Progressive Economics = Poverty

[CrusaderFrank]

You would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?

You can't figure out what rotten meat looks like?

Do you have a local butcher? He thrives by making customers happy...happy....happy...that's Free Markets at work

What century are you living in?

My butcher knows his meats because that's how he makes a very good living and NOT because of your stupid ******* totally unnecessary "National Meat Inspection" rules.

You need the government to regurgitate into your mouth for nourishment, I don't.

 

[Oddball]

If a $1 trillion deficit -driven primarily by the socialistic welfare/entitlement state- a $13 trillion federal debt, scores-cum-hundreds of trillions in unfunded promises to pay, a worthless fiat currency on the precipice of going hyper-inflationary, involvement in two world wars, numerous military interventionist "police actions" and military bases in over 130 nations, is the success of Oskar Lange-esqe "progressive" economic central control, I don't want to see what failure looks like.

Look again at the dates I presented above. We are not governed by progressive economics now and have not been since 1981.

The era of "progressive" (i.e. socialist) economic central control began in 1913, not 1940.

We are still being ruled by those economic models, the rearranging of the deck chairs (i.e. replacing 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates with deficit spending via issuance of more debt) is notwithstanding....Nor is your deliberate cherry picking of dates to try and make your pointless point.

 

[The T]

If a $1 trillion deficit -driven primarily by the socialistic welfare/entitlement state- a $13 trillion federal debt, scores-cum-hundreds of trillions in unfunded promises to pay, a worthless fiat currency on the precipice of going hyper-inflationary, involvement in two world wars, numerous military interventionist "police actions" and military bases in over 130 nations, is the success of Oskar Lange-esqe "progressive" economic central control, I don't want to see what failure looks like.

Look again at the dates I presented above. We are not governed by progressive economics now and have not been since 1981.

The era of "progressive" (i.e. socialist) economic central control began in 1913, not 1940.

We are still being ruled by those economic models, the rearranging of the deck chairs (i.e. replacing 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates with deficit spending via issuance of more debt) is notwithstanding....Nor is your deliberate cherry picking of dates to try and make your pointless point.

Absoultely under Wilson.

 

[The T]

The fact that the butcher and baker do what they do mainly in their own self interest hasn't changed since those words were penned.

We were built a Republic upon the notion of the individual self-interest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The fact that the butcher and baker do what they do mainly in their own self interest hasn't changed since those words were penned.

We were built a Republic upon the notion of the individual self-interest.

Even the Communists in Vietnam and China recognize that the Democrat Economic Model is a total failure and have abandoned the American Left to the economic lunatic fringe

 

[Dragon]

The era of "progressive" (i.e. socialist) economic central control began in 1913, not 1940.

No, you're confusing means with ends. It's not whether the government exerts influence on the economy, it's why. It always does and always will, but towards what end is what makes the difference.

Prior to the late 1930s, all government policy was aimed at encouraging wide income gaps and maximum accumulation of private fortunes and capital. Labor movements were suppressed, often brutally. Income tax rates were kept as low as possible; the only time they were raised significantly was during and shortly after World War I, to pay for the war.

From the late '30s until the Reagan years, the government's influence went instead to narrow income gaps. Labor movements were encouraged. Income tax rates in the top brackets ranged from 70-91%.

Since the Reagan years, we've gone back to encouraging concentration of wealth and discouraging labor.

The middle of those regimens is as close as we've ever come to "socialism" in this country. We don't have socialism now, we have crony capitalism. There's a big difference, even though both involve government influence over the economy. If that's all you care about and you're blind to everything else, it may look the same, but it's not.

 

[Mr Natural]

You can't figure out what rotten meat looks like?

Do you have a local butcher? He thrives by making customers happy...happy....happy...that's Free Markets at work

What century are you living in?

My butcher knows his meats because that's how he makes a very good living and NOT because of your stupid ******* totally unnecessary "National Meat Inspection" rules.

You need the government to regurgitate into your mouth for nourishment, I don't.

Is your butcher also a bacteriologist?

 

[Toro]

The author picked sales of new cars specifically because it is indicative of the wealth of the middle class. And, of course your reflexive defense of Statism is duly noted once again. Feel free to hide the decline of the wealth of the middle class all you want

That's funny. That's the same argument I hear from anti-globalist leftists.

And your OP is retarded.

Fail.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What century are you living in?

My butcher knows his meats because that's how he makes a very good living and NOT because of your stupid ******* totally unnecessary "National Meat Inspection" rules.

You need the government to regurgitate into your mouth for nourishment, I don't.

Is your butcher also a bacteriologist?

His butcher clearly has been able to survive the oppressive regulatory environment thus far.....and when I mosey on into his shop.......or the meat aisle at my local grocery chain....I am pretty damned sure that I ain't taking home e-coli.

The "good old days" were not always so good, folks.

 

[Oddball]

The era of "progressive" (i.e. socialist) economic central control began in 1913, not 1940.

No, you're confusing means with ends. It's not whether the government exerts influence on the economy, it's why. It always does and always will, but towards what end is what makes the difference.

Prior to the late 1930s, all government policy was aimed at encouraging wide income gaps and maximum accumulation of private fortunes and capital. Labor movements were suppressed, often brutally. Income tax rates were kept as low as possible; the only time they were raised significantly was during and shortly after World War I, to pay for the war.

From the late '30s until the Reagan years, the government's influence went instead to narrow income gaps. Labor movements were encouraged. Income tax rates in the top brackets ranged from 70-91%.

Since the Reagan years, we've gone back to encouraging concentration of wealth and discouraging labor.

The middle of those regimens is as close as we've ever come to "socialism" in this country. We don't have socialism now, we have crony capitalism. There's a big difference, even though both involve government influence over the economy. If that's all you care about and you're blind to everything else, it may look the same, but it's not.

I'm confusing nothing...Your splitting hairs on the means can't blow enough smoke to distract from the ends of complete authoritarian central control...Your nitpicking academic parsings on what is "real" socialism and what is not simply don't fly.

The only people discouraging labor are the Marxist progressives, who want a permanently dependent moocher class.

Crony capitalists are the cornerstone of the move to a centrally planned socialist economy...They sell their souls in order to be picked as the winners by the power elite...No better example of his exists than the FDA protection racket, whose odious and prohibitively costly approval hurdles can only be cleared by the likes of Merck and Eli Lilly....If you were really interested in how this dynamic plays into concentrating wealth in fewer hands, you'd be in favor of ridding the marketplace of such burdensome regulation...But you don't give a shit...You'd rather have the issue to ***** and moan about, as a platform by which you can rationalize looting those of means to pay the freight for your class of useless dependent parasites.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What century are you living in?

My butcher knows his meats because that's how he makes a very good living and NOT because of your stupid ******* totally unnecessary "National Meat Inspection" rules.

You need the government to regurgitate into your mouth for nourishment, I don't.

Is your butcher also a bacteriologist?

He has a government paid for scanning electron microscope on the premises and he gets all his meats from the CDC.

Some people just don't feel nourished unless the government is regurgitating into them

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The author picked sales of new cars specifically because it is indicative of the wealth of the middle class. And, of course your reflexive defense of Statism is duly noted once again. Feel free to hide the decline of the wealth of the middle class all you want

That's funny. That's the same argument I hear from anti-globalist leftists.

And your OP is retarded.

Fail.

Right.

Being $15T in debt can't possibly be a bad thing because that money stimulates the economy

 

[Toro]

The author picked sales of new cars specifically because it is indicative of the wealth of the middle class. And, of course your reflexive defense of Statism is duly noted once again. Feel free to hide the decline of the wealth of the middle class all you want

That's funny. That's the same argument I hear from anti-globalist leftists.

And your OP is retarded.

Fail.

Right.

Being $15T in debt can't possibly be a bad thing because that money stimulates the economy

What the **** has that got to do with your OP? Or my last post for that matter?

 

[Mr Natural]

My butcher knows his meats because that's how he makes a very good living and NOT because of your stupid ******* totally unnecessary "National Meat Inspection" rules.

You need the government to regurgitate into your mouth for nourishment, I don't.

Is your butcher also a bacteriologist?

He has a government paid for scanning electron microscope on the premises and he gets all his meats from the CDC.

Some people just don't feel nourished unless the government is regurgitating into them

And normal people are damn glad there's an FDA seeing to it that tainted meat is a rare commodity in modern day America.

 

[Oddball]

And normal people are damn glad there's an FDA seeing to it that tainted meat is a rare commodity in modern day America.

Last I heard, it's the holy FDA that is still standing in the way of irradiation, which has been in use in nations all over the world for decades.

Fool.

 

[kiwiman127]

Government needs to get out of the way regardless.

You would get rid of the FDA, the Meat Inspection Act, and so on?

This is a fair question because we either want a role for government or we want anarchy. The same goes for our choice of roll for the markets --do we want people to have any say over how they spend their money or sell their possisions or does the government have complete control over who buys which food, house, and medical insurance.

Most of us want the government to stick to maintaining public order and the free markets to set prices.

A huge percentage of the public favored the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. So "most of us" may be a questionable term.

 

[uscitizen]

Globalization and world competition guarantees a dropping of the average US citizens lifestyle.
That is inevitable.
Only question is how far it drops, while others around the world come up.
Will it all blow up before we get to world equalization in lifestyles? Most likey a few times.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's funny. That's the same argument I hear from anti-globalist leftists.

And your OP is retarded.

Fail.

Right.

Being $15T in debt can't possibly be a bad thing because that money stimulates the economy

What the **** has that got to do with your OP? Or my last post for that matter?

You don't understand how unsustainable debt and lower standard of living follow Progressive economics?

Ummm, ok. Maybe you should talk to Truthmatters

 

[expat_panama]

Globalization and world competition guarantees a dropping of the average US citizens lifestyle. That is inevitable. Only question is how far it drops, while others around the world come up. Will it all blow up before we get to world equalization in lifestyles? Most likey a few times.

For two hundred years globalization and world competition have come with enormous improvements in the average US citizen's lifestyle. You're saying that something that's never happened before will happen now. What are you seeing that's so completely different this time?

 

[Toro]

Right.

Being $15T in debt can't possibly be a bad thing because that money stimulates the economy

What the **** has that got to do with your OP? Or my last post for that matter?

You don't understand how unsustainable debt and lower standard of living follow Progressive economics?

Ummm, ok. Maybe you should talk to Truthmatters

No, I don't understand how you can post an erroneous chart using a flawed methodology of measuring purchasing power, parrot a leftist talking point then veer off on a tangent about debt.

Focus, Frank.