The Neocon Economy

[Soggy in NOLA]

Did this clown get the memo??? Bush hasn't been President for over a year!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A little board history on the economy. Did the OP have it correct?

No. The OP is liberal claptrap.... it is meaningless.. pedestrian at best.

 

[editec]

Seems fairly obvious to me.

Markets depend on two things SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

When this nation (or any capitalist nation for that matter) leans too much in one direction or the other bad things happen to the economy overall.

Too much SUPPLY SIDE stimulation, expecially when done by making the demand side pay for it, and we end up with SUPPLY SIDE BUBBLES like the dotcom meltdown.

Too much DEMAND SIDE stimulation and we end up ratching up inflationary pressure, like we dealt with as a result of the VIET NAM war.

Finding a blance, a balance that rewards good investments AND hard work, too, is the key to creating not only a wealthy society, but a happy society.

The supply siders have been in power for nearly 40 years.

This economic meltdown is the outcome of that imbalance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did this clown get the memo??? Bush hasn't been President for over a year!

No. No memo received. However, if I recieved a memo advising that history has no relivence to current events, I would corrrectly presume the author of the memo was a dumb shit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A little board history on the economy. Did the OP have it correct?

No. The OP is liberal claptrap.... it is meaningless.. pedestrian at best.

Normally I ignore your posts NOLA, because all of your posts are of the meaningless variety, usually one line idiotgrams. I'd bet you didn't read the entire OP, and even if you did I'm pretty certain your mind is closed to any idea not consistent with your narrow world view.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy.

Actually the two sides, Democrat and Republican, are destroying the economy by continually changing (and increasing) the arbitrary government regulations on them.
We can agree that some regulation is needed, but once the Federal politicians have the power to regulate at will, then the seesaw game between both parties, who both seek to help their supporters to the detriment of the other sides supporters, destroys any semblance of normalcy in the business environment. High risk is supposed to return high yields, but the current erratic policies produce high risks and low yields.

Claiming the Republicans are solely at fault is a partisan lie.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Did this clown get the memo??? Bush hasn't been President for over a year!

No. No memo received. However, if I recieved a memo advising that history has no relivence to current events, I would corrrectly presume the author of the memo was a dumb shit.

Being the master of dumbshits.. I'm sure you would.

World class asshat you are... even back on MSN....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy.

Actually the two sides, Democrat and Republican, are destroying the economy by continually changing (and increasing) the arbitrary government regulations on them.
We can agree that some regulation is needed, but once the Federal politicians have the power to regulate at will, then the seesaw game between both parties, who both seek to help their supporters to the detriment of the other sides supporters, destroys any semblance of normalcy in the business environment. High risk is supposed to return high yields, but the current erratic policies produce high risks and low yields.

Claiming the Republicans are solely at fault is a partisan lie.

Claiming the Democrats are solely at fault is a partisan lie, and seems to be the theme of many threads on this message board.
Is it Bush's fault? Clintons'? Reagan's? Carter's? Ford&Nixon's? Yes!

Not until the money given to elected officials as 'donations' stop, and the influence of future jobs, jobs for wifes and kids, trips and tickets, booze and broads are controlled will the Congress ever become a source of good for the American people. It is up to the president to set the course and for him alone to use the veto to control the current death spiral.
It is absurd to pay interest on debt, yet the congress - both aisles -refuse to consider pay as you go.
I wonder, how many 'conservatives' who post on this message board carry credit card debt over month to month. My wife and I do not, it is absurd to do so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did this clown get the memo??? Bush hasn't been President for over a year!

No. No memo received. However, if I recieved a memo advising that history has no relivence to current events, I would corrrectly presume the author of the memo was a dumb shit.

Being the master of dumbshits.. I'm sure you would.

World class asshat you are... even back on MSN....

Hmm, as the master of dumb shits, and with the authority so invested in a master, I order you fired. You may no longer post dumb shit messages or respond with dumb shit comments. I have also placed you on probation, and all of your stupid shit posts will be closely watched. Failure to improve will result in a sanction and limit your ability to post stupid shit comments too.

 

[Avatar4321]

I stand by what i wrote 5 years ago. It's still true.

We need to cut taxes and slash spending. The more Americans are spending the better.

 

[kwc57]

Did this clown get the memo??? Bush hasn't been President for over a year!

You are aware that the OP was written in 2005 and and bumped today......aren't you ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did this clown get the memo??? Bush hasn't been President for over a year!

You are aware that the OP was written in 2005 and and bumped today......aren't you ?

NOLA, aware??? Why does that make me laugh?

 

[Darkwind]

Trickle down doesn't work...Unless of course they destroy their companies! Why, then everyone suffers!



BTW....Bushes economy is a liberal economy. And now it is Obama's economy. Has been for the past 14 months.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's nothing worse then reading through an idiot's ideas on economics. I ran out of patience about paragraph 4 and I won't waste the electrons responding

 

[Wry Catcher]

There's nothing worse then reading through an idiot's ideas on economics. I ran out of patience about paragraph 4 and I won't waste the electrons responding

I understand, you have too few electrons to spare.
However, I've learned in my 62 years that - present company excepted - I can learn something from anyone. All I need to do is listen and think; btw, both require 'electrons'.

 

[logical4u]

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy. It would take all of about 20 minutes to explain to someone how his economic mismanagement is worsening the economy, in addition to the complete absence of logic to his economic policies. His policies are actively worsening life for the lower 98% at present. And they will make 100% of us poorer in the future.

Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "supply-side" giveaways make no economic sense. Many people aren't aware of this, because it does take a little time to explain. But not very much. So I'm going to try here.

Our country became the world's most powerful economy under administrations that practiced "Demand-Side" economic policies. In general, demand-side economics centers on consumer spending and demand. Profits are made when goods are sold, not when produced. Industrial production is driven by DEMAND for goods made from that production. Consumer spending creates the demand for that production. Without demand, there is no production. That's because there's no benefit to that production. No profits can be made from unsold production.

Consumer demand is the ONLY factor that increases job and wage growth. Demand for goods also creates demand for labor to produce goods. Increased demand for anything increases the price. Thus, increased demand for labor increases the price of that labor. In other words, it increases wages. It also increases hiring. Demand increases the number of people working, as well as the wages of those people working.

If more workers are working and average wages are higher, it increases the aggregate (or total) demand for goods in our country. Aggregate Demand, when measured in dollars, is the ultimate limiting factor of industrial production. Aggregate Demand in dollars is total spendable dollars available to consumers. (Republicans hate the concept of Aggregate Demand. It conflicts with their "alternate reality" economic theories.)

Again, aggregate demand for goods is the engine that drives our economy. It drives production, hiring, and wage increases. The demand cycle has a self-perpetuating effect. As labor/consumer income increases, so does the demand for goods. That's because consumers have more money to spend. This increased demand further increases labor demand. Which further increases wages and hiring.


Supply-side concepts have never been accepted by a large number of economists. What I mean here is that they are not even accepted as a valid economic theory. Many economists refuse to call supply-side policies a theory. Some refer to them as "voodoo economics." Supply-side policies are essentially economic mythology. They are a completely illogical set of ideas that were concocted to justify tax cuts for the rich. The major proponents were not even economists. Most were actually journalists, such as Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Let me try to show the error of some supply-side propaganda. A major point is about tax cuts for the rich. This is supposed to stimulate investment. That investment is supposed to go into building production facilities and increasing production (supply). There is an obvious problem here. What if consumer spending doesn't necessitate increased production? If consumer spending doesn't keep up with supply, that investment money is completely wasted. Profits are made by SELLING products, not producing them. Un-sold goods do not "grow" our economy. (Neither do increased CEO salaries.)

Another less important, but even more illogical assumption, is that if you tax people less, they will produce more. It may be true that high-end taxpayers would have more money to invest. However, that's where the truth ends, and the fantasy begins. Even acknowledging that smidgeon of truth, the benefit of that money is questionable. The extra investment money is supposed to lead to increased goods production(supply). Again, there is no benefit to producing more goods than consumers can pay for. This increased investment money is useless unless demand necessitates increased production.

There is also a definite negative to these supply-side fantasies. Increasing the deficit to fund these cuts increases inflation, as well as devaluing the dollar. That means consumer dollars are worth less. So consumers will buy less. And provide less demand for goods, causing less demand for labor. Which starts us on another self-perpetuating downward spiral.

The big picture is this. In order for production to increase, demand for production must increase. Consumers need to have enough spendable wealth to purchase increased production. Inreasing production without increasing consumer spending is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The cart isn't going to "push" the horse forward. And manufacturers aren't going to "push" consumer spending forward. Only consumers can drive our economy. They provide the demand that "pulls" production forward. Remember the old adage: "Necessity is the mother of invention." So it is that "Demand is the mother of production." Demand for goods leads to increased production of those goods. However, supply of goods does not increase demand. Unsold goods are worth absolutely $0.


Demand-Side Economics were almost universally accepted until the mid-1970's. However, sometime in the 70's, supply-side mythology was born. (Under a rock, in a dark cave.)

Today we're seeing the fruits of supply-side mythology.
Consumer income has decreased during Bush's "economic reign-of-terror." Tax cuts for the top 2% favor investment, not consumer spending. Though consumer income was obviously declining, Bush decided his rich friends needed more money to "grow" the economy. According to Bush, they would produce more goods and increase production capacity. Also, as Bush dishonestly claimed, they would hire more workers.

Does this make any sense? Will a company hire more workers just because they have more money? Do they hire more just because they can afford to? No, absolutely not. They only hire workers when they NEED them. No amount of corporate giveaways will increase hiring, unless demand for production increases, which increases demand for labor to provide that production.

Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who sees 6 patients per day. I need one nurse. What if my new friend, George Bush, gives me $1 million because he likes me. (for some unknown reason.) Will I hire more nurses? Of course not. I don't NEED more nurses. They won't increase my profits any, and they will cost me money. So I'm not going to hire them.

Let me change the example. Let's say I'm the same doctor, and my ex-friend, George Bush, takes back the $1 million. He then gives it to the potential patients who live around my office. Now more people can afford medical care. Now I have 30 patients per day. Am I going to hire more nurses? Yes, indeed. Because now I NEED more nurses. The DEMAND for nurses has increased. Hiring more nurses will increase my profits.

In the above example I hired more nurses only when I NEEDED them. I hired none when I didn't need them, even though I could afford them. Being able to afford hiring of nurses had no effect on hiring. Demand for their services did. This increased demand was due to increased consumer income. Increased consumer income ALWAYS increases aggregate demand. (It may effect demand for individual products differently. But is still increases the sum total of demand for goods and services produced.)

In the above example, nurses spendable income increased because of demand increase. In turn, their income increased aggregate consumer income. This increases demand for the goods they buy, and the labor that produces those goods. It helped the entire economy as a result.

Again, increased consumer income increases demand for production. But how does consumer spending increase, if consumer income decreases? It increases through credit and borrowing. Current consumer spending has been maintained through increased borrowing and credit card spending. To phrase this differently, it has been maintained by consumer "deficit" spending. And this is becoming an increasingly larger portion of consumer spending. A lot of this deficit spending has been financed by the artificially increased value of homes, and the resulting increase in home equity loans. Interest rates have almost a direct effect on the market value of homes. The higher the fraction of buyer's cost going to financing, the less the market value of the home. This is because the seller receives a smaller fraction of the total payment. If interest rates are low, the seller receives a higher fraction of the buyer's payment.

Let me give a brief illustration. Let's say I want to buy a home. Let's say I am a perfect example of all potential buyers in my area. I'm willing to pay $300,000 total for a home. This includes all finance charges, as well as principal payment. Let's say the total financing costs $150, 000. That means the seller will get the other $150,000. That means the market value of his home is $150,000, because that's what he actually gets.

Let's change the finance charges. I'm still only willing to pay $300,000 total for the home, including all finance charges. But the finance charges are only $50,000 now, because of a lower interest rate. The seller now gets $250,000, instead of $150,000. The market value of his home is now $250,000. The market value of his home has increased $100,000 because of a reduced interest rate. The reduced interest rate accounts for 100% of the increase in market value. This increases the equity, and increases the amount he can borrow off this equity.

Lowered interest rates have greatly increased home equity values. They have also greatly increased the amount of money that can be borrowed off this equity. This money has made a significant contribution to consumer spending during the last 4 years. Current estimates are that it contributes $200-300 billion per year to our $12 trillion GDP. This is 1.5 to 2.5% of our GDP. Borrowed money has prevented consumer spending from sinking. As interest rates rise, home equity values will decrease. Money borrowed from this reduced home equity will also decrease. The contribution to consumer spending from this money will also decrease.

From this, it becomes obvious that consumer demand cannot be maintained by this consumer deficit spending. We are nearing the limit now. We are going to reach this limit in the near future. The home-refinancing loan bubble, and its contribution to consumer spending, is about to burst. When it does, consumer spending and demand will drop. And they will continue to drop, because this is also a self-perpetuating cycle. As consumer demand for production decreases, so will the demand for labor to provide that production. As a result, hiring will decrease and layoffs will increase. This will further decrease consumer income, and the spending that comes from that income.

We need to change our economic course. We can't let Republicans distract us from major issues. We can't let them waste our time with discussion right-wing planted distractions. Subjects such as steroids in baseball, the Robert Blake trial, Michael Jackson, and Terry Shiavo provide cover for what the Republicans are really up to. Corporatization of social security and extension of tax cuts for the rich affect all of us. Job loss to the cheap slave labor of foreign countries affects all of us. Let's not help provide cover for the Bush/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil."

Clinton was right. It is "the economy stupid." Let's not let the Republicans convince us otherwise.


unlawflcombatnt

_________________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for factory production creates jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.

What, no mention of the government spending our incomes before we can earn them? If we are being taxed for money that has already been spent, where does that leave the economy? If the gov is spending even more, how can that fix anything (other than to make us like Zimbabwe or Venuzuela)?
You want to blame the repulicans? Who is in the majority and has been for the last year? Who has been in control of congress for the last forty of the last sixty years of gov? Hard to take you seriously with such a slanted post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy. It would take all of about 20 minutes to explain to someone how his economic mismanagement is worsening the economy, in addition to the complete absence of logic to his economic policies. His policies are actively worsening life for the lower 98% at present. And they will make 100% of us poorer in the future.

Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "supply-side" giveaways make no economic sense. Many people aren't aware of this, because it does take a little time to explain. But not very much. So I'm going to try here.

Our country became the world's most powerful economy under administrations that practiced "Demand-Side" economic policies. In general, demand-side economics centers on consumer spending and demand. Profits are made when goods are sold, not when produced. Industrial production is driven by DEMAND for goods made from that production. Consumer spending creates the demand for that production. Without demand, there is no production. That's because there's no benefit to that production. No profits can be made from unsold production.

Consumer demand is the ONLY factor that increases job and wage growth. Demand for goods also creates demand for labor to produce goods. Increased demand for anything increases the price. Thus, increased demand for labor increases the price of that labor. In other words, it increases wages. It also increases hiring. Demand increases the number of people working, as well as the wages of those people working.

If more workers are working and average wages are higher, it increases the aggregate (or total) demand for goods in our country. Aggregate Demand, when measured in dollars, is the ultimate limiting factor of industrial production. Aggregate Demand in dollars is total spendable dollars available to consumers. (Republicans hate the concept of Aggregate Demand. It conflicts with their "alternate reality" economic theories.)

Again, aggregate demand for goods is the engine that drives our economy. It drives production, hiring, and wage increases. The demand cycle has a self-perpetuating effect. As labor/consumer income increases, so does the demand for goods. That's because consumers have more money to spend. This increased demand further increases labor demand. Which further increases wages and hiring.


Supply-side concepts have never been accepted by a large number of economists. What I mean here is that they are not even accepted as a valid economic theory. Many economists refuse to call supply-side policies a theory. Some refer to them as "voodoo economics." Supply-side policies are essentially economic mythology. They are a completely illogical set of ideas that were concocted to justify tax cuts for the rich. The major proponents were not even economists. Most were actually journalists, such as Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Let me try to show the error of some supply-side propaganda. A major point is about tax cuts for the rich. This is supposed to stimulate investment. That investment is supposed to go into building production facilities and increasing production (supply). There is an obvious problem here. What if consumer spending doesn't necessitate increased production? If consumer spending doesn't keep up with supply, that investment money is completely wasted. Profits are made by SELLING products, not producing them. Un-sold goods do not "grow" our economy. (Neither do increased CEO salaries.)

Another less important, but even more illogical assumption, is that if you tax people less, they will produce more. It may be true that high-end taxpayers would have more money to invest. However, that's where the truth ends, and the fantasy begins. Even acknowledging that smidgeon of truth, the benefit of that money is questionable. The extra investment money is supposed to lead to increased goods production(supply). Again, there is no benefit to producing more goods than consumers can pay for. This increased investment money is useless unless demand necessitates increased production.

There is also a definite negative to these supply-side fantasies. Increasing the deficit to fund these cuts increases inflation, as well as devaluing the dollar. That means consumer dollars are worth less. So consumers will buy less. And provide less demand for goods, causing less demand for labor. Which starts us on another self-perpetuating downward spiral.

The big picture is this. In order for production to increase, demand for production must increase. Consumers need to have enough spendable wealth to purchase increased production. Inreasing production without increasing consumer spending is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The cart isn't going to "push" the horse forward. And manufacturers aren't going to "push" consumer spending forward. Only consumers can drive our economy. They provide the demand that "pulls" production forward. Remember the old adage: "Necessity is the mother of invention." So it is that "Demand is the mother of production." Demand for goods leads to increased production of those goods. However, supply of goods does not increase demand. Unsold goods are worth absolutely $0.


Demand-Side Economics were almost universally accepted until the mid-1970's. However, sometime in the 70's, supply-side mythology was born. (Under a rock, in a dark cave.)

Today we're seeing the fruits of supply-side mythology.
Consumer income has decreased during Bush's "economic reign-of-terror." Tax cuts for the top 2% favor investment, not consumer spending. Though consumer income was obviously declining, Bush decided his rich friends needed more money to "grow" the economy. According to Bush, they would produce more goods and increase production capacity. Also, as Bush dishonestly claimed, they would hire more workers.

Does this make any sense? Will a company hire more workers just because they have more money? Do they hire more just because they can afford to? No, absolutely not. They only hire workers when they NEED them. No amount of corporate giveaways will increase hiring, unless demand for production increases, which increases demand for labor to provide that production.

Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who sees 6 patients per day. I need one nurse. What if my new friend, George Bush, gives me $1 million because he likes me. (for some unknown reason.) Will I hire more nurses? Of course not. I don't NEED more nurses. They won't increase my profits any, and they will cost me money. So I'm not going to hire them.

Let me change the example. Let's say I'm the same doctor, and my ex-friend, George Bush, takes back the $1 million. He then gives it to the potential patients who live around my office. Now more people can afford medical care. Now I have 30 patients per day. Am I going to hire more nurses? Yes, indeed. Because now I NEED more nurses. The DEMAND for nurses has increased. Hiring more nurses will increase my profits.

In the above example I hired more nurses only when I NEEDED them. I hired none when I didn't need them, even though I could afford them. Being able to afford hiring of nurses had no effect on hiring. Demand for their services did. This increased demand was due to increased consumer income. Increased consumer income ALWAYS increases aggregate demand. (It may effect demand for individual products differently. But is still increases the sum total of demand for goods and services produced.)

In the above example, nurses spendable income increased because of demand increase. In turn, their income increased aggregate consumer income. This increases demand for the goods they buy, and the labor that produces those goods. It helped the entire economy as a result.

Again, increased consumer income increases demand for production. But how does consumer spending increase, if consumer income decreases? It increases through credit and borrowing. Current consumer spending has been maintained through increased borrowing and credit card spending. To phrase this differently, it has been maintained by consumer "deficit" spending. And this is becoming an increasingly larger portion of consumer spending. A lot of this deficit spending has been financed by the artificially increased value of homes, and the resulting increase in home equity loans. Interest rates have almost a direct effect on the market value of homes. The higher the fraction of buyer's cost going to financing, the less the market value of the home. This is because the seller receives a smaller fraction of the total payment. If interest rates are low, the seller receives a higher fraction of the buyer's payment.

Let me give a brief illustration. Let's say I want to buy a home. Let's say I am a perfect example of all potential buyers in my area. I'm willing to pay $300,000 total for a home. This includes all finance charges, as well as principal payment. Let's say the total financing costs $150, 000. That means the seller will get the other $150,000. That means the market value of his home is $150,000, because that's what he actually gets.

Let's change the finance charges. I'm still only willing to pay $300,000 total for the home, including all finance charges. But the finance charges are only $50,000 now, because of a lower interest rate. The seller now gets $250,000, instead of $150,000. The market value of his home is now $250,000. The market value of his home has increased $100,000 because of a reduced interest rate. The reduced interest rate accounts for 100% of the increase in market value. This increases the equity, and increases the amount he can borrow off this equity.

Lowered interest rates have greatly increased home equity values. They have also greatly increased the amount of money that can be borrowed off this equity. This money has made a significant contribution to consumer spending during the last 4 years. Current estimates are that it contributes $200-300 billion per year to our $12 trillion GDP. This is 1.5 to 2.5% of our GDP. Borrowed money has prevented consumer spending from sinking. As interest rates rise, home equity values will decrease. Money borrowed from this reduced home equity will also decrease. The contribution to consumer spending from this money will also decrease.

From this, it becomes obvious that consumer demand cannot be maintained by this consumer deficit spending. We are nearing the limit now. We are going to reach this limit in the near future. The home-refinancing loan bubble, and its contribution to consumer spending, is about to burst. When it does, consumer spending and demand will drop. And they will continue to drop, because this is also a self-perpetuating cycle. As consumer demand for production decreases, so will the demand for labor to provide that production. As a result, hiring will decrease and layoffs will increase. This will further decrease consumer income, and the spending that comes from that income.

We need to change our economic course. We can't let Republicans distract us from major issues. We can't let them waste our time with discussion right-wing planted distractions. Subjects such as steroids in baseball, the Robert Blake trial, Michael Jackson, and Terry Shiavo provide cover for what the Republicans are really up to. Corporatization of social security and extension of tax cuts for the rich affect all of us. Job loss to the cheap slave labor of foreign countries affects all of us. Let's not help provide cover for the Bush/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil."

Clinton was right. It is "the economy stupid." Let's not let the Republicans convince us otherwise.


unlawflcombatnt

_________________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for factory production creates jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.

What, no mention of the government spending our incomes before we can earn them? If we are being taxed for money that has already been spent, where does that leave the economy? If the gov is spending even more, how can that fix anything (other than to make us like Zimbabwe or Venuzuela)?
You want to blame the repulicans? Who is in the majority and has been for the last year? Who has been in control of congress for the last forty of the last sixty years of gov? Hard to take you seriously with such a slanted post.

My post is slanted, but based on my understanding of history, economics and current events. The question is not who was control of congress for the past 40 years. but, who was in control of the WH on Sept. 11, and why did the Republican majority in Congress fail in their duty to be a check and balance?