in anything. Government spends money. Your call for a federal takeowver of the education system is a call for spending more money. So SpareChange was right on that count.
The Founders set up a system of a limited federal government, with most functions properly left to the states. They wanted the states to be laboratories of policy. And it works. Vermont just demonstrated that single payer won't work. At least that's out of the way.

Really? Why not keep the Articles of Confederation IF that's what the Founders wanted? lol

Vermont? lol YOU MEAN WHEN THE POOR AND SENIORS ARE ALREADY COVERED? AND A SMALL STATE WITH MANY ISSUES FACING IT? WELL THAT DOOMS IT IN THE US, RIGHT? THE MOST EXPENSIVE H/C NATION IN THE WORLD, BY A LOT!!!



Care to point to ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C? ANY POLL? EVER?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

Chaveznomics.

Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.

Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune

lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..

Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?

 

[Dad2three]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

Chaveznomics.

Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.

Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune

lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..

Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?

PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.

LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.

YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???

"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter


POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0





Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.

Instead of looking for the reason for this phenomena, you look for someone to vilify. It's a lot easier that way, isn't it?

But, let's discuss it ... WHY is it more difficult for lower class persons in the US to advance than it is in European countries? I know ... you don't have an answer, you only have somebody to vilify.

The American economy is significantly more technically advanced than Europe. Because of our increased labor rates (inflated, when compared to Europe), we have to be more efficient in production than do our European counterparts. The average annual household income in the US is about $51K, but in Spain, it is $22k, Italy $24K, England, it is $26K, France $28K, and Germany $29K. Obviously, in order for us to maintain that difference, we must be more efficient.

In order to be more efficient, we must be more technically advanced. We can't do it based on common labor; we need specialized labor. Specialized labor requires education. When you look at the list of European countries, as their technical capability increases, so does their average income.

So, we know what we need - an educated, talented, and dedicated workforce - something we don't have. Only about 33% of our workforce has education above the high school diploma level, and about 11% have some increased level of formal technical training. That means, simply, over 55% of our workforce is not qualified to perform meaningful work at the increased technical level. While there are still jobs for those with high school degrees, there are fewer jobs and greater competition for those jobs. These are increasingly service industry jobs, whether it be changing tires at the Big O or handling customer complaints at the call center. The time has passed for itinerant labor. It's not a case of employers being unwilling to train the uneducated - there just simply are fewer and fewer jobs of that type available.

Our education system is not equipped to provide the technical expertise necessary to advance in our economy today. If you look closely at the numbers for income growth, you'll find a different story than is popular with Democrats and liberals. The growth of income levels in the 5 - 25% level workers is amazing. These are the software engineers who make $150K a year, or the financial specialist who makes 6 figure salaries. People who are qualified to function in our economy do quite well.

What does this mean? It means either our unqualified workers have to get up the gumption to go get trained, or the government needs to carry whole generations of non-workers. We know that the government has programs to help people increase their expertise - but, we also know that the people who need it most, aren't availing themselves of it.

We have to ask ourselves why --- when I can make $60K on welfare in Hawaii, or a nationwide average of $41K, without working, without trying to advance myself, why would I do it? This is the permanent underclass that we have created - those who are unqualified (because of our failing education system) and those who are unmotivated (because of our welfare system).

THAT is the primary reason why we have such a significant wealth disparity. Of course, it's easier to just vilify somebody else, than to actually admit it and attack the problem.

More long, bullshit from you?

Simple question Bubba

Supply side economics. DOES THE TOP 1% OR CORPS IN THE US NEED OR WILL THE EFFECTIVELY SPEND A TAX CUT? Yes or no? Record Corp profits, highest incomes. Half of ALL dividends go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US.Will they spend it in a recovery or will they park it with their money managers?

Your macro bullshit was tried in Chile and had the predictable results. Why is that?


How about HONESTY and the GOP's use of 'starve the beast' policies the past 30+ years? lol

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.



The results were exactly what liberals predicted

Chile the laboratory test

Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade and a reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. Exports of goods and services account for approximately one-third of GDP, with commodities making up some three-quarters of total exports. Copper alone provides 19% of government revenue. From 2003 through 2013, real growth averaged almost 5% per year, despite the slight contraction in 2009 that resulted from the global financial crisis. Chile deepened its longstanding commitment to trade liberalization with the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which took effect on 1 January 2004. Chile has 22 trade agreements covering 60 countries including agreements with the European Union, Mercosur, China, India, South Korea, and Mexico. Chile has joined the United States and nine other countries in negotiating the Trans-Pacific-Partnership trade agreement.

The Chilean Government has generally followed a countercyclical fiscal policy, accumulating surpluses in sovereign wealth funds during periods of high copper prices and economic growth, and generally allowing deficit spending only during periods of low copper prices and growth. As of 31 December 2012, those sovereign wealth funds - kept mostly outside the country and separate from Central Bank reserves - amounted to more than $20.9 billion. Chile used these funds to finance fiscal stimulus packages during the 2009 economic downturn. In May 2010 Chile signed the OECD Convention, becoming the first South American country to join the OECD.
Public debt:
13.9% of GDP (2013 est.)

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

Chaveznomics.

Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.

Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune

lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..

Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?

PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?

Their economics were to give oil money to Chavez cronies.
It worked out much better than the Chicago school.
Especially the shortages of toilet paper.

 

[Oldstyle]

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic


MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!

This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.

The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.

He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!

More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.


In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.

What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?

People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!

 

[Oldstyle]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

Chaveznomics.

Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.

Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune

lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..

Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?

PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?

Wow, you don't have a clue! Did you sleep through the whole Chavez thing in Venezuela?

 

[Oldstyle]

It's amazing to me that any progressive would even have the stones to come on here to argue the results of their control of the economy. Under Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the United States suffered through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. The only thing that's making our economy boom NOW is the cheap price of oil and gas...something that Barry didn't want and did everything he could to keep from happening! You could literally write a dozen economic textbooks on how NOT to grow jobs and an economy based on the Obama Administration's policies! They've been THAT bad.

 

[Dragonlady]

When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.

When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.

The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.

When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.

The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.

When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold.

Considering we spend more per student than any other nation, our students must be very prepared.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.

When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.

The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.

I have respect for you, but your misguided the reason why the income gap widen under obama was because of the feds. Monopoly money

 

[Dragonlady]

There are others reasons but the wealth transfer to the 1% began with Reagan rewriting the tax code, and it won't end until the tax code is changed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dragon lady please elaborate more because I don't understand