The common mantra amongst just about anyone that knows the economy is that Capatalism is good because it shoots productivity through the roof. This is true, allow people the chance to make there own fate and they are highly motivated to make something of themselves.
Also the common mantra amonst most neocons and people that are pushing for tax cuts for the rich is that it will create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is for rich people to get to work. To invest that money and expand there business and to hire people. They arent going to get any richer unless they work harder! They arent going to get richer unless they deserve it!
Instead of trying to give them everything they want, why dont we start taxing them harder, to give them an incentive to work?? This really isnt that radical of an idea, its something these same people have been doing to the working class of people. Paying them less so they work harder.
Can anyone explain to me why giving rich people everything they want, and allowing them to gain wealth and riches beyond measure, will create more jobs?? Especially considering that is counterproductive to the basic rules of capitalism??
Or is our economic model better represented by capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich?
How about the more money the "rich" have equals the more they can invest equals more jobs..
Not to mention wealth isn't finite - its infinite under the capitalist model - or at least our monetary system.
Think about it.
A person gets up and goes to work.... That person just created wealth that wasn't there the previous day..
I don't know why capitalism is so hard to grasp..
Most morons treat the economy like its a bag of M&M's and there is not enough to share with everyone and some kid has 10 while others are left with one or none... That is NOT how capitalism works - capitalism is the ******* chocolate factory where they make the M&M's - there are as much as you want but you have to make them...
Thats what we have banks for, and thats what we have investors for. If rich people dont want to work then investors can invest in people that do. Nothing will change, investors will still want to get paid. If the banks dont want to lend then its time for the government to direct flow of new money to banks that will. Rich people need us, we dont need them. What we need is sovereign money and a tax system that serves the needs of the country not a tax system that serves the rich.
Good god people, who among us can even speculate how fast the GDP would soar of we eliminated all taxes on small and medium business, cut the taxes on big business in half, and then tripled the taxes on rich peoples income and giving the benefits to the middle class?
This is after all pretty much the exact opposite of what we have been doing for the last 50 years. You know, back in the good times when we were prosperous.
ROFL... Little Veruca Salt... this is the acme of foolishness. Might I ask you to even look up the history of how banking was created? Long before I learned about solid economics, I learned the history of Banking from playing the computer game Civilization which had the basic origins of a LOT of things we love in life and where they came from in history. May I suggest you at least FAMILIARIZE yourself with what a bank is and does from even a wikipedia entry? No I'm not providing a link. I figure you can go to the page and type in 'bank' in the window. You need to practice your Google Fu anyway instead of being spoonfed anymore. You're supposed to be a big boy now. You can reach the computer keyboard.
If rich people dont want to work then investors can invest in people that do.
Who do you think ARE the investors? Hmm? Grandma and grandpa Kettle? Those out of work bums and grandparents who form the Occupados for social interaction? Tell me, how important to an investment bank are a bunch of college students that consistently overdraw their checking account and have 87.62 in their Christmas Fund? you think anyone's going to be able to afford to give out a business loan when that's all they have backing them financially? Bull ******* shit they will. They'll be out of business without some serious capital invested in them, so they can make loans and earn money. BTW, the #1 source of income for banks? Interest on loans. You know, the stuff you want to stop cold.
But this is all elementary school level stuff. You must have been napping off your gubmint sponsored breakfast at the time.
Nothing will change, investors will still want to get paid.
No ******* shit! Don't you want to put your money into a bank that gives you the highest interest rate, or return on YOUR money for putting it there? Do you even get the concept?
If the banks dont want to lend then its time for the government to direct flow of new money to banks that will.
Watch the movie "Rob Roy" and see what happens when the government IS the bank. Talk about going backwards! Just imagine if you could be arrested or thrown in jail because you overdrew your bank account. English debtors prisons were no fun.
It's been striking me kind of funny lately. You nutty 'enlightened' libs are acting the same way the Israelites did in the old testament before Samuel anointed Saul, king over them. They were so desperate to be like other nations to have a central power over them, that when they got it, it took only a few generations to realize how shitty life was WITH one. We in America got our chance to free ourselves from that yoke 240 years ago, and you idiots wish to don it again, as long as YOU yourselves are the ones who hold the whip and not the ones whipped.
Here something you SHOULD have learned a long time ago already.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LmYEjXNIg]School House Rock - No More Kings (America Rock) - YouTube[/ame]
Rich people need us, we dont need them.
Absolute delusional fallacy. You don't even know how people become rich, let alone who needs whom. The rich become rich because they have something we, who are not rich, need. Capital to realize our dreams, or a job to pay for our lives. Of course you might... MIGHT succeed without some rich person in your life if you are fortunate enough, but the vast majority of us need the fruits of Rich people's capital and activity. Think of that the next time you go to a museum that has a donor list a mile long. Or a library building fund that has a list of proud community business owners and corporations footing the bill.
That shit ain't free either. Ever been to a broadway show or more likely an off broadway production? Look at the advertising in the brochure and see how many patrons of the arts put up the money for that show to be there to entertain your po' stingy little ass. ******* ingrate.
hat we need is sovereign money and a tax system that serves the needs of the country not a tax system that serves the rich.
What do you think the US Dollar is? Well more towards monopoly money since P-BO got into power and inflated the very bad economic decisions of Greenspan, Bernanke and the W admin made in the last 2 years. You can't get us back on the gold standard or even bimetalism. It would destroy a LOT of what we have going on. When you set the price of gold to a specific dollar amount, you can eliminate a central bank, no problem. The catch is that the balance of dollars to gold sloshes back and forth. Too many dollars, people trade them in for gold. Too much gold, people trade it in for dollars. Then they profit on the system both ways, leaving some short and others flush but everyone becomes the victim and those living closest to the margines, like the poor always are, the greatest victims of them all.
Economically to call you foolish is to state the obvious.
Good god people, who among us can even speculate how fast the GDP would soar of we eliminated all taxes on small and medium business, cut the taxes on big business in half, and then tripled the taxes on rich peoples income and giving the benefits to the middle class?
Ever hear of the Laffer Curve? Find the maximum efficiency for taxing for the greatest return on profits versus greatest production. Reduce taxes too much, reasonable government spending suffers. Increase them too much (like we have) and you crush industry. Find the balance point. Successful steering of the economy does not mean countering over-corrections and slamming the 'truck' of the economy from guardrail to guardrail. Sooner or later you're going to go through one and have a massive wreck. Drive between the lines in slow smooth corrections, and let the vehicle's tracking take the appropriate responses. Look far down the economic road and see potential trouble and make those small corrections early and then miss the trouble as it comes along without disruption.
Another thing. Capital is mobile. If you do not let people keep their justly earned profits, they will leave and then you get to keep none of it, because you will have to go outside your borders to steal what is OBVIOUSLY not yours. It's so cute that you'd want to bring back Conquistadors to get it.
Oh, as a side note, you ever WONDER why socialist nations have to keep people IN their countries? Because they have a population fleeing them like mad to go where life is better, and they can keep their wealth. These little 'traitors' to the state are committing, in what you seem to agree with, is economic terrorism. They are picking up their toys and leaving to play with someone else who will be nice to them. And you can't have that because your life as a socialist state depends on their citizen-slave status. So out come the guns and barbed wire fences and dogs and guards to make sure no one can run away from their slavery to the state.
This also shows why you assholes want a global socialist state. Because NOBODY can run away then and escape your parasitic clutches.
This is after all pretty much the exact opposite of what we have been doing for the last 50 years. You know, back in the good times when we were prosperous.
So... hmmmm... now it comes out. So for the last 50 years we've been prosperous? From 1961 to present? Heh. Actually we started a nice slide from LBJ to Carter before it reversed under Reagan with a little blip under HW Bush in 1991. Then with a GOP congress, it started roaring again... but wait... this was all on the backs of successive bubbles that started popping under W as the whole economy boiled over and the idiots in charge of finance made MANY wrong decisions that turned UP the heat instead of down.
So, there we have it folks. A leftist admits Reagan was good for the economy and not the anti-christ. Of course, he mistakes stagflation and double digit unemployment for "good times" during Carter and the first 2 years of Reagan before things started to reverse course.
You either need to get your talking points in order, or you need to re-learn history.
So what made those times good? hmmmm? Would you know good economic policy if it bit you on the ass?
I doubt it. You're too wrapped up playing Veruca Salt to notice the truth.