Trickle Down

"mumbo jumbo" or in other words, "i am ignorant to economic principals so i will just assume it is all random"

If it is an exact science, economists wouldn't debate issues and what will happen if's.

And what paulson and bernake are doing would work no questions asked. Wanna put your life savings on where the dow will finish tomorrow? Then shut the fuck up. As if you understand anything.

Ps. Tell me when trickle down will kick in you arrogant prick.
 
Economics is a bit like physics. There are some basic fundamental principles that work flawlessly. But in a complicated enough system, it is impossible to work out all the variables. And I would propose that the accuracy of any one economic model varies inversely with its dependence of prediction of human behavior.

Speaking of economics, how about a little FDR to remind us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
 
Political Power and Economic Ignorance - Jeremie T.A. Rostan - Mises Institute


Georges Bush's recent speech in defense of his bailout plan was quite a tour de force. Indeed, it managed to explain the pending recession of the US economy by a previous situation of "easy credit" without mentioning the monstrously inflationist policy of the Federal Reserve — which reached its climax in 2003 and 2004, when it lent dollars at a negative short-term interest rate, and resulted in the creation of more dollars in a seven-year period (2000–2007) than had been created cumulatively in the two centuries since the founding of the United States

According to the 43rd President, the fault rests entirely on "foreign investors" willing to profit from the competitiveness of the US economy. Logically, the lengthening of the structure of production brought by net investment should have resulted in aggregate profits and economic growth — but not this time. For some reason (which the president deems useless to explain) low interest rates were a curse that somehow led all financial entrepreneurs to dissipate their capital in hopeless ventures and loans.

Because of fractional-reserves policies and the de facto international dollar standard, even the billions of units of the US currency spent abroad are duplicated and sent back to America, where they encourage credit. But George Bush did not mention that.

Finally, he concluded that

the Federal Reserve should have its powers extended far beyond their current scope, notably over all financial enterprises, not just banks, and

a massive bailout of taxed funds was necessary — as an exceptional intervention and some sort of public investment which would help the economy recover and be paid afterwards..


And now we have the FED which is partly responsible for this mess by artificially holding down interest rates getting increased power and as a bonus we get a partial nationalization of the banking system.

There was an essence of greed hare as well, hell, negative short term interest rates have to fuel speculation and they did. The creation of more dollars just added to the inflationary cycle. If interest rates were allowed to rise a bit naturally, we would have seen a contraction of the housing market and an end to wild real estate speculation. In essence, peoples house values would have risen much more slowly and would have skipped the quick rise and roller coaster drop the was experienced.

There is a sad irony to economic ignorance — on top of its disastrous effects. Let's call it the Iron Law of Economic Ignorance: the value of economic knowledge increases with its scarcity. That is, economic knowledge gets more valuable as the economy worsens; but the economy worsens according to the level of political intervention — which is a function of economic ignorance.
 
Last edited:
I'm no economic expert, heck I don't even have more than a basic understanding of how it works. I am concerned though that with governments throwing all this money into the system, 6mo-a year from now, inflation is going to skyrocket?
 
I'll admit that I am unfamiliar with the more complex intricacies of modern economics (although I've started studying up some recently), but here's what I'm focusing on until I learn something that makes me think otherwise.

I have seen and heard and read a steady stream of economic "experts" since this mess began. There are relatively few times that they completely agree on either causes or solutions. You can have your expert, I can have my expert, and we can get absolutely nowhere. Until I feel like I can make an informed analysis of the situation, I have to decide which expert's advice to lend the most credibility to while keeping an ear open to all. For now, I am trusting Warren Buffet. Why? Simple. Greed is part of human nature. Competence requires knowledge and understanding. Competence in finance and economic matters results in monetary gains. Warren Buffet has made a LOT of money in finance. Ergo, based on limited current date, he must be fairly competent.
 
Tell that to the current economy.:eusa_whistle:


Brilliant retort, dude.

Yes, there are some people so enamoured by academics (particularly statistical evidence based on dubious studies) that they truly believe that when reality doesn't jibe with the some theory, then reality must be wrong.
 
Bush did exactly what Reagan did, he increased military spending while reducing taxes for the rich. The result was a huge increase in the National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org

Well except Reagan did not increase the other parts of Government spending that he was forced to accept in order to get a reasonable increase in military spending. The Democrats forced billions of social spending on Reagan in order to accept Military increases. The deficit is the Democrats fault.

I suggest you do a little research and discover exactly what the dems vowed when Reagan forced them to accept military increases and then check out Reagan's Budget requests with what actually got passed.

Being on active duty at the time I remember being told two years in a row we may not get paid in January. Why? Because Reagan vetoed every military bill he got that did not include his increases.
 
Reagan and Bush cutting taxes and increasing military spending is what created 90% of the National Debt. No need to for sock puppets on that one.

Reagan and Bush added 9 trillion dollars to the national debt. No amount of lying and bravado will change that.

ReaganBushDebt.org

Look... the parrot squawking again.... spewing forth what he has heard... and much like the parrot, truth is irrelevant... just the fact that it was heard and it was catchy is good enough
 
Never worked, never will. Started with Reagan and continued under Bush.

Bubble up from 70% of the population will work. Get the middle class healthy and able to purchase again and it will do more than any small percent of rich trickle downing.

I'm tired of getting pissed on from above and the GOP tells me it's raining.

Actually, the first to really try a form of it was a guy named Herbert Hoover and what happened during and after his watch?
 
Supply-side economics does not cause debt, it reduces it. You're thinking of increased government spending with no regard of paying for it. Again, you don't have a grasp of the concepts. Let me know when you do.
how did that debt occur then?
 
I think economics is mumbo jumbo. Its just not an exact science. Example, they say there is a shortage of IT professionals, so why isn't supply and demand driving up wages?

Or gas supply and demand. We never had a shortage of oil and speculation over ruled s&d.

The problems start when someone figures out how to limit competition via government - in the case of gas prices, the mergers of the oil companies that George Sr. and Bill allowed in the 80's & 90's are directly responsible for the lack of alternatives in energy and the profits we see today. Do you remember when there were price wars over gas? That was the result of a lot of companies producing energy... Today we have 3.

Back in the 50's & 60's we went through the same damn thing with the car companies. Remember when Pontiac, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac were all separate auto manufactures? Same with Ford, Lincoln & Mercury... The auto industry merged into 'The Big 3' and delivered the shit-for-American-cars we drove in the 70's. It was competition from Japan and Europe that forced GM, Ford and Chrysler to build better cars for us.

There needs to be a damn compelling reason for the people to allow business to get "Big".

-Joe
 
Last edited:
Political Power and Economic Ignorance - Jeremie T.A. Rostan - Mises Institute


Georges Bush's recent speech in defense of his bailout plan was quite a tour de force. Indeed, it managed to explain the pending recession of the US economy by a previous situation of "easy credit" without mentioning the monstrously inflationist policy of the Federal Reserve — which reached its climax in 2003 and 2004, when it lent dollars at a negative short-term interest rate, and resulted in the creation of more dollars in a seven-year period (2000–2007) than had been created cumulatively in the two centuries since the founding of the United States

According to the 43rd President, the fault rests entirely on "foreign investors" willing to profit from the competitiveness of the US economy. Logically, the lengthening of the structure of production brought by net investment should have resulted in aggregate profits and economic growth — but not this time. For some reason (which the president deems useless to explain) low interest rates were a curse that somehow led all financial entrepreneurs to dissipate their capital in hopeless ventures and loans.

Because of fractional-reserves policies and the de facto international dollar standard, even the billions of units of the US currency spent abroad are duplicated and sent back to America, where they encourage credit. But George Bush did not mention that.

Finally, he concluded that

the Federal Reserve should have its powers extended far beyond their current scope, notably over all financial enterprises, not just banks, and

a massive bailout of taxed funds was necessary — as an exceptional intervention and some sort of public investment which would help the economy recover and be paid afterwards..


And now we have the FED which is partly responsible for this mess by artificially holding down interest rates getting increased power and as a bonus we get a partial nationalization of the banking system.

There was an essence of greed hare as well, hell, negative short term interest rates have to fuel speculation and they did. The creation of more dollars just added to the inflationary cycle. If interest rates were allowed to rise a bit naturally, we would have seen a contraction of the housing market and an end to wild real estate speculation. In essence, peoples house values would have risen much more slowly and would have skipped the quick rise and roller coaster drop the was experienced.

There is a sad irony to economic ignorance — on top of its disastrous effects. Let's call it the Iron Law of Economic Ignorance: the value of economic knowledge increases with its scarcity. That is, economic knowledge gets more valuable as the economy worsens; but the economy worsens according to the level of political intervention — which is a function of economic ignorance.

The Federal Reserve should be abolished. Why do private individuals have so much control over our monitary system? They can tank the stock market when they want and bail themselves out whenever they decide. Remember the Federal Reserve bailed out Bear Stearns without asking? That was our money. Before the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, we controlled our own money.


"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -
-- Mayer amschel rothschild

or

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." -
-- Mayer amschel rothschild
 
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson
 
I'll admit that I am unfamiliar with the more complex intricacies of modern economics (although I've started studying up some recently), but here's what I'm focusing on until I learn something that makes me think otherwise.

I have seen and heard and read a steady stream of economic "experts" since this mess began. There are relatively few times that they completely agree on either causes or solutions. You can have your expert, I can have my expert, and we can get absolutely nowhere. Until I feel like I can make an informed analysis of the situation, I have to decide which expert's advice to lend the most credibility to while keeping an ear open to all. For now, I am trusting Warren Buffet. Why? Simple. Greed is part of human nature. Competence requires knowledge and understanding. Competence in finance and economic matters results in monetary gains. Warren Buffet has made a LOT of money in finance. Ergo, based on limited current date, he must be fairly competent.

Maybe the problem is not the complex nature of economics, maybe the problem is that economics can be made to be as complex or as simple as someone wants it to be. Those of you who claim to have a good 'basic understanding' of economics probably have all the tools you need. Unless someone is trying to scam through mis-understanding, a good 'basic understanding' should be all that is required to make decisions on a national level. How many contracts have you walked away from because they smelled "fishy"?

Until we have a leader that every one trusts, maybe we should try to keep things simple...

Perhaps We, The People should just say 'no' to derivatives and complex banking instruments instead of attempting to 'regulate' something even the buyers and sellers don't understand.

-Joe
 
The Federal Reserve should be abolished. Why do private individuals have so much control over our monitary system? They can tank the stock market when they want and bail themselves out whenever they decide. Remember the Federal Reserve bailed out Bear Stearns without asking? That was our money. Before the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, we controlled our own money.


"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -
-- Mayer amschel rothschild

or

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." -
-- Mayer amschel rothschild

And yet, you support the bail out? That is nothing but the government taking control of your money. Do you support the nationalization of the banks? Again that is the government controlling your money.

You seem to be holding contradictory positions.
 
And yet, you support the bail out? That is nothing but the government taking control of your money. Do you support the nationalization of the banks? Again that is the government controlling your money.

You seem to be holding contradictory positions.

I don't support the bailout. I know that if the democrats didn't pass the bailout, the Federal Reserve/Republicans/Rich People/Bankers would have completely tanked the economy and you all would have blamed the democrats for not passing it.

If it is necessary, then what choice do I have but support it?

And, are you suggesting Bush is lying about the crisis and this is just another looting of the treasury for $700 billion right before he leaves office? Because that I will agree 100% with you on.

I don't think the bailout was necessary. I also think this problem would have been better fixed from the bottom up. Would have been cheaper too.

And why the fuck aren't banks refinancing the very people who are giving them $700 billion dollars? That's our fucking tax dollars. So if OUR homes are being foreclosed by the very fucking scum that we are loaning money to, it is only right that those banks refinance US for 3% interest.

I'm not even one of those people, but I don't see why the banks are being helped but not the sub prime loan holders. It's a scam!!!

But I do know who came up with the scam, and that would be Bush. And the "conservatives" came off looking good by voting against it while the Dems looked like suckers voting for it. But again, they had NO choice.

This is why you should never vote GOP ever again. They are in bed with the bankers. So are the dems, but not to the extent they ever robbed us of $700 billion.

Plus, $10 billion a month in Iraq. Again, why isn't Iraqi oil paying for Iraq? They have a surplus. Chaney said 6 years ago oil would pay for Iraq. Was he lying or just wrong? Iraq has just as much to do with our bad economy as sub prime loans do. Maybe more!!!
 
Reagan and Bush cutting taxes and increasing military spending is what created 90% of the National Debt. No need to for sock puppets on that one.

Reagan and Bush added 9 trillion dollars to the national debt. No amount of lying and bravado will change that.

ReaganBushDebt.org

I warned you! Here goes:

sockpuppet300x386.jpg


When you try to post something you know nothing about, think of the sock puppet and don't post.
 
Never worked, never will. Started with Reagan and continued under Bush.

Bubble up from 70% of the population will work. Get the middle class healthy and able to purchase again and it will do more than any small percent of rich trickle downing.

I'm tired of getting pissed on from above and the GOP tells me it's raining.
Of course it doesn't work. Our current economy is the perfect example. Cutting capital gains tax did not make companies hire more people, it only allowed them to shunt more money into their golden parachutes and executive salaries. AND it allowed the culture of greed on Wall Street to flourish--lending out bad money, turning around and selling your risk, and laughing all the way to the bank because of a lower tax rate.

And now McCain wants to lower the tax to 7.5%. What an ass.
 

Forum List

Back
Top