can someone explain reganomics to me [Archive]

Sk0rpi0n

10-05-2008, 05:44 PM

Dear EarthLadenFingers,

I'll try and answer this question for you the best I can, while making an attempt at remaining unbiased.

There are two central ideas behind 'Reaganomics'.
1) Deregulating Businesses - The idea here is that when you remove government regulations, businesses operate more efficiently because they have less 'bureaucratic hoops' to jump through. Thus they save money, time and are able to produce a higher quality product. The government also spends less on enforcing regulations and is able to either reinvest tax payers dollars in more efficient alternatives, or return them to tax payers and businesses in the form of tax cuts.

2) Tax Cuts for the Rich - This has already been touched on, but the main idea is that by cutting taxes, rich individuals and businesses have more money to invest in the domestic economy, and that the increased capitalization of these firms will make them more competitive in the global economy. Thus it is said that it creates spin-off benefits such as higher employment through business expansion (and investment) and higher wages, thereby causing a trickle down effect. The main quote associated with this notion is that "A rising tide lifts all ships".

These principles rest on a set of assumptions rather than on factual information. Thus it is useful to understand some criticisms of Reaganomics and alternative viewpoints.

The 1st assumption -- Deregulation can makes businesses more efficient and enables governments to reinvest money or give more tax cuts.

Criticisms: Deregulation means cutting the rules that companies must follow and either allowing them to make their own, or allowing an independent body to self-regulate the industry. But the lack of rules can and has caused problems, especially in the food and pharmaceutical industries. For example, since massive deregulation of the meat packing and food processing plants was achieved in the late 80s, the number of food recalls has increased dramatically because industries have taken short cuts in making sure their products are safe. These recalls are extremely costly to the companies, can cause stoppage of work and their tainted products can make people ill (or kill them), leading to a loss of productivity. Thus you could level the argument that deregulation can be counter-productive, actually leading to a loss of efficiency. Many people argue that the credit problems in the United States right now are the result of excessively deregulating banks, allowing them to spend beyond their means and creating faulty credit.

The 2nds Assumption - Tax cuts for the rich allow for greater expenditures in the domestic economy, creating jobs and raising wages.

Criticisms: Money saved through tax cuts is not necessarily spent domestically. If can and will be spent in foreign countries if opportunities to make higher profits exist in those markets. Thus the rich could just as easily be taxed to a higher or medium degree, ensuring that they remain competitive, while the extra tax dollars can be spend on public infrastructure, research and development etc. thereby making absolutely sure that jobs are created in the domestic market. The assumption that tax cuts leads to higher wages via the "trickle-down effect" is still hotly debated, because during the Clinton years, a time of increasing taxes on the rich, the lower and middle classes had their wages rise more than in any period in which tax cuts for the rich were the norm, while during the tax cuts of the bush administration, the standard of living for the lower and middle classes has fallen considerably.

This is just a brief overview of the main principles that Reaganomic's holds, and only a few of the possible criticisms. Hopefully it is enough to help clarify the subject for you, even if just a little bit.

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:04 PM

Reagannomics:

The rich get richer...

....the rest of us get the picture :(

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:09 PM

Reganomics can work, but as long as the illegal immigrants are getting all the jobs, it won't help. The problem in America is the illegal immigrants taking jobs, and not spending the money back into the American economy. If anyone saw The Last King of Scotland, he said 'They want to milk the cow, but they don't want to feed it' and that's what's happening now.
they don't "take jobs." they are "given jobs."

by fine American businessmen and women who will take their savings on labor cost and benefits and healthcare and trickle it down to us!

oh happy days are here again money is falling from the sky!

it also shows these "illegals" for the most part pay taxes into the system. a lot of taxes.

too bad i won't be able to go down to the farm and pick me some strawberries, though. or wash me some dishes at Denny's. illegals have taken ALL the good jobs :'(

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:11 PM

tax cuts on the rich mean the rich will invest in more things creating more jobs.

too bad the rich only invest in themselves with those tax cuts.

100% irrefutable truth

Sk0rpi0n

10-05-2008, 06:12 PM

too bad i won't be able to go down to the farm and pick me some strawberries, though. or wash me some dishes at Denny's. illegals has taken ALL the good jobs like those :'(

Haha. I enjoy your sarcastic humor.

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:13 PM

Reagannomics:

The rich get richer...

....the rest of us get the picture :(

nope.

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:19 PM

o wait just one second. u mean to tell me we aren't even getting the pictures now?

goddamn greedy rich :'(

EarthLadenFingers

10-05-2008, 06:20 PM

Yeah and with those criticisms how can reganomics still possibly be valid

like if I'm rich as hell and the government doesn't tax me as highly then i'm gonna spend it on me

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:20 PM

well generally, corporate owners either throw tons of money into advancing their corporations, thus creating mo dollaz.

also, if youve ever been to one of those hospital places, youd notice that a lot of branches of those buildings were donated by extremely rich people. self serving bastards.
o wait just one second. u mean to tell me we aren't even getting the pictures now?

goddamn greedy rich :'(

****ing spatulas :(

Sk0rpi0n

10-05-2008, 06:22 PM

Yeah and with those criticisms how can reganomics still possibly be valid

like if I'm rich as hell and the government doesn't tax me as highly then i'm gonna spend it on me

Well, spending it on you, could also mean expanding your business to make more money in the future.

In general though, I'd agree with you that and JohnXDoe that its just about making the rich richer. The idea of a trickle down effect is just imagined bullshit, and those who believe it have simple logic and history working against them.

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:22 PM

Yeah and with those criticisms how can reganomics still possibly be valid

like if I'm rich as hell and the government doesn't tax me as highly then i'm gonna spend it on me
yes but uc what you buy for $50,000 supplied a job to someone who makes minimum wage and has to work two jobs to survive. if not for you spending money, he would STARVE

we should be grateful...oh so humble and grateful :(

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:24 PM

what?1 people who were ambitious enough and worked hard enough to get to the top earn a lot more money than people without degrees who work minimum wage jobs? thats ****ing corruption right there. horrible horrible corruption.
Well, spending it on you, could also mean expanding your business to make more money in the future.

In general though, I'd agree with you that and JohnXDoe that its just about making the rich richer. The idea of a trickle down effect is just imagined bullpoop, and those who believe it have simple logic and history working against them.

this is called being stupid and trying to sound smart

i learned about the technique in english class

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:27 PM

stupid is as stupid does hismajestytehpoop

and you're doing an awful lot of stupid atm

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:29 PM

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:32 PM

for some reason I want to talk about the income tax

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:34 PM

it is because you are jewish ron

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:38 PM

I am a half orc tbh

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:39 PM

disgusting.

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:40 PM

not really tbh

im just not bashing republicans outright, which must mean im uneducated

i mean then again you used to be all about hilary clinton so idk maybe you are really really really really smart
i don't think anyone is basing repubs. just their lame self serving economic policy

its not so much the policy, even. its just they won't bend on anything. i've not seeing anything quite like it

i mean is paying a little more taxes going to hurt them or the economy? idk? it all depends who you talk to

they have a very limited scope and vision. and many stand on these economic principles like its the word of god or some shi....

many want to privatize the education system, their idea of healthcare is bogus "tax breaks" so we can "buy" our own. away with social security, away with unions, away with EVERYTHING if it doesn't serve capitalism exactly

i can't get with that. that is not moral or godly or anything else they claim to stand for. they want us to believe government is incompetent and evil. literally evil...can't be trusted, leave it all to the private sector

because as you can tell by the Wall Street situation, the private sector can be trusted with OUR money

if the repubs could flex a little on taxes and social spending i would have no problem. but they act like giving an extra dollar or two is going to kill them and the country. and worse yet GOVERNMENT is reaching into their pockets for their hard earned MONEY

too bad, join the club. we all pay them

McP3000

10-05-2008, 06:40 PM

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:42 PM

i don't think anyone is basing repubs. just their lame self serving economic policy

lol i cant take your post seriously if this is the introduction

read up on this word "bias"

its ****ing nuts

also, once more, you used to be all about HILARY CLINTON

jesus christ

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:46 PM

everyone is bias so

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:47 PM

*biased

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:50 PM

*it doesn't matter

Sk0rpi0n

10-05-2008, 06:50 PM

everyone is bias so

You seem to be biased against writing proper sentences.

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:51 PM

thanks champ

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:51 PM

*it doesn't matter

what? yes it does.

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:53 PM

what? yes it does.

it really doesn't

I was multitasking and I missed a few key strokes, yet my comment was still understandable.

RNR

10-05-2008, 06:53 PM

The Republicans tend to be the old fart big-shot business types. You know, the kind who have trophy wives, way too much "stuff" and after they're done with politics at the age of 65, they go back to making more money in business.

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:54 PM

RNR

10-05-2008, 06:55 PM

funnier post than any johnxdoe has made in this thread so far

Oh yeah well YOU ARE STUPID lol

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:56 PM

thats y i go around makin posts liek this:
The Republicans tend to be the old fart big-shot business types. You know, the kind who have trophy wives, way too much "stuff" and after they're done with politics at the age of 65, they go back to making more money in business.

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 06:57 PM

john i understand your quarrells with the immediate picture of cutting taxes for the "rich", but theres more to just "making the rich richer".

Tbh, i think repubs should do more blanket tax cutting. In actuality its really the upper middle class that does most spending towards the economy.
you know it just concerns me when i hear them say "cut spending" and "cut taxes"

i mean what and where do they suppose to cut? what kind of nation do we want to live in? we have seen in the past month or so what happens when we leave PEOPLE and money to themselves. and itself. no placing blame here, but something has gone terribly wrong. we don't pay for what we have in the country, it seems. not the government or our people

its as if we are built on credit and borrowing. our entire economy. but when it comes time to pay for our stuff, we don't like doing it. and then one day...oops. we come close to not being able to pay on our stuff because the money is GONE

this needs to not happen. idk how to prevent it, but this was avoidable i'm sure. more responsibility in government, and more accountability, too

i don't want to cut taxes and spending if it will hurt my fellow countrymen. i don't mind paying a little more for schools, healthcare, and education if its done right. i mean we have so much, i believe we can do it all. we should not let the economy dictate who and what we are as a people. imo

listen, if John McCain gets elected my taxes go UP. how so? well, if Obama gets elected i get a roughly $1200 tax break, if McCain gets it i get a $325 tax break. so essentially that mofo has raised my taxes by around $800, not lowered them. while lowering them further on corporations who already make PROFIT and oil companies

fine. but if i'm paying more taxes i would like them to go to some places i think need tending to. under Obama some of those things will get tended to and i get a bigger tax break. under McCain...he's going to raise my taxes (over Obama) and cut spending where we need it most some would say

i just can't go for that. not when paying a little more can do some great good in the country. just a little. why must the country beg?

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 06:58 PM

Mr. Ron

10-05-2008, 06:59 PM

idk probably the kind of nation where people have to work for things rather than get hand outs from the government and harm the economy just because theyre lazy/incompitent

because all poor people are poor because they want to be

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 07:00 PM

no, theyre poor because major corporations are run by self-serving blood suckers and because of the man

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 07:05 PM

idk probably the kind of nation where people have to work for things rather than get hand outs from the government and harm the economy just because theyre lazy/incompitent

whoops

i mean raising taxes to make more social programs will really fix the economy
who the hell is talking about hand outs? and who gets hand outs in this country? plz point me in that direction because i want mine :'(

that is such an old school BS argument

guess what, Social Security is not a "hand out." we pay into it. it was solvent. except the republicans love raiding the fund because hey, who needs that crap?

education is a hand out

healthcare a hand out

we pay taxes for that stuff...but still its a hand out

their are no "hand outs"

thats a bunch of bull

welfare reform has come and gone. what is left is not going to break the country

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 07:06 PM

well actually, most of your party seem to feel healthcare should be a hand out

also, maybe youre right, public education might just need more funding if it produces idiots like you, case in point:
listen, if John McCain gets elected my taxes go UP. how so? well, if Obama gets elected i get a roughly $1200 tax break, if McCain gets it i get a $325 tax break. so essentially that mofo has raised my taxes by around $800, not lowered them. while lowering them further on corporations who already make PROFIT and oil companies

OH NO DEAR LORD DONT LET AMERICAN COMPANIES
MAKE PROFIT THAT IS HORRIBLE FOR THE ECONOMY

also, your comparing how john mccain will give you less of tax cut than obama to john mccain raising taxes is even stupider than anything else youve said thus far

congratulations, youre a pit mod, not a political expert

also, another point.

no way do i support the republican party, however, do any of you guys honestly not realize that the democratic party's policies are just as self-serving?

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 07:14 PM

public education is clearly out of hand if it produces idiots like you, case in point:

OH NO DEAR LORD DONT LET AMERICAN COMPANIES
MAKE PROFIT THAT IS HORRIBLE FOR THE ECONOMY

also, your comparing how john mccain will give you less of tax cut than obama to john mccain raising taxes is even stupider than anything else youve said thus far

congratulations, youre a pit mod, not a political expert
it is a tax increase. if Obama took office and gave me a tax break of $1200 and left office the next day....and someone like McCain stepped in....my taxes would have to go up under the Mccain plan. so yes....taking more from me because you want to take less from corparations and the well to do...is in fact INCREASING MY TAXES

if not why do i get around $100 a month under Obama and $25 a month under McCain? looks likr Mccain wants to keep my taxes high :'(

its a tax increase on me in favor of further tax breaks on others. and that is that

also, i never said companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. i said they don't need further tax breaks at MY expense to make that profit

period

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 07:18 PM

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 07:32 PM

a $325 tax break is NOT an increase. it's just less of a tax break than $1200. your metaphor sucked.

also, those companies getting tax breaks will barely even effect you.

err... no i mean im super educated and i learned through my super education that if large AMERICAN corporations get tax breaks theyll actually work against the american people

a question: is life for you really that terrible?
well McCain would be taking around $800 more a year from my pocket then Obama. so yes, it is a tax increase. because he is cutting taxes for others while taking more from me

so compared to Obama at the end of the year when i do my taxes, guess what. i've paid more. even if McCain "cuts" them, i've paid more. i mean its screwy math, but those are the choices and those are the figures

under Obama i pay a lot less. under McCain i pay a little less. while others have gotten further breaks. so my taxes, at the end of the year...have gone up compared to my other choice (Obama)

so yes, i see the Mccain plan as a tax increase on me. because my break could be more....but he's giving my share to corporations and the well to do. whom in my opinion don't really need it

and if i get the extra $800 hey, i promise to spend it back into the economy where it is free to "trickle up" lol

bet they can't wait to get it up there on high....it will reach them one day :)

and no, life isn't terrible for me at all. and i'm tired of being lied to and manipulated by those who want me to believe it will be if we pay a little more for things like education, science, and healthcare. an energy program. all these things, bad. why? because omg we can't MAKE enough money doing them. and we might even have to sacrifice a little onoes :(

what a scam

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 07:46 PM

well McCain would be taking around $800 more a year from my pocket then Obama. so yes, it is a tax increase. because he is cutting taxes for others while taking more from me
ahahahahahahahahahahahah

so basically, you deny everything about hand outs and now youre admitting you basically dont like mccain because he wont give you a $800 hand out champ

so compared to Obama at the end of the year when i do my taxes, guess what. i've paid more. even if McCain "cuts" them, i've paid more. i mean its screwy math, but those are the choices and those are the figures
no like, stop being stupid. mccain cutting your taxes by $325 from the current rate is a tax cut, not as much of a tax cut as $1200, but still a tax cut

under Obama i pay a lot less. under McCain i pay a little less. while others have gotten further breaks. so my taxes, at the end of the year...have gone up compared to my other choice (Obama)
no they havent gone up because thats theoretical and obama wont cut your taxes as much as he claims, stop looking for handouts

so yes, i see the Mccain plan as a tax increase on me.
thats because you have very poor reasoning skills

because my break could be more....but he's giving my share to corporations and the well to do. whom in my opinion don't really need it
why do you deserve that much? also, are you going to donate as much money to charities as most major corps?

and if i get the extra $800 hey, i promise to spend it back into the economy where it is free to "trickle up" lol
yes that creates jobs too! :rolleyes:

and no, life isn't terrible for me at all.
then stop bitching that mccain isnt gonna give you as good of a tax break as obama, that in itself is asking for a hand out that you dont need.

and i'm tired of being lied to and manipulated
**** you better vote for barrack obama !!

by those who want me to believe it will be if we pay a little more for things like education, science, and healthcare. an energy program. all these things, bad.

education, science (how arbitrary :rolleyes:), and healthcare... absolutely fine as they are.

energy problem: wind energy wont solve it, but the people who own the windmill fields make money off of it (which theyll doubtlessly throw in the way of the democratic party) and tons of woods will be chopped down

why? because omg we can't MAKE enough money doing them. and we might even have to sacrifice a little onoes :(

what a scam

speaking of sacrifices, maybe save your country from a horrible democratic regime, despite the fact they promise you a $12,000 tax break our nation cant afford

omg mappy actually posted for serious for once

also, that $800 is more like $875

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 07:57 PM

ahahahahahahahahahahahah

so basically, you deny everything about hand outs and now youre admitting you basically dont like mccain because he wont give you a $800 hand out champ

no like, stop being stupid. mccain cutting your taxes by $325 from the current rate is a tax cut, not as much of a tax cut as $1200, but still a tax cut

no they havent gone up because thats theoretical and obama wont cut your taxes as much as he claims, stop looking for handouts

thats because you have very poor reasoning skills

why do you deserve that much? also, are you going to donate as much money to charities as most major corps?

yes that creates jobs too! :rolleyes:

then stop bitching that mccain isnt gonna give you as good of a tax break as obama, that in itself is asking for a hand out that you dont need.

**** you better vote for barrack obama !!

education, science (how arbitrary :rolleyes:), and healthcare... absolutely fine as they are.

energy problem: wind energy wont solve it, but the people who own the windmill fields make money off of it (which theyll doubtlessly throw in the way of the democratic party) and tons of woods will be chopped down

speaking of sacrifices, maybe save your country from a horrible democratic regime, despite the fact they promise you a $12,000 tax break our nation cant afford

omg mappy actually posted for serious for once

also, that $800 is more like $875
spoken like a true, manipulative scam artist

gg

Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States. and the "handouts" to the corporations will stop, and government will start doing its job for the people, rather then the elite and Wall Street

too bad :'(

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 07:58 PM

so basically you have no arguments against what i just said and feel the need to gloat that you voted for stuff thatll never happen

congrats

seriously, enjoy that $875, wait no we seriously cant afford it so youll never get it

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 08:03 PM

sure i do but its so silly i don't even want to bother

why on earth would a corporation who makes BILLIONS in profit need a tax break? plz explain? why? at not my, but OUR expense

and its not even so much they get a break, no. its they want to scare us into believing if they don't...people will be thrown out of work and homes across the country. the economy will go south and our nations security threatened and....

oh wait....

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:07 PM

sure i do but its so silly i don't even want to bother
sick cop-out bro

why on earth would a corporation who makes BILLIONS in profit need a tax break? plz explain? why?
probably something to do with the fact that thisll put more money in their hands to buy more/thus sell more, thus bring more money into the american economy as well as maybe to fund charities idk

at not my, but OUR expense
please explain how its at our expense if our economic giants increase revenues and bring more money into our nation

and its not even so much they get a break, no. its they want to scare us into believing if they don't...people will be thrown out of work and homes across the country.
yes thats exactly it, its because of them

the economy will go south
you dont understand economics, actually

and our nations security threatened and....

oh wait....
yes because that was brought up before and is relevant to what we're debating :rolleyes:

but yeah everything im saying is so freaking ridiculous compared to your perfeclty reasonable claims, i mean what with john mccains plans for the $800 tax increase

SWard325

10-05-2008, 08:14 PM

let's ignore this question and talk about israel!

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:15 PM

lets summarize johnxdoe's posts with a hilarious flyer:
http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr174/toasty-fresh/obama.jpg

SWard325

10-05-2008, 08:18 PM

this font got serifs goddamn

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:22 PM

thats almost as funny as theoretical tax cuts being theoretical tax increases because theyre not as extreme as other theoretical tax cuts

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 08:23 PM

sick cop-out bro
nope. i just can't reply to accusations that my wanting to keep more of my money, just like the well to do get to, is a "hand out." i work just as hard, my time, money, and good effort just as valuable.

probably something to do with the fact that thisll put more money in their hands to buy more/thus sell more, thus bring more money into the american economy as well as maybe to fund charities idk
nope, its a scam. many of these businesses already make hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in PROFIT. that means after all the expenses are accounted for, from the highest salary to the last paper clip...they have made BILLIONS over and above. they don't need the government saying "hey take billions more" while they DON"T increase their work force, ship jobs overseas, and keep porking their profits into Wall Street and making more profit just for the sake of profit. until the bottom falls out, of course.

please explain how its at our expense if our economic giants increase revenues and bring more money into our nation
they will still be our economic giants. no one is going to gut them. its just skimming off the top. for things other then making another buck. its to invest in the infrastructure, education, and good of the people. and it won't take much. we should not be held accountable to any corporation, nor should we be made to feel we owe them or anyone MORE while so many get by with less. they will always be our "giants." but we need not let them own us

you dont understand economics, actually
never said i did. but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. sometimes its just common sense. and even if i understood economics i wouldn't allow it to dictate my ideals and ideas for the country i live in. and as you know, their is more then one kind of economic system. and the system which says "more is better" is not always...better.

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:29 PM

nope i just can't reply to accusations that my wanting to keep more of my money, just like the well to do get to, is a "hand out" i work just as hard, my time, money, and good effort just as valuable.
except youre not putting nearly as much money into the economy as major corporations, even if you get those handouts (which you wont because obama is a liar)

nope, its a scam. many of these businesses already make hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in PROFIT. that means after all the expenses are accounted for, from the highest salary to the last paper clip...they have made BILLIONS over and above. they don't need the government saying "hey take billions more" while they DON"T increase their work force, ship jobs overseas, and keep porking their profits into Wall Street and making more profit just for the sake of profit. until the bottom falls out, of course.
and if they make even more our economy gets even more of a boost

and you dont know what youre talking about, the bottom wont fall out because of major corporations, theyll fall out because they voted for democrats and thus increased spending in unrealistic areas we cant afford

wait no, nevermind, taxes will just need to be increased to compensate for that spending

they will still be our economic giants.
but theyll decline more and more with less revenue

no one is going to gut them. its just skimming off the top.
which has already been time and time again, theres no actual need to tax these corporations even more

for things other then making another buck. its to invest in the infrastructure, education, and good of the people.
and our infrastructure, education system, and people are all doing fine

and you cant pay for these things with unrealstic tax cuts on the middle class

and it won't take much.
actually its gonna take a lot, just you watch

we should not be held accountable to any corporation, nor should we be made to feel we owe them or anyone MORE while so many get by with less. they will always be our "giants." but we need not let them own us
im not saying we should be held accountable to them, im saying we should stop acting like corporate america is some evil tyrant because without corporate america there would be no american economy in the first place

never said i did. but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. sometimes its just common sense.[quote]
unfortunately it seems that common sense escapes you in that case

[quote]and even if i understood economics i wouldn't allow it to dictate my ideals and ideas for the country i live in.
and here you go revealing that YOU SERIOUSLY DONT KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT and still continue too :lol:

and as you know, their is more then one kind of economic system. and the system which says "more is better" is not always...better.
and then you didnt even make a point you realize?

johnnypocketed

10-05-2008, 08:29 PM

but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
oh jesus

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:32 PM

its funny because he apparently really really needs the weatherman's help here

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 08:33 PM

oh jesus

no bob dylan actually

the times...they are a changin' :)

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:35 PM

dude, seriously, youre the type of person who just shouldnt even bother voting

like, if things were reasonable, there'd be tests on politics and history and economics we'd have to take in order to vote, and morons like you who don't actually know how these things work wouldn't be able to vote

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 08:36 PM

yeah because only smart people should get to vote

in america

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:37 PM

actually yes, because stupid people vote for stupid policies that dont work and actually harm their nation just so some sweet talking douchebag can line his pocket a little more in the name of "helping the common man"

also, hilariously enough that system wouldnt weed out stupid people, just ignorant people, aka the majority of the democratic and republican parties

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 08:42 PM

well i see where you stand now

i don't even dislike McCain or republicans. i just wonder how everyone got so goddamn selfish on our way to prosperity in this country

millions of people will vote Obama this November. but i guess we're just all stupid and dumb?

thats just too ignorant for words. and elitist. because you know crap as much as i do

SWard325

10-05-2008, 08:43 PM

lol nice user title change

JohnXDoe

10-05-2008, 08:45 PM

:cool:

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 08:51 PM

well i see where you stand now

i don't even dislike McCain or republicans. i just wonder how everyone got so goddamn selfish on our way to prosperity in this country
where is this goddamn selfishness youre talking about? why do you keep ignoring the fact that the majority of charities in our nation are run by major corporations?

millions of people will vote Obama this November. but i guess we're just all stupid and dumb?

thats just too ignorant for words. and elitist. because you know crap as much as i do

no, actually its just the truth

also, that user title isnt very funny at all, because its just the truth, and it actually is a big deal

johnnypocketed

10-05-2008, 08:58 PM

guys this is not necessary

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 09:01 PM

yes it kind of is, because maybe thisll make more kids on here like jxd realize that their really long posts dont actually make them knowledgeable

maybe these points about relations between taxes and economics should be talked about more often than they are because then people will realize how little sense the obama platform actually makes

masada

10-05-2008, 09:02 PM

reaganomics Killing Me
Reaganomics Killing Me
Reaganomics Killing Me
Reaganomics Killing You!

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 09:03 PM

if american corporations make more profit than they already do, its at the expense of the american people !!

johnnypocketed

10-05-2008, 09:06 PM

shining city has a nice view quite honestly

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:26 PM

and our infrastructure, education system, and people are all doing fine
im sorry but no, they arent

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079534/

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 09:28 PM

funnily enough that was a state issue, nothing to do with our national infrastructure

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:29 PM

ah yes they made the story up about a bridge collapsing! i doubt you even went to the link!

msnbc reported 9/11 guys, their biased, dont believe it!

EDIT: Lol, you actually clicked the link good job

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 09:30 PM

oh wait i didnt edit the post after clicking the link

may i ask, what does that have to do with public education and the well being of the american people?

and once more, state issue

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:32 PM

funnily enough that was a state issue, nothing to do with our national infrastructure
funnily enough, soon afterwards MnDOT did a survey of other state bridges and found over ten bridges just as deficient as the 35W, and cause of why? Funding!

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:34 PM

oh wait i didnt edit the post after clicking the link

may i ask, what does that have to do with public education and the well being of the american people?

and once more, state issue
A state issue that is nationally funded.

Also, I never said it has to do with public education, its our infrastructure and I would say 13 people dieing on a public bridge has a lot to do with the well being of people

Reaganista

10-05-2008, 09:34 PM

how does that matter in the long run

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:35 PM

because i dont want any more bridges a few miles from my house falling down for no ****ing reason

Reaganista

10-05-2008, 09:36 PM

your death won't have significant negative impact on america

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:39 PM

ok but i would say having structurally deficent bridges is a problem and 13 people dieing is pretty big

and the bridge carried over 140,000 vehicles daily. that displaced a lot of ****ing cars for a little over a year. so thats bigger than just me dieing

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:41 PM

and a lot of taxpayer money on rebuilding

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 09:41 PM

A state issue that is nationally funded.

Also, I never said it has to do with public education, its our infrastructure and I would say 13 people dieing on a public bridge has a lot to do with the well being of people

no no actually state roadways are funded by states

its why theres the pennsylvania department of transportation and the new jersey department of transportation, etc.

Reaganista

10-05-2008, 09:44 PM

every bridge in minnessota could collapse right now and america would survive

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:46 PM

regardless you saying our infrastructure and public schooling is fine is false

and USDOT has a budget of over 50billion, so while they dont have direct influence over state infrastrucutre, its still national

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:47 PM

every bridge in minnessota could collapse right now and america would survive
oh so then its all cool then if bridges just collapse

i mean america survived katrina, 9/11, pearl harbor

should we do anything about it then?

Reaganista

10-05-2008, 09:48 PM

we can if we want to but it's hardly urgent

thunderzstruck

10-05-2008, 09:51 PM

i would have to disagree since people should feel safe when their traveling home from work and not worry about things like a bridge collapsing

hismajestythepope

10-05-2008, 10:02 PM

regardless you saying our infrastructure and public schooling is fine is false
no im pretty sure america isnt in urgent need of reforms on infrastructure and education

and USDOT has a budget of over 50billion, so while they dont have direct influence over state infrastrucutre, its still national
no, the minnesota bridge collapse is not national

EarthLadenFingers

10-05-2008, 11:03 PM

what's awful about "tax and spend liberals" stereotypes is that we could readily afford social programs if we weren't spending so goddamn much on national defense

RNR

10-05-2008, 11:33 PM

It would be pretty bitching if we just raped rich people for a few years and fixed all sorts of social problems with their tax money. A better society would arise :)

guitrguy

10-05-2008, 11:56 PM

no, the minnesota bridge collapse is not national
yeah why would the collapse of an interstate bridge be a national concern?

EarthLadenFingers

10-06-2008, 12:35 AM

It would be pretty bitching if we just raped rich people for a few years and fixed all sorts of social problems with their tax money. A better society would arise :)

or, i don't know, be less obsessed with having such an awesome military

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 12:37 AM

what's awful about "tax and spend liberals" stereotypes is that we could readily afford social programs if we weren't spending so goddamn much on national defense

hey, do you remember when those dudes were mailing horrible deadly bacteria to american citizens? or those times when there were vans full of explosives, or those planes that got hijacked and flown into some major buildings? yeah **** national defense lets spend money on social programs that we dont need

yeah why would the collapse of an interstate bridge be a national concern?

yes a bridge between two minnesota cities, which was in actuallity a state issue, and happened over a year ago is a national concern you got me

The bridge was completed in 1967, and its maintenance was performed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Within a few days of the collapse, the Minnesota Department of Transportation planned a replacement bridge, the St. Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge, which opened on September 18, 2008.[9][10] As of early 2008, the NTSB has not determined the likely cause of the collapse, but did identify a design error that may have contributed to the failure.[11]

after reading this on wikipedia, all i can say is what ive been saying for months; brian, stop trying to sound smart

It would be pretty bitching if we just raped rich people for a few years and fixed all sorts of social problems with their tax money.
what social problems need to be fixed?

A better society would arise
no, a society with economic issues even worse than what we have right now would arise, but people would get socialized medicine which is absolutely necessary right?

RNR

10-06-2008, 12:44 AM

what social problems need to be fixed?

Oh I don't know, stupidity perhaps. Your educational system could use a few billion dollars in upkeep. You could teach your children that a sentence should start with a capital letter; or maybe what makes a good argument.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 12:46 AM

see, i was asking a question.

sorry for not capitalizing on the internet, i forgot that makes arguments invalid.

and well, where have i made a bad argument, or is it that i realize that we need to focus on our economy, not unimportant social issues?

seriously, what major social issues need to be taken care of?

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 12:47 AM

yes a bridge between two minnesota cities, which was in actuallity a state issue, and happened over a year ago is a national concern you got me

after reading this on wikipedia, all i can say is what ive been saying for months; brian, stop trying to sound smart

you do realize that state dots take on federal projects locally with federally money right?

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 12:48 AM

yes i do, but do you realize that the bridge collapse happened because the state government didnt maintain it, not because of a federal infrastructure crisis?

ill try to use this quote to explain things to you again, as you seem to be a bit slow:
The bridge was completed in 1967, and its maintenance was performed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

note it says its maintenance was performed by the minnesota department of transportation?

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 12:49 AM

yes i do, but do you realize that the bridge collapse happened because the state government didnt maintain it, not because of a federal infrastructure crisis?

yes when lack of federal funding results in bridge collapses on federal highways

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 12:51 AM

yes but the bridge callapse wasnt result of a lack of federal funding, it was because they failed to inspect it properly

however when the federal government came in the bridge was immediately declared "structurally deficient" (lol holy **** nobody realized that when the bridge collapsed i guess)

regardless, what relevence does this old news have to the debate in this thread? or were you just like **** mappy clearly doesnt know anything ill prove em wrong in one second nevermind that i dont even realize where this argument came from or where its going !!

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 12:55 AM

ill try to use this quote to explain things to you again, as you seem to be a bit slow:

note it says its maintenance was performed by the minnesota department of transportation?

yeah state DOT crews act locally for USDOT. You will never see USDOT road crew because they don't exist

quit detracting and trying to cast off issue because they happened a year ago.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 12:57 AM

okay, where does that prove that the bridge collapsed due to the lack of federal spending? it doesnt because thats not what happened.

and still, more importantly its just irrelevant.

damn brian sick debate skills you are so much better at arguing intelligently than anybody else holy ****.

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:08 AM

According to meeting minutes, officials said that immediately installing steel reinforcements would greatly reduce the risk of a crack forming "between now and 2022." That way, the agency could pick the ideal time and circumstances for carrying out the work.

The "risk" of that approach was described this way: "Must pay approximately 2 million dollars to get the job done."

A logistics and financial issue also was discussed. MnDOT officials said that if the bridge was simply inspected, the benefit would be: "Don't have to pay for steel, stockpile steel, or install steel."
http://www.startribune.com/local/11593791.html

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:10 AM

notice that article doesnt even mention federal spending whatsoever? all it says is that MnDOT said it would be too expensive. that's still the state governments fault, not the federal government's fault.

seriously, what ****ing point are you trying to make other than blindly trying to prove me wrong because i realize how shallow your 'opinions' really are.

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:13 AM

federal money goes into federal highways. You don't not fix problems because you have plenty of funding.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:15 AM

unfortunately that seems to be the case. also, i have family in friends in minnesota and they were complaining about how poopty mndot is well before that even happened, nothing about the lack of funding mndot had.

but of course youll keep explaining to me that federal money goes to federal highways as if that changes the fact that the whole issue was the state of minnesota's epic failure.

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:17 AM

unfortunately that seems to be the case. also, i have family in friends in minnesota and they were complaining about how poopty mndot is well before that even happened, nothing about the lack of funding mndot had.
you still really haven't support your notion that it has nothing to do with funding.
but of course youll keep explaining to me that federal money goes to federal highways as if that changes the fact that the whole issue was the state of minnesota's epic failure. well you just saying no doesn't refute anything, so yeah I will.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:18 AM

actually im saying that the issue seriously had nothing to do with government spending and everything to do with state legistlation

which you HAVE YET TO DISPROVE

every single time youve just said:
federal money goes to federal highways

and then you posted an article that basically said what im saying

seriously, wheres all of the other horrible major bridge collapses going on because the federal government isnt spending enough on national highsways?

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:23 AM

I posted an article stating why they never repaired the bridge. It was too expensive. Money they use to repair that bridge comes from the federal government. You put off repairs due to expenses when you have little money. Lack of federal money is why they put off the repairs.

tell me how it had to do with state legislation.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:28 AM

no actually it says that mndot kept lying saying that money wasnt an issue and then when they realized how expensive it really was they were like **** you

nowhere does it mention the national govt

also, funnily enough, minnesota news!
http://minnesotaindependent.com/4425/report-minnesota-bridge-spending-tied-for-nations-lowest

why would mndot be trying to refute that their spending on bridges is tied for second lowest if this were a fault of the federal government? wouldnt it be more reasonable for them to say "we would put more money into our bridge program if we received more federal aid"?

also:
"It is disingenuous for MnDOT to claim that funds it has contractually obligated to its bridge repair program are not reflective of the maintenance, repairs and reconstruction those contracts funded," he told the Star Tribune. "Recent bridge closings in Duluth, St. Cloud, Hastings and Winona demonstrate a deficiency in MnDOT’s bridge program."

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:29 AM

well you finally proved a point. funny how giving me real information works.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:31 AM

no, i proved the point a while ago. you were just being way too stubborn to admit that i knew more on the subject than you off the top of my head.

also, funnily enough you seem confused as to what posting supporting facts is, based on the 'support' you used.

seriously brian, read some blogs and news sites that arent left wing, your mind will be blown on how much stuff the authors of the sites you frequent failed to mention.

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:33 AM

that's first time you post information pertaining to MnDOT misappropriating funds. when you did I conceded the point.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:34 AM

okay? regardless you were just flat out wrong this entire time, stop trying to save your ego.

****ing hell, two of the most outspoken democratic elitists on this site proven to be ****ing idiots who talk out of their asses in one thread.

id say im happy with the nights results.

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:36 AM

you seriously get way too emotional.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:37 AM

funnily enough im perfectly calm, where you were so frustrated that i proved you wrong that it resulted in your original response a few posts up being "tahts thats the first time you posted a link"

seriously, people can know what theyre talking about without copy/pasting what somebody else said before them

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:38 AM

your ad hominem attacks through out the argument and just now say otherwise.

seriously brian, read some blogs and news sites that arent left wing, your mind will be blown on how much stuff the authors of the sites you frequent failed to mention.

you really don't know me or my views.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:39 AM

thats because your always too busy preaching other peoples views that you thinkll make you sound smart

seriously, youre like one of the most outspoken liberals on this site and i dont know what your views are?

jesus christ this is adorable you derailed this thread trying so hard to prove that you know better than me and now youre like OMG STOP BEIN SO EMOTIONAL U DONT NO ME

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:41 AM

you're such a hypocrite.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:41 AM

how am i being a hypocrite?

I WANT AN ARTICLE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:42 AM

you're attacking my intelligence because of my views. Earlier today you were complaining about people doing that to you.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:44 AM

the difference is that my complaining was because people were talking about my musical tastes and taking jokes ive made seriously, whereas here youre trying to refute actual facts in your blind quest to prove that youre my intellectual superior

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:46 AM

so let me get this straight. I'm just really dumb and can only copy pasta because I'm liberal?

btw I was refuting a loosely defined argument you were making until you posted information proving me wrong.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:47 AM

no. youre really dumb and have thus far proven that all you can do in these situations is copy and paste what others have said.

you being a liberal is just a consequence of that habit.

guitrguy

10-06-2008, 01:48 AM

so where am I copy pasting from? I'm pretty curious myself.

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 01:51 AM

im guessing some doom metal blog

griftadan

10-06-2008, 02:15 AM

how did i know this thread would be a winner

hismajestythepope

10-06-2008, 02:17 AM

probably because its in pnwi, the international commity of misunderstanding politics and economics

Smokey D

10-06-2008, 05:24 AM

Dear EarthLadenFingers,

I'll try and answer this question for you the best I can, while making an attempt at remaining unbiased.

snip

The 1st assumption -- Deregulation can makes businesses more efficient and enables governments to reinvest money or give more tax cuts.

Criticisms: Deregulation means cutting the rules that companies must follow and either allowing them to make their own, or allowing an independent body to self-regulate the industry. But the lack of rules can and has caused problems, especially in the food and pharmaceutical industries. For example, since massive deregulation of the meat packing and food processing plants was achieved in the late 80s, the number of food recalls has increased dramatically because industries have taken short cuts in making sure their products are safe. These recalls are extremely costly to the companies, can cause stoppage of work and their tainted products can make people ill (or kill them), leading to a loss of productivity. Thus you could level the argument that deregulation can be counter-productive, actually leading to a loss of efficiency. Many people argue that the credit problems in the United States right now are the result of excessively deregulating banks, allowing them to spend beyond their means and creating faulty credit.

The 2nds Assumption - Tax cuts for the rich allow for greater expenditures in the domestic economy, creating jobs and raising wages.

Criticisms: Money saved through tax cuts is not necessarily spent domestically. If can and will be spent in foreign countries if opportunities to make higher profits exist in those markets. Thus the rich could just as easily be taxed to a higher or medium degree, ensuring that they remain competitive, while the extra tax dollars can be spend on public infrastructure, research and development etc. thereby making absolutely sure that jobs are created in the domestic market. The assumption that tax cuts leads to higher wages via the "trickle-down effect" is still hotly debated, because during the Clinton years, a time of increasing taxes on the rich, the lower and middle classes had their wages rise more than in any period in which tax cuts for the rich were the norm, while during the tax cuts of the bush administration, the standard of living for the lower and middle classes has fallen considerably.

While you have given some powerful arguments against Reagonomics, I don't think you fairly asssessed the equally powerful empirical evidence in favour of the ideas behind them (ie the ideas that underpin the so called Washington consensus). While I don't think it's true that Reaganomics were necessarily the best expression of economic orthodoxy nor even that economic orthodoxy is necessarily right or if is right that what it produces is fair and just, I think we have to give credit where credit is due. And it can't be denied that on the whole countries which deregulated and reduced taxes in the 1980s and early 1990s have enjoyed better macroceconomic results than ones that didn't.

McP3000

10-06-2008, 06:08 AM

probably because its in pnwi, the international commity of misunderstanding politics and economics
i pooped a little when i lol'd

Shady Ultima

10-06-2008, 01:08 PM

Um. Illegals do contribute to the economy. They make stuff and spend money.

No offence or anything, but how many jobs has your family lost because of them? Yea, they're **** jobs, but when you're firing LEGAL Americans and hiring Illegal immigrants, there's a problem!

Knifeboy

10-06-2008, 01:32 PM

you're funny

EarthLadenFingers

10-06-2008, 01:49 PM

Reaganista

10-06-2008, 01:58 PM

Iskandar

10-06-2008, 02:35 PM

probably because its in pnwi, the international commity of misunderstanding politics and economics
let me guess another internet libertarian clone

EarthLadenFingers

10-06-2008, 03:26 PM

hey, do you remember when those dudes were mailing horrible deadly bacteria to american citizens? or those times when there were vans full of explosives, or those planes that got hijacked and flown into some major buildings? yeah **** national defense lets spend money on social programs that we dont need

had more to do with intelligence agency incompetence/executive apathy tbh

and I was more referring to all the "national defense" procedures we've been conducting in iraq

and yeah we do actually need those social programs more than some bass-ackwards country in the middle east needs "democracy" or whatever

DBoons Ghost

10-06-2008, 04:01 PM

No offence or anything, but how many jobs has your family lost because of them? Yea, they're **** jobs, but when you're firing LEGAL Americans and hiring Illegal immigrants, there's a problem!

I have a pretty big family and if they feed their family on jobs that are given to illegals, they deserve to be failures.

Either way, I wouldn't blame this on the illegal immigrants, or legal immigrants. Blame that on the employers who would rather pay someone 3 bucks an hour then 8 bucks an hour so they can drive a 750 instead of a normal car.

defrabbi3000

10-06-2008, 05:38 PM

While you have given some powerful arguments against Reagonomics, I don't think you fairly asssessed the equally powerful empirical evidence in favour of the ideas behind them (ie the ideas that underpin the so called Washington consensus). While I don't think it's true that Reaganomics were necessarily the best expression of economic orthodoxy nor even that economic orthodoxy is necessarily right or if is right that what it produces is fair and just, I think we have to give credit where credit is due. And it can't be denied that on the whole countries which deregulated and reduced taxes in the 1980s and early 1990s have enjoyed better macroceconomic results than ones that didn't.

surely the fact that the countries that went with the whole reaganomics thing were already the richer countries [Britain and America are the only ones i can really say for sure did, im not as well educated higher up as you lot] would explain why they did much better. Also i have to say since we in britain removed thatcher and her madness our public services have vastly improved. sorry i have no study to back this up [not sure if there are stats i can get to on this] but im going purely from the experiences people have told me about. ill just list the one thats verifiable, my mum works in a school that was masterfully built on a flood plain. When it flooded and there was heavy rain in thatchers era [the era of reaganomics] the teachers waded round with buckets, now with appropriate taxation there is sufficient money in the kitty that they are now considering moving the whole site which under the tories would never have happened. Also the whole school was refitted and renovated so floods dont cause quite so much damage anymore, although last year the private insurance company was strong armed into putting 1mil towards that.

defrabbi3000

10-06-2008, 05:40 PM

Also wasnt there a recession in the early nineties that coincided nicely with the summation of thatcher and reagans free market experimentation, and wasnt a deregulated free market also in place around 1929? before flaming to a crisp try and make some valid arguments for/against what ive said or at least take the time to explain why you THINK im wrong, based on the fact none of you [as far as i know] are bearded pipe smoking professors im not going to take anything said on here as gospel.

P13

10-06-2008, 05:41 PM

I discovered the true magnitude of the US economy. 14 trillion dollars :O

Smokey D

10-06-2008, 11:33 PM

No offence or anything, but how many jobs has your family lost because of them? Yea, they're **** jobs, but when you're firing LEGAL Americans and hiring Illegal immigrants, there's a problem!

I'd be pissed if someone stole my job no matter what my nationality. And I don't think Americans are entitled to employment any more than Mexicans.

surely the fact that the countries that went with the whole reaganomics thing were already the richer countries would explain why they did much better.

Well Britain, America Australia etc all did Reagonomic-type stuff and compared to France, Germany, Japan etc they performed much better in the 1990s and in fact right up until this current situation hit the fan. I wouldn't put it all down to Reagonomics, but I'm just saying there is an empirical correlation between the two.

Also, economies like Korea, Hong Kong etc show how low taxes can have a very positive effect on growth.

Also i have to say since we in britain removed thatcher and her madness our public services have vastly improved. sorry i have no study to back this up [not sure if there are stats i can get to on this] but im going purely from the experiences people have told me about. ill just list the one thats verifiable, my mum works in a school that was masterfully built on a flood plain. When it flooded and there was heavy rain in thatchers era [the era of reaganomics] the teachers waded round with buckets, now with appropriate taxation there is sufficient money in the kitty that they are now considering moving the whole site which under the tories would never have happened.

By no mean was Thatcher's model perfect, and it certainly caused a lot of hardship when it was being instituted but many of the patterns she put in place lay the groundwork for the reemergence of Britain as a financial world power. Thatcher probably took restructuring too far but not everything she did was bad.

Also wasnt there a recession in the early nineties that coincided nicely with the summation of thatcher and reagans free market experimentation, and wasnt a deregulated free market also in place around 1929?

I would be careful to attribute blame based on that sort of timing. There were some big economic contractions around the early 1990s (largely off the back of a stockmarket bubble bursting), but you have to look at whether in the long run those policies contributed to economic growth. Also, while new Labour is less aggressive in the pursuit of its policies, it didnt' substantially change the economic basis set in place by Thatcher and co.

As for the Depression, I would be careful about making those sort of analogies because the world's economy has changed hugely since then. And the free market certainly isn't perfect but it is very good at wealth creation. An essentially free market with some regulation to mitigate externalities and the chance of market failure is a very nice thing to have.

defrabbi3000

10-07-2008, 03:08 AM

wow, a fair and balanced answer with no flaming. must be smokey. I agree that thatcher cant have been all bad, she did reign in the unions which needed to be done [they shouldnt have the power to bring a country to a standstill imo] Also its worth noting that a good deal of the companies that N. Labour held up as good examples, Enron being one, have since been found to have been corrupt as the byzantine empire and shafted all their employees in order to make an extra few mil for themselves that they really didnt need, and on the basis that they were fudging the books and not playing by the rules did not deserve.

Although i will say i think microsoft and bill gates in particular have shown there is some value in a competitive and free market, whilst they have played rough with the competition they have by and large kept it legit. Now bill gates is stepping down and pledging large amounts of his personal wealth to charity, proving that with companies and CEO's acting responsibly there can be an upside to allowing people to become filthy rich.

Just as a talking point though, i stumbled across a thought when i was bored that i find disturbing. We live in a capitalist society [not the disturbing bit], and if talent goes where the money is all the good managers/organisers and talented people go into the private sector, leaving us with the dregs of the acedemic crop entering public service and government, is this a potential explanation of why we have so many dolts in power?
Im thinking of ruth kelly on this one, a woman of proven serial incompetence who has only recently left office having left a burning trail of government departments in her wake.