Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".

Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.

Your a liar.

 

[RKMBrown]

No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.

Understand the difference?

"Imagine owning a business. "

I did that. When I was 6.

I grew up working in the family business, from 6 years old I went to work every day, 6 and more often than not 7 days a week.

That business started with a loan my Dad took from a family friend. He used the money to rent a store front and advertise his wares and the services he provided.

That was it. He in effect 'hung out his shingle' and from there people came in and exchanged the value they had, in the form of money, or other goods and services they possessed which Dad would exchange, to the mutual profit of both parties.

Worked like a charm.

He just went to work. No licenses required. He bought insurance to offset unforeseen liabilities. When business became such that he could no longer do it all with his hands and those of the family, he put an ad in the paper, checked around with trade schools and set to bargaining with those folks, telling them what he had going and asking those who responded to his inquires, what they could bring to the table.

The deal was, you tend to the tasks I set before you, which will be intrinsic to your skills and aptitude, and he would give them X in exchange.

The benefit being that they all earned a nice living.

I started my own in business in my 30s. I found people that were in need of my knowledge and skills and I traded them the benefit of my knowledge and skills for the value they possessed. I used the money I made to pay my bills and buy equipment that provided me to demand higher values. Which came along with no more required to start a business than the desire to do so, the skills and ethic determination to perform as promised.

Today, to do what I do, would require a capital investment of a hundred thousand dollars before you could ever begin to present yourself as a business. Assuming one followed "The LAW".

To sustain an employee making $40hr, requires one be healed sufficiently to pay 70/hr.

Monthly bureaucratic fees are thousands of dollars, each and every month. And this before a nickle is paid on utilities, mortgage payments, operate and service a single vehicle, phones, and on and on and on or buy one widget in inventory.

Now the absolute MINIMUM that is required to BREAK EVEN, is to charge CONFISCATORY RATES. Want to earn a profit? Rates gotta go up.

Now that is the case with every business you can think of.

Retailers, wholesalers, consultants, skateboard park, Medical Pot Outlet, neighborhood convenience store, bar, barber, nail salon and so on.

Rates and Prices go up as your means to stay afloat goes DOWN! The price of food, the price of gas, the price to buy ANYTHING and EVERYTHING GOES UP when you increase the cost of LABOR. And who is responsible?

YOU ARE!​

So like I said a minimum wage is not the same as the government taking ownership of your business.

Your understanding of economics is simplistic and one sided. Many business owners think that way because they have little to no understanding of how wages relate to demand. They can only see higher wages as a bad thing. In reality higher wages are absolutely critical for a growing economy because they push up demand. Higher demand is needed to support increases in productivity.

Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.

Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity. What dumb asses you libtards are.

 

[Bombur]

Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.

Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity. What dumb asses you libtards are.

lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.

Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity. What dumb asses you libtards are.

lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.

ok...

Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.

Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.

Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the kids.
Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.

Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."

So, tell me. How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pockets?

 

[Bombur]

Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.

Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity. What dumb asses you libtards are.

lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.

ok...

Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.

Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.

Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the kids.
Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.

Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."

So, tell me. How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pocket?

So in order to make your argument you have to invent a made up world that only exists in your head.

 

[RKMBrown]

lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.

ok...

Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.

Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.

Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the kids.
Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.

Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."

So, tell me. How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pocket?

So in order to make your argument you have to invent a made up world that only exists in your head.

Which part did I make up? That some kids bag groceries, that some uneducated adults work as bank tellers, or that employers will let them go if government mandates pay rates that exceed the value returned by said workers? Cmon liar what did I make up?

 

[Bombur]

ok...

Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.

Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.

Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the kids.
Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.

Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."

So, tell me. How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pocket?

So in order to make your argument you have to invent a made up world that only exists in your head.

Which part did I make up? That some kids bag groceries, that some uneducated adults work as bank tellers, or that employers will let them go if government mandates pay rates that exceed the value returned by said workers? Cmon liar what did I make up?

So not only did you invent the scenario you deny that you invented it and call me a liar.

 

[Iceweasel]

Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.

It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.

So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.

 

[Bombur]

Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.

It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.

So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

 

[Iceweasel]

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

My question was simple.

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

That's a conclusion not a fact. Try again.

 

[Bombur]

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

My question was simple.

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

That's a conclusion not a fact. Try again.

Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.

 

[Iceweasel]

Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.

That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

 

[Bombur]

Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.

That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.

It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.

So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.

That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

And you just referred to 'the largest increase in government debt since WW2 (At that time) without noting that Carter, Reagan's predecessor had that title with his Leftist Congress prior to Reagan, Ford, with HIS Leftist Congress had it before THAT, Nixon, with HIS Leftist Congress had it before THAT and LBJ with HIS Leftist Congress CAUSED IT, with the passing of the GREAT SOCIETY, which MANDATED ESCALATING FEDERAL SOCIAL SPENDING... Which if you're keeping Score: MANDATES INCREASING THE DEBT, as social spending runs counter to gainful production, thus lowers the potential for Federal Revenue which TAXES GAINFUL PRODUCTION!

Ya also failed to note what Ice had educated you upon NO LESS THAN THREE TIMES, in three consecutive posts, regarding Reagan's responsibility to rebuild the US Military which Carter eviscerated and who watched his agreement with the Leftist Congress be dishonored, by the Left and you'll pardon the redundancy in noting dishonor among the relativist Left, but some folks aren't aware that there is no potential for honor, among the Ideological Left.

 

[Bombur]

It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.

So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.

I am talking about increases in government spending and government debt spending. Not to mention large increases in the trade imbalance (although that is not entirely his fault it impacted the economy then).

I know some people want to re-write history and make it seem like Reagan was able to turn around the economy with some special conservative free market approach but in reality it was just a modern take on Keynesian economics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

Oh, now that's cute.

Please explain, in as much detail as your intellectually able to produce, the specifics of the economic cancer, in terms of specific instances of cause and effect, produced by sound economic principle, wherein the individual is freed to exchange goods and services to the profit of all engaged in the exchange.

(Dear Reader: The contributor will provide no specifics, because they have no knowledge of such. I only provided the challenge, as a means to berate and belittle them due to their obvious desperate need of some heretofore unknown humility. But how cool is it that EVERY individual ya meet who claims to be an 'independent' is a FULL BLOWN COLLECTIVIST? You gotta LOVE 'EM for their consistency.)

Sure will...
I graduated in 1981 and Wall Street was flooded with Europeans who got the jobs the American graduates should have gotten.
The banks were bringing in less expensive workers from Great Britain, Japan, China, India who had degrees in such illustrative fields as history, art, liberal arts.
In fact, I worked for several major financial institutions (Chas Manhattan, Banker's Trust, Credit Suisse) that hardly hired anyone from Europe or Asia that had any financial or banking degrees or expertise.
Just a bunch of worker bees.

Most of the people I graduated with went unemployed until November 1995.

Under Reagan, Citibank had laid off workers demonstrating on Broadway, just South of Trinity Place, after being replaced by cheap foreigners.

And let's not forget setting up those loans to Mexico for what was to become the destruction of American manufacturing.

Yep, way back when Reagan was already destroying the middle class.

Nope, equality is NOT the issue, OPPORTUNITY is the issue.

" the jobs the American graduates should have gotten."....Oh? What makes you say that?
I think you're full of shit. First, who are you to presume that ONLY Americans are entitled to procure employment.
Next, I worked in the financial district in the early 80's for 5 years starting in 1981.
While SOME of the people with which I had either worked with or come into contact were not native to this country, the majority of my co-workers were Americans.
Why would you expect a company to hire degreed people to take jobs as "worker bees"?
So what if these people did not have degrees specializing in finance. The jobs they took obviously did not require them.
So, I want you to explain how the sitting POTUS can dictate bank company policy which resulted in your friends not getting jobs for over 10 years.
Also, explain in detail with precise examples of how Reagan 'destroyed the middle class'...
Because to my memory, the middle class was growing. People who I knew were buying homes who'd not been able to afford them before. Others were upgrading their living arrangements, moving into luxury apartments or buying co-ops or condos.
Because of the improving economy I hired into a job that paid me well enough to afford my own apartment and make my first vehicle purchase. I was not making a ton of money, but because the new President was making policy that IMPROVED the economy.
I would be willing to wager that these people were holding out for big bucks because someone or a bunch of someones told them along the way that a degree was their ticket to riches.
This is typical of the modern day OWS protester who was college educated but was out of work because of several factors.
Here's the rub. Back then there were people who were getting their series 7 licenses and became brokers. Some had only high school or associates degrees. In the 80's Wall Street was THE place to make money. I lived it. I saw it. I had friends at work I lunched with who were doing it.
FWI...The mid to late 80's saw a gigantic upheaval in the banking industry.
Chase, Chemical, Citibank, Manny Hanny, State Street Boston, Fleet, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, Bankers Trust, Mellon, EAB, Marine Midland, etc were all solo firms. Those are the ones I can name from memory. There are others...By 1990, many of those were either swallowed up by larger banks or merged with other large banks/financial services companies.
So where's the problem?...
While the banking industry has rewarded many hundreds of thousands of people with long and rewarding careers, there was always the risk that bank workers would be displaced by mergers or buyouts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.

Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.

The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots. That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect. It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.

How else would you prefer it? You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?

To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle. And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.

 

[Bombur]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.

Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.

The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots. That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect. It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.

How else would you prefer it? You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?

To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle. And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.

There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used.

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.

I am talking about increases in government spending and government debt spending. Not to mention large increases in the trade imbalance (although that is not entirely his fault it impacted the economy then).

I know some people want to re-write history and make it seem like Reagan was able to turn around the economy with some special conservative free market approach but in reality it was just a modern take on Keynesian economics.

I know what you're talking about, I read it the first time. The query sought clarification of your REASONING. Which we now know rests upon the specious drivel common to Relativism.

Wherein you lament the 'rewriting' of history, EVEN AS YOU RE-WRITE HISTORY. Keynesian economics does not work, it has never worked, there are precisely zero examples of it having EVER worked and nature requires that because it PRODUCES NOTHING, it will always SUM TO NOTHING. Government spending, for the sake of government spending amounts to economic masterbation. Sure it feels good for a very brief period, but it always makes a mess and serves no purpose beyond the simple subjective exercise.

If Keynesian THEORY COULD WORK, the US would presently be FLOATING in a sea of economic success and bounty, from the 6 years of and nearly 8 trillion in Keynesian spending, instead of our current status of being an ADDITIONAL 8 trillion behind balance, with the HIGHEST SUSTAINED UNEMPLOYMENT and the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION SINCE THE 1930s, due to SUSTAINED GDP STAGNATION COMMON TO SOCIALIST POLICY.