Agree. In a consumer driven economy, if you don't put money into the hands of consumers, they don't buy. So all the tax cuts and tariff reductions in the world won't do any good, if the consumers can't buy.
I've never put anyone on official ignore. But there are many who I do ignore by overlooking their posts. Sometimes I enjoy feeding the trolls. As this is just for entertainment. And to gain some perspective of all sides views. Notice I said all sides, and not both sides. RWers are usually the binary thinking group.
Economics is never entertaining. In fact, though a somewhat dreary subject, it is at the very center of our lives. We are not Robinson Crusoes, but participants in a real market-economy. And as such our lives are greatly dependent upon that fact. Which I interpret by three of many economic factors, but the most important to my mind: *The first is America's Income Disparity that is responsible for about 45 million of its men, women and children living in the comparative misery below the Poverty Threshold. Yes, we can dismiss them as "unimportant", just a bunch of lazy-basterds. But we all know that is not the least bit the real reason. Which is quite simply that too much is going to too few because of ridiculously low upper-income taxation. Better taxed, that money could be put to far better use - for instance, educating people out-of-poverty by means of Tertiary Education that is free, gratis and for nothing. *We are living lifespans that are fully three-years less than that of Europeans, which is due to the rise in obesity in the population. Quite simply, far to many people are eating themselves to death. Of course, first they get sick, then they die. *And when they get sick, they are paying through the nose for some of the most expensive Healthcare treatment on this planet because it is not nationalized and, most importantly, the exaggerated revenues of HC-practitioners. A GP in the US makes more than twice the income of French GP (who earns close to the average EU-revenue for their job-class) - largely because the French GPs did not spend $278K to get their medical degrees as do the American variety. (My dentist told me last week he paid 2K€ per year (8K€) for his entire post-graduate dentistry schooling. My wife did the same for her law-degree.) To each nation their own choices in life. But, then, some choices dictate how long and how well its people are going to live ...
The supply-side religion relies on several myths. One is that a shortage of investment capital is what restricts expansion. That's wrong, as there's no shortage of investment capital. What's more, supply-side doesn't create more investment capital. Those tax cuts have to be paid for by more deficits, which are paid for by issuing more T-Bills, and the T-bills are paid for by the investors, taking the money gained from the tax cuts back out of circulation. Supply side doesn't generate more investment capital. It just transfers paper wealth the the rich. Most importantly, no business is going to expand just because they have more money available. That's illogical. If there's no demand for a product, producing more of it is a guaranteed way to lose money. When will a business expand? When there's more demand for a product. Sensible people understand economies are demand-driven.
there was massive contagion among all banks and financial institutions that would have completely shut down the world's economy had Fed not prevented it
when they are too big to fail and be replaced, obviously yes to avoid world wide depression and perhaps world war!!
obviously for Jobs and Gates to get rich their great inventions had to trickle down to billions of people. No trickle down, no rich inventors. Do you understand?
actually everyone in their right mind was afraid of a rerun of the Great Depression and World War 2 and thus everyone agreed to prevent it. 1+1=2
No, unless it staved off the great depression 2, from the debt driven trickle down policies of the previous couple decades. Maybe we should not cut taxes to those who won't spend it in the economy.
There was a policy that made people tap out all the equity in their homes and assume debt they could never repay? Can you point me to the specific policy?
2 guys. OK. But the only way the economy was moving in the 90s and 2000s was debt driven. That is why the collapse happened. No real growth, just debt driven economy.
Its been discussed ad nauseum since the housing bust a decade ago. No need to rehash. If you can't remember it, there's google.
That there was a housing boom, that acted as the catalyst for the economy and then a housing bust that wrecked the economy? You really think I couldn't defend that assertion, why would I need to. It's all there for you to research if you weren't alive for it.
