BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Dr.Who]

Here is a graph that shows not only the starting and end points but also the points in between:

The trend is for both rich and poor to get richer. Thats a good thing.
At times the rich get relatively poorer. (not good nor bad)
At times the rich get relatively richer. (not good nor bad)

In fact during all that time the poor never got poorer in a real sense rather than a comparative sense. The trend for their wealth ALWAYS went up. (a good thing)

But there were times when the rich got poorer in a real sense. Sometimes the trend for their wealth went down. (a bad thing). [but then again the rich got rich in the first place by taking chances, by investing rather than just buying a house and by owning businesses rather than by being workers]

That is not the whole story and one can read the whole article for more of it:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/a_graph_im_trying_to_understan.html

The real story is that there is not a correlation between the worth of rich people and poor people. The fortunes of rich and poor rise and fall separately. The rich are not getting rich at the expense of the poor.

 

[Lagboltz]

Youa re demonstrating that you are not even trying to understand.

I am not saying there are happy people in a bad economy,

I am saying that companies try really hard to make happy people and that is good for the economy. Your generalization that companies are the bad guys is contrary to the facts.



I admitted that enron did bad. They also did lots of good as all companies do. If even enron can do good then think about how much good most companies do.

Clearly enron and others should be stopped when they do bad. But ONLY when they do bad. It is contrary to the nature of justice to be against companies in all circumstances or to exaggerate the badness of companies. Justice demans that they be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Go ahead and show us anecdotes about when they are bad - iot will prove that they can be bad at times.

Go ahead and show us principles of how baddness can occur - it will show things in the system that need to be changed.

But characterizing industry in general as bad proves more about the bias in your thinking skills in this instance on this topic.

The gov can't create a booming economy without bludgeoning the national debt. My point was industries are not specifically interested (nor even capable) of creating a booming economy either. I did not say they were bad guys, although the Enron example I gave was a worse case scenario and consisted of bad guys and probably confused you.

 

[Lagboltz]

The real story is that there is not a correlation between the worth of rich people and poor people. The fortunes of rich and poor rise and fall separately.

I never said nor implied there is a correlation between the separate trend lines. I simply said there is a wage disparity trend.

The rich are not getting rich at the expense of the poor.

Again, you keep putting words into my mouth and arguing about it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Through heavily financed PACs by the wealthy, lobbyists, a continuation of the wage disparity trend, education decline, continual expansion of outsourcing, etc.

I don't see how any of that leads to unelected leaders ruling the country.

The plan I posted earlier exhibited a balanced budget by 2015, and a pay down about $281 Billion of the debt by 2030.

Ah yes... You were using Wishful Thinking to balance the budget. I still haven't seen you, or anyone else, offer proof that increasing tax rates will have the effect of raising revenue as a % of GDP.... And I'm not holding my breathe.

The welfare, foodstamp, etc. programs we have now will have to do for the time being. I have been arguing against cutting them.

They are all slated to grow at 12% per year... Would you support 0% growth, or do you consider that a "cut"?

Not true at all. I promoted lots of spending cuts earlier on in this thread -- cuts in medicare, foreign aid, earmarks, subsidies, fed employees, military programs, and others.

Do you make any distinction between reducing actual budgets and simply reducing the growth of budgets, or do you consider both to be "cuts"?

I agree that the government can't manufacture a booming economy without bludgeoning the national debt. But industry generally isn't interested in doing anything about the economy either. ... So who can make the economy boom?

So you admit government cannot create economic expansion, and you don't believe private industry is capable of doing it either... Then you do ask the right question, who do you believe can create an economic boom?

The private sector is the only realistic answer.

Good point. It seems that the government ignores it in many different areas. It doesn't bother me that they ignore it in the welfare programs. Welfare almost literally seems to be implied in the preamble anyway.

Very Progressive point of view indeed...

 

[GenSeneca]

The gov can't create a booming economy without bludgeoning the national debt.

We spent 4 trillion dollars in 3 years... We certainly bludgeoned the national debt, so where's the booming economy?

 

[Gipper]

We spent 4 trillion dollars in 3 years... We certainly bludgeoned the national debt, so where's the booming economy?

Right!

If government spending creates a booming economy, I wonder why Europe is in so much economic trouble...you just can't make this sh*t up!!!

 

[Dr.Who]

I never said nor implied there is a correlation between the separate trend lines. I simply said there is a wage disparity trend.

Again, you keep putting words into my mouth and arguing about it.

And I didnt say that you said those things. I just thought that it was real important and needed to be a part of the thread. When I put words in your mouth you will know it because I will say things like "You said..." and you will not have said it.

 

[Dr.Who]

I did not say they were bad guys, although the Enron example I gave was a worse case scenario and consisted of bad guys and probably confused you.

Actually I did not think you maligned business with the example of enron.

I thought you did it when you said that industry did not care about the needs of the country. Firstly that is a generalization and I would only have to find ONE counter example to burst a generalization. But secondly as a generalization it is not even generally true since MOST businesses want to do things that are good for the country.

I have understood you to think that business is the bad guy but if that is not true then just make a positive statement about business and its effect on the economy and how it promotes the welfare of the country.

 

[Lagboltz]

I don't see how any of that leads to unelected leaders ruling the country.

For an oligarchy it doesn't matter how they got power.

Ah yes... You were using Wishful Thinking to balance the budget. I still haven't seen you, or anyone else, offer proof that increasing tax rates will have the effect of raising revenue as a % of GDP.... And I'm not holding my breathe.

They are all slated to grow at 12% per year... Would you support 0% growth, or do you consider that a "cut"?

Do you make any distinction between reducing actual budgets and simply reducing the growth of budgets, or do you consider both to be "cuts"?

We already went through this before. You obviously simply brushed off my "wishful thinking" and didn't read it.

My "wishful thinking" was that significant CUTS in many areas are imperative to balance the budget. As I said several times before: Some programs should be ELIMINATED. growth in some programs should be LIMITED to some percentage of the GDP. Only then will tax increases have any merit.

"Proof" is not a word used in hard sciences like physics let alone economics. Nobody can offer "proof" of anything in the real world of economics.

So you admit government cannot create economic expansion, and you don't believe private industry is capable of doing it either... Then you do ask the right question, who do you believe can create an economic boom?

I didn't say industry was not capable. I said they were not interested.

The private sector is the only realistic answer.

OK. How do you propose that will come about.

Very Progressive point of view indeed.

Progressive? I hardly think so when the gov has been doing it through many administrations. Unless you have a very broad definition of "progressive".

 

[Lagboltz]

We spent 4 trillion dollars in 3 years... We certainly bludgeoned the national debt, so where's the booming economy?

Yeah. We overran by 7 Trillion in the last 11 years. We didn't make the cuts where they should have been nor used the 7 Trillion wisely.

 

[Lagboltz]

Actually I did not think you maligned business with the example of enron.

I thought you did it when you said that industry did not care about the needs of the country. Firstly that is a generalization and I would only have to find ONE counter example to burst a generalization. But secondly as a generalization it is not even generally true since MOST businesses want to do things that are good for the country.

You are putting words in my mouth again. This is what I said in post #172:

...But industry generally isn't interested in doing anything about the economy either. They generally have a short term interest in their profits and stock prices...​

I have understood you to think that business is the bad guy but if that is not true then just make a positive statement about business and its effect on the economy and how it promotes the welfare of the country.

OK. Business is good for the country. The country would be in the dark ages without business.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are putting words in my mouth again. This is what I said in post #172:

...But industry generally isn't interested in doing anything about the economy either. They generally have a short term interest in their profits and stock prices...​

That too was not the post I was referring to. You can tell which one I was referring to by actually following the trail of links backwards (post 172 was written to GenSenica and I don't think I even responded to it).

This is the one I was referring to:

"Industrial leaders are primarily interested in their compensation, their own prosperity and not the prosperity of the country" Post 171

You can also know that this is the one I was referring to because my response was this:

"Your notion that industry is not interested in the common good is completely unsupported."

OK. Business is good for the country. The country would be in the dark ages without business.

Now was that so hard?

You go on and on repeating progressive propaganda verbatim and then you expect us to understand that your actual views are not really leftists but instead you just fear oligarchies?

You claim not to understand what is perfectly understandable, and then you respond with accusations of putting words in the mouth supported by statements you made that were not even in the chain of conversation. Is this why I was warned about red herrings?

It is not logical for you to fear oligarchies and yet support the large federal government which has forgotten is constitutional role and which empowers oligarchies at the same time.

Likewise it is not logical for you to bash business repeatedly, specifically saying that they are not interested in the prosperity of the country while also thinking that they are so good for the country we would be in the dark ages without them.


More balance and consistency are needed if you are going to be understood.

 

[Dr.Who]

I didn't say industry was not capable. I said they were not interested.

Now that is just so wrong it borders on crazy.

Every single solitary business in the country wants to thrive and wants the businesses it partners with to thrive as well full well knowing that that would BE an economic boom.

Every economic boom that we have ever experienced has been driven by business. Whether or not gov can help or has ever helped more than it hurts is the debatable part.

 

[GenSeneca]

I didn't say industry was not capable. I said they were not interested.

Uh...

My point was industries are not specifically interested (nor even capable) of creating a booming economy either.

Yeah...

 

[Lagboltz]

Both of you Tea Party Pollyannas are wearing rose colored glasses, and to upgrade the mixed metaphor, you are exhibiting the following:

Of course all businesses and every single person wants the country to thrive economically.

Let me put it simply. Suppose you go to a board of directors meeting in a for-profit company and there are two plans the first one maximizes their profit to 4 million a quarter. The second plan gives them only 3 million a quarter, but is good in some way for the people or economy in general. I maintain that a very strong majority will go for the more profitable plan. That is what I meant when I said industry was interested in their own profits than the economy. If you think otherwise, you got your head up your butt.

GenSeneca, you have been too cowardly to post a plan that you think would cut deficit spending and decrease the national debt. You said, "The private sector is the only realistic answer." Let's hear your plan.