ctccps wrote:
It was a lie that everyone from the bankers, to the financial experts,
to the talking heads on TV insisted was true. And people who questioned
those lies were referred to as idiots. Was it wise to buy that snake
oil from the banks? No, but then again people are gullible.

this lie was spread in part by krugman and other left-wing Keynesian economists in order to offset the Nasdaq bubble. those who questioned the lies and called idiots were Austrian economists (i.e. anarcho-capitalists), who rightfully stated the housing bubble was just a continuation of the Nasdaq bubble.

Add to that the massive redeuction in the tax rates the upper earners
have to pay, deregulation of businesses, costly unfunded wars, the
allowing our jobs to be exported for the profit of the very few over the
past 30 years and the picture starts becoming clearer what the real
problems are. And you seem to think that people who have pensions, have
been promised those pensions and now are being told to go pound sand
because those pensions are being taken away due to no fault of their
own, are idiots?

let's look at Singapore, as close as to a free-market as the world's ever seen... they have no capital gains tax, a flat corporate tax rate of 17%, close to zero business regulation, and yet their GOP/ productivity far exceeds the States and Europe, and as a result they only have an unemployment rate of just over 2%.

The last time the wealthy elite in the West uttered the words "let them
eat cake" it didn't turn out too well for the elite. This is the West,
and while a good many people outside of the top 1% are still doing well,
it is the first time since the dawn of the 20th century when there are
more people who are heading down the economic ladder as opposed to going
up it. That is unacceptable...

not a result of deregulation and "capitalism," but the end result of State-Capitalism, which has been made possible by society's belief in government's ability to create wealth. money isn't wealth; true wealth is decisive on how much we are able to consume. fiat money creates inflation, driving up prices while wages remain nominally the same, but in reality every day we are receiving a pay cut, thanks to the left's desire to print more and more money to fuel their bridges to nowhere, and government contracts that wind up in the junkyard 2 months later.

I would cut the wealthy elite some slack if they were creating jobs
other than in Asia. But they're not. And that is at the root of our
problems. No amount of additional tax breaks, or business friendly
deregulation, will make them start creating those jobs. So you are
against that "single-aim pressure group" who want job creation for
workers desperate for jobs which the elite refuse to create?

and how do you suppose government regulation will create jobs? and what makes you think businesses aren't just moving to Asia because of heavy taxation and regulation? they refuse to create jobs? so lobbying groups and business zoned property taxes are making it increasingly difficult for the little guy to start up his own business, and yet the focus is on those evil elite corporations' refusal to create jobs because we demand them?







Point 1...Keynes was right then and Krugman is right now.

Point 2...for every "Singapore" example (and btw could you have picked a smaller economy?) you have I have a "Sweden" example to come back at you with.

Point 3...What are you talking about? Nobody can even remotely say that in the UK, US and Wetsern Europe, that there is anything resembling a "state economy". China, Venezuela, Cuba are examples of state economies. And ironically China seems to be the darling of many capitalists the world over because of the state subsidies they give to the workers allowing the corporations to pay the workers less than what they would in the West. But to call the US economy a "state economy" is ignorant or a lie. It is one of the most massively deregulated economies on Earth.

Point 4...on regulations see my response to Slap. I would like to see as little regulation as possible but the behavior of both the public at large (poor judgement) and the the corporations (repeated examples of unethical business practices), have shown they should be regulated. When people repeatedly show that they are not responsible they need to be subjected to some rules. I am always for the most minimum of rules but, for example, when corporation's irresponsible business behavior crashes the global economy there need to be rules put in place to make sure they don't infringe on the rest us.

edited for typos not content




Debauch...Debase...Defile.
Last Edited By: Libertine 62 Dec 4 11 1:31 AM. Edited 1 times.