The Greatest Job Creator Of All Time

[Star]

the system you describe here sounds much like the one we currently employ.

In the idealist's mind-----maybe?


The fruits of Joe and Jane's production isn't finding it's way into Joe and Jane consumer's hands --- without Joe and Jane's spending, money doesn't multiply it's way through the economy.


The most successful supply side economy was the old Soviet Union. In the old Soviet Union, the oligarchy identified themselves as the politburo, in supply side economics the oligarchy is the corporate decision makers.

Supply side economics turns 7 thousand years of demand side economics on his head --- maybe a righty or two would like to --try-- to make a case for how a small group of corporatists controlling so many aspects of our economy = freedom? g'head, give it a try -- make my day.

Socialist progressives have been making that argument for at least the last century...Their basic argument boils down to us needing the right small group of corporatists (Buffett, Soros, Immelt, the gang at Goldman Sachs and the Fed) running the show, all supposedly to the benefit of and freedom for the proles.

Is the century you are referring to, the century that most economists have dubbed -- "The American Century"?
The century in which the United States became the richest country in the world, the century in which America created far and away the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Progressives could have been Republicanesque and be a -do nothing- party, but they didn't -- progressives chose to to put one foot ahead of other and create the greatest country on Earth. Are you saying the "Socialist progressives" were wrong to work at creating the greatest country on Earth? or are you denying the existance of "The American Century"?

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt 1939

 

[Oddball]

In the idealist's mind-----maybe?


The fruits of Joe and Jane's production isn't finding it's way into Joe and Jane consumer's hands --- without Joe and Jane's spending, money doesn't multiply it's way through the economy.


The most successful supply side economy was the old Soviet Union. In the old Soviet Union, the oligarchy identified themselves as the politburo, in supply side economics the oligarchy is the corporate decision makers.

Supply side economics turns 7 thousand years of demand side economics on his head --- maybe a righty or two would like to --try-- to make a case for how a small group of corporatists controlling so many aspects of our economy = freedom? g'head, give it a try -- make my day.

Socialist progressives have been making that argument for at least the last century...Their basic argument boils down to us needing the right small group of corporatists (Buffett, Soros, Immelt, the gang at Goldman Sachs and the Fed) running the show, all supposedly to the benefit of and freedom for the proles.

Is the century you are referring to, the century that most economists have dubbed -- "The American Century"?
The century in which the United States became the richest country in the world, the century in which America created far and away the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Progressives could have been Republicanesque and be a -do nothing- party, but they didn't -- progressives chose to to put one foot ahead of other and create the greatest country on Earth. Are you saying the "Socialist progressives" were wrong to work at creating the greatest country on Earth? or are you denying the existance of "The American Century"?

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt 1939

Uh-huh....Like I said, as long as the "right" group of corporatist assholes -read: corporatist assholes with that (D) by their names- are the ones running the scam.


And socialist progressives had nothing to do with creating the greatest nation in the history of man...They have merely sucked that *ahem* progress dry in creating a massive military-industrial complex with its endless interventionist foreign wars, an immense welfare/dependency state, a prison-industrial complex that rivals communist China, and the biggest debtor state in human history.


"A socialist progressive is a man who will break your leg, then hand you a crutch while condescendingly patting you on the back and telling you how lucky you are to have him there to "help" you." ~Me.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Hartmann is a hack and his piece is chock full of the usual socialist strawmen, omissions, half-truths and plain old lies.....In his world crony capitalism is A-OK, as long as those running the scam have that (D) by their names.

I guess this is why I thought it sounded like the system that we already employ....a.k.a. crony capitalism.

 

[Oddball]

Hartmann is a hack and his piece is chock full of the usual socialist strawmen, omissions, half-truths and plain old lies.....In his world crony capitalism is A-OK, as long as those running the scam have that (D) by their names.

I guess this is why I thought it sounded like the system that we already employ....a.k.a. crony capitalism.

Sure....But hack turds like Hartmann always seem to turn the blind eye to when their favored politicians do the buying, selling and social engineering and/or rationalize why it's acceptable when they act like those they're decrying....Prime example being those who tout things like "The American Century" being due to "good" corporatism and central economic command and control.

 

[Star]

the system you describe here sounds much like the one we currently employ.

In the idealist's mind-----maybe?


The fruits of Joe and Jane's production isn't finding it's way into Joe and Jane consumer's hands --- without Joe and Jane's spending, money doesn't multiply it's way through the economy.


The most successful supply side economy was the old Soviet Union. In the old Soviet Union, the oligarchy identified themselves as the politburo, in supply side economics the oligarchy is the corporate decision makers.

Supply side economics turns 7 thousand years of demand side economics on his head --- maybe a righty or two would like to --try-- to make a case for how a small group of corporatists controlling so many aspects of our economy = freedom? g'head, give it a try -- make my day.

Socialist progressives have been making that argument for at least the last century...Their basic argument boils down to us needing the right small group of corporatists (Buffett, Soros, Immelt, the gang at Goldman Sachs and the Fed) running the show, all supposedly to the benefit of and freedom for the proles.

Well LQQK-ee here, in the land of fruited plains and amber waves of grain, Oddball managed to swill some rightwing vinegar tea.


Your mission Herman is to back up your fluff with facts-----yer opinion ain't worth your wasted pixels, you're gonna have to give facts as to why you think the conservative party, i.e the stand your ground party/do nothing party built this country while the progressive party, i.e the party of progress move forward party, er uh, didn't?-----sorry dude/dudette, your credibility is only about as good as the downgraded 112th Congress'.




Definition of CONSERVATIVE -- a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

 

[whitehall]

It must be the union based education system. Liberals can't be that dumb on their own. Government jobs do not grow the economy. Government jobs are funded by confiscated revenue.

 

[ThinkCritically]

It must be the union based education system. Liberals can't be that dumb on their own. Government jobs do not grow the economy. Government jobs are funded by confiscated revenue.

The sad part is they don't even bother to use revenue. They use debt instead.

 

[Oddball]

In the idealist's mind-----maybe?


The fruits of Joe and Jane's production isn't finding it's way into Joe and Jane consumer's hands --- without Joe and Jane's spending, money doesn't multiply it's way through the economy.


The most successful supply side economy was the old Soviet Union. In the old Soviet Union, the oligarchy identified themselves as the politburo, in supply side economics the oligarchy is the corporate decision makers.

Supply side economics turns 7 thousand years of demand side economics on his head --- maybe a righty or two would like to --try-- to make a case for how a small group of corporatists controlling so many aspects of our economy = freedom? g'head, give it a try -- make my day.

Socialist progressives have been making that argument for at least the last century...Their basic argument boils down to us needing the right small group of corporatists (Buffett, Soros, Immelt, the gang at Goldman Sachs and the Fed) running the show, all supposedly to the benefit of and freedom for the proles.

Well LQQK-ee here, in the land of fruited plains and amber waves of grain, Oddball managed to swill some rightwing vinegar tea.


Your mission Herman is to back up your fluff with facts-----yer opinion ain't worth your wasted pixels, you're gonna have to give facts as to why you think the conservative party, i.e the stand your ground party/do nothing party built this country while the progressive party, i.e the party of progress move forward party, er uh, didn't?-----sorry dude/dudette, your credibility is only about as good as the downgraded 112th Congress'.
Get bent.



Definition of CONSERVATIVE -- a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

And your condescending post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc bullshit ain't worth all the wasted HTML tags in the universe, Crayon Boy.

IOW, the onus of proof is on the person making the claim....And since your claim that socialist progressives are responsible for the industrial might and economic power of the nation isn't backed up by any objectively quantifiable and verifiable measure, the one here with no credibility is you, comrade.

 

[Star]

Socialist progressives have been making that argument for at least the last century...Their basic argument boils down to us needing the right small group of corporatists (Buffett, Soros, Immelt, the gang at Goldman Sachs and the Fed) running the show, all supposedly to the benefit of and freedom for the proles.

Well LQQK-ee here, in the land of fruited plains and amber waves of grain, Oddball managed to swill some rightwing vinegar tea.


Your mission Herman is to back up your fluff with facts-----yer opinion ain't worth your wasted pixels, you're gonna have to give facts as to why you think the conservative party, i.e the stand your ground party/do nothing party built this country while the progressive party, i.e the party of progress move forward party, er uh, didn't?-----sorry dude/dudette, your credibility is only about as good as the downgraded 112th Congress'.
Get bent.



Definition of CONSERVATIVE -- a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

And your condescending post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc bullshit ain't worth all the wasted HTML tags in the universe, Crayon Boy.

IOW, the onus of proof is on the person making the claim....And since your claim that socialist progressives are responsible for the industrial might and economic power of the nation isn't backed up by any objectively quantifiable and verifiable measure, the one here with no credibility is you, comrade.

Don't be ridiculous, it's up to you to back up your own claims. If you are going to post a claim "as fact", it shouldn't be up to me to debunk your lies, it's up to you to be honest-----am I wrong about your honesty?


As you point out, I post a lot of links to the "facts" I post. One of the reasons I do is, I realize most righties are to lazy and duped to do research into what might not square with what Faux News, Rush et al have Goebbeled into your heads.


This has been around for a long time but it's always fun to watch righties squirm trying to debunk it and/or run for the hills screaming about how much they hate security and insurance for the American people.

Day in the Life of a
Joe Six-Pack Republican​

by John Gray


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."[/FONT]

 

[Oddball]

Nowhere does that irrefutably prove that socialist progressives are responsible for America's economic growth and might....All it does is reiterate the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

All the pretty colors and goofy pictures can't change that.

 

[Star]

Nowhere does that irrefutably prove that socialist progressives are responsible for America's economic growth and might....All it does is reiterate the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

All the pretty colors and goofy pictures can't change that.

He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)


How odd -- you didn't even try to debunk any of the "Republican Joe" points. You agree with every point in "Republican Joe"? okeydoke!


There is a part of "Republican Joe" I'd like to take issue with; Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his new deal turned on the lights in rural America but, but the majority of voters in most rural states are still "in the dark." If left to "private industry" in much of the "flyover" portion of America might -still- be living in the dark ages.


the United States via public-private partnerships. "Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability. Private power companies set rural rates four times as high as city rates.[2] Under the REA there was no direct government competition to private enterprise. Instead, REA made loans available to local electrification cooperatives, which operated lines and distributed electricity."


Yep, that's how loans to private industry work! Why have righties always hated American success?

 

[Star]

It must be the union based education system. Liberals can't be that dumb on their own. Government jobs do not grow the economy. Government jobs are funded by confiscated revenue.

The sad part is they don't even bother to use revenue. They use debt instead.

That's a circular argument if I ever heard one. The Republican mantra is "cut taxes" on those with the money then---then Republican's piss and moan when they have to borrow to cover necessities like supporting our global imperial presence -pewsh!-

Voodoo (supply side) economics generates less revenue and creates more debt.



[SIZE=+1]Misconceptions about "supply."[/SIZE] Supply-Siders assume that "supply" is controlled by those who own or manage the productive resources in an economy. If that element could be stimulated, supply would be enhanced. But those who own productive resources mostly just deal in transfers of "paper" wealth -- they seldom actually create anything. They merely own and control wealth which is produced by others. This is not to say that their role is not important. On the contrary, they allocate resources and create the environment in which the creation of wealth becomes possible, but they are not the ones who actually create that wealth.

[SIZE=+1]The Real "Supply Side."[/SIZE] In order to fully understand the failure of supply-side "Voodoo Economics" (term coined by George Bush while running against Ronald Reagan for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination) we must understand the real nature of the "supply side" of the supply/demand equation, without separating it from the "demand" side. "Supply" of goods and services occurs when those goods and services are produced. The creation of wealth --"supply"-- is not accomplished only by those who buy and sell stocks, trade ownership of real estate or invest in industrial ventures. Such investors have an important role in the management of those resources, but this administrative role cannot be put into conflict with the role of productive labor.

The creation of wealth occurs when raw materials are collected, processed and converted into products, or when services are provided. Cars are not made when investors transfer shares of GM, but when workers go into the mines, gather and process steel, and hammer it into shape. Real estate value is created not only when investors acquire dwellings to rent out or for speculative resale, but when construction laborers transform raw land and materials into homes. Health care value is not just created by those who own hospitals, but by health care professionals who treat patients.

The "supply-side" theory is that if you give tax breaks to the rich or otherwise put more money into the pockets of those who already have the most, that they will use it to create jobs. While it is primarily the wealthy who invest the capital needed to create more wealth (and jobs), jobs are not created just because people have money. If they just have money, and that's all, they'll just keep it or spend it on themselves, as they always have done in the past. Jobs are not created as acts of charity for working people that the wealthy elites don't even have personal acquaintance with. Jobs (and broad-based wealth) are created when those in a position to administer productive resources see a demand for goods to be produced. And if they see such a demand, they will generate the increased production -- create new jobs -- whether or not they have the money on hand -- even if they have to raise money by borrowing the necessary capital for financing. If the general public, which is made up far ore by working people than by the wealthy elite, does not have discretionary income to spend on products, the broad-based demand needed to stimulate wealth creation (and job creation) is inhibited. It has more to do with creating a broad base of demand than by making sure rich people have enough money.

Stimulating the real supply side requires economic incentives for the real producers (workers) as well as the investors, in policies consistent with universal compassion for all contributors.

 

[Oddball]

Rural electrification?....Seriously?

You socialist twirps have to go back nearly a century in order to point to the few crumbs of your alleged successes, and that's supposed to be definitive proof of your intellectual/moral/economic superiority?

Oh, you schlubbs are the end!

 

[Star]

Rural electrification?....Seriously?

You socialist twirps have to go back nearly a century in order to point to the few crumbs of your alleged successes, and that's supposed to be definitive proof of your intellectual/moral/economic superiority?

Oh, you schlubbs are the end!

Rural electrification was BFD at the time, now -- now it's taken for granted. I doubt that many low information Republican voters in rural America even have a clue about how Democrats protected their "individualistic" backsides from getting bent over by Republican privatization.


We can talk about the many Democratic successes, but rather than you whining about the many Democratic successes, how about you name a few Republican successes? Let me help you out -- there was Ike's Highway System -- oops, you might not like that one, it was A) passed into law by a Democratic Congress and B) it was a public works project. Or you may want to mention Nixon's success at creating the EPA, er-uh-oops. I can't think of any others, I leave it to you to name a few successes for the American people that Republicans can point to.

 

[Oddball]

Rural electrification is also, at least marginally, a form of regulation/facilitation of interstate commerce....A legitimate federal function.

And it still doesn't make any kind of case for socialist central planning and control of anything and everything that moves, nor does it present any kind of case that the federal political/bureaucratic apparatus is "the greatest job creator of all time".

Get real, tovarich.

 

[PredFan]

You left wing morons are a shining example of the failure of the public education system.

 

[starcraftzzz]

And socialist progressives had nothing to do with creating the greatest nation in the history of man...

I see so according to you roads, railways, education, health care, electricity, utilities, science, and bringing the poverty rate form 50% to 12% did not have anything to do with creating "the greatest nation int he world.

They have merely sucked that *ahem* progress dry in creating a massive military-industrial complex with its endless interventionist foreign wars, an immense welfare/dependency state,

I see its democrats fault that republicans object to all cuts to military spending

a prison-industrial complex that rivals communist China, and the biggest debtor state in human history.

I see it is democrats faults that republicans are privatizing prisons

 

[starcraftzzz]

It must be the union based education system. Liberals can't be that dumb on their own. Government jobs do not grow the economy. Government jobs are funded by confiscated revenue.

I see so according to space explorations and sidelights did not result in any economic growth and neither did college degrees/education, or electricity production.
DUmbass

 

[Star]

Is there supposed to be someting inherently "wrong" with wealth disparity?
BTW, I do believe the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire.
I also believe you're a whining socialist.

Is that a rhetorical question?



Great Divergence



In 1915, a statistician at the University of Wisconsin named Willford I. King published The Wealth and Income of the People of the United States, the most comprehensive study of its kind to date. The United States was displacing Great Britain as the world's wealthiest nation, but detailed information about its economy was not yet readily available; the federal government wouldn't start collecting such data in any systematic way until the 1930s. One of King's purposes was to reassure the public that all Americans were sharing in the country's newfound wealth.


King was somewhat troubled to find that the richest 1 percent possessed about 15 percent of the nation's income. (A more authoritative subsequent calculation puts the figure slightly higher, at about 18 percent.)



This was the era in which the accumulated wealth of America's richest families—the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Carnegies—helped prompt creation of the modern income tax, lest disparities in wealth turn the United States into a European-style aristocracy. The socialist movement was at its historic peak, a wave of anarchist bombings was terrorizing the nation's industrialists, and President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, Alexander Palmer, would soon stage brutal raids on radicals of every stripe. In American history, there has never been a time when class warfare seemed more imminent.

Income inequality in the United States has not worsened steadily since 1915. It dropped a bit in the late teens, then started climbing again in the 1920s, reaching its peak just before the 1929 crash. The trend then reversed itself. Incomes started to become more equal in the 1930s and then became dramatically more equal in the 1940s. Income distribution remained roughly stable through the postwar economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. Economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have termed this midcentury era the "Great Compression." The deep nostalgia for that period felt by the World War II generation—the era of Life magazine and the bowling league—reflects something more than mere sentimentality. Assuming you were white, not of draft age, and Christian, there probably was no better time to belong to America's middle class.


The Great Compression ended in the 1970s. Wages stagnated, inflation raged, and by the decade's end, income inequality had started to rise. Income inequality grew through the 1980s, slackened briefly at the end of the 1990s, and then resumed with a vengeance in the aughts. In his 2007 book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393333132?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0393333132"]The Conscience of a Liberal[/ame], the Nobel laureate, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the post-1979 epoch the "Great Divergence."


It's generally understood that we live in a time of growing income inequality, but "the ordinary person is not really aware of how big it is," Krugman told me. During the late 1980s and the late 1990s, the United States experienced two unprecedentedly long periods of sustained economic growth—the "seven fat years" and the " [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0738203645?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0738203645"]long boom[/ame]." Yet from 1980 to 2005, [ame="http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/07-002.pdf"]more than 80 percent[/ame]of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet [ame="http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195"]virtually none[/ame] of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads.


Here is a snapshot of income distribution during the past 100 years:

Why don't Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick.



<snip>

 

[Oddball]

Slate...Opinion piece from an opinion blog.

Nothing to see here.