how about trickle UP???

[Magyar]

so for the last 25+/- years we've been subjected to;

cut taxes on the rich
less regulation on business
open markets
voodoo economics


yet, over and over again and again not only has this "plan" failed but tax payers are left holding the bag and told that it's for our OWN good.

From good old Ronnie's Chrystler's bail out, to uncle Mcseniles Keating 5 to the current $700B and rising stick up the taxpayers behind we're all told that it's for our own good and just like 9/11 we're hearing "what will happen to YOU, if we don't"


Yet, today's market had the ba**s to be jittery because congress wasn't willing to bend over on command and hand over a $700 Billion blank check.

If this is to protect all of us "little" guys so that we can keep our business' and do all the things we need to.

Why not just give US the $700 billion and let the big guys, who were walking around calling themselves the "masters of the universe" yet were too stupid to know or too corrupt to care about what is happening, sink into the pit where they belong?

Wouldn't this allow the free market to re-develop in a FAR more natural, healthy and controllable way then to throw more bad money to either totally incompetent or totally dishonest people/system?

[dirtywick]

who were walking around calling themselves the "masters of the universe" yet were too stupid to know or too corrupt to care about what is happening, sink into the pit where they belong?


I believe that was He Man.


I don't know, I'm not particularly well versed in economics, but I believe giving everyone in the US 2 billion dollars would probably just make everything really expensive and not help anything at all.

[leftysergeant]

Or we could just re-set the rules to 1940 and make the corporations pay m,ost of the taxes and make them pay a living wage and everything will be fine, unless some fool decides we HAVE TO have another war.

The minimum wage actually enabled working people to hope, realisticly, of someday moving up to middle-class status.

Money in the hands of working people has always done more good on its way to the hands of the robber barons than it has the other way around.

[dudalb]

You REALLY Don't like the free market system, do you ,guy?

[corplinx]

Bush tried trickle up, how's it worked so far?

[BenBurch]

You REALLY Don't like the free market system, do you ,guy?

A free market for goods and services is very different from fair labor laws and a fair means of funding the services of government that make commerce possible. The two are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.

[pgwenthold]

Why is it better to bailout the lending institutions than to giving the money to the homeowners so they can pay their mortgages, meaning the banks won't go broke?

Is foreclosure followed by corporate bailout really better than homeowner bailout? Does the country need lots of foreclosures?

[Ziggurat]

Why is it better to bailout the lending institutions than to giving the money to the homeowners so they can pay their mortgages, meaning the banks won't go broke?

Which homeowners? Can I get on the list? Hell, if the government gets in the business of paying people's mortgages directly, I'll default on my mortgage right now!

Is foreclosure followed by corporate bailout really better than homeowner bailout?

For that homeowner? No. For everyone else? Yes. I'm not happy about the bailout (it creates a moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) for lenders), but a direct bailout of homeowners would be worse.

[corplinx]

We've had 2 rounds of tax rebates and middle-low income tax cuts. We've actually removed the federal income tax burden from many people and even given people more back than they have paid.

Aside form short term stimulus from rebates, what has demand side economics under Bush done?

[pgwenthold]

For that homeowner? No. For everyone else? Yes. I'm not happy about the bailout (it creates a moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) for lenders), but a direct bailout of homeowners would be worse.

Why?

Why are corporations immune from their bad decisions but homeowners aren't?

[dudalb]

A free market for goods and services is very different from fair labor laws and a fair means of funding the services of government that make commerce possible. The two are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.

Agreed, but it was the general tone of lefty's post, the use of loaded terms like Robber Baron that irritated me.
And although I am not against repealing a lot of the tax breaks of recent years, I am not sure going back to a 90% top tax rate is the ticket in this day and age.

[dudalb]

Why?

Why are corporations immune from their bad decisions but homeowners aren't?

Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

[Alric]

Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

AIG and Lehman DID go down the tubes and they got all the de-regulation and tax cuts they asked (lobby) for. The problem is that while the corporation and its employees go down the tubes, management made its millions and can retire.

There is no incentive for management to run an ethical long-term viable company. They'll run it to the ground in two years if they can get their bonuses.

I like the trickle up concept.

[pgwenthold]

Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

But bailing out the homeowners ALSO protects the corps!!!

How is "give the huge corporations a ton of money but leave the homeowners out on the street" less "evil" than "keep the huge corps afloat WITHOUT throwing homeowners out on their arses"?

If you are going to do a bailout, why not save people in addition to corporations?

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Why are corporations immune from their bad decisions but homeowners aren't?

They shouldn't be. My point (which you seemed to miss) is that as big as a corporate bailout is, a direct bailout of homeowners would be much larger. Furthermore, it would be unmanageable from a purely practical standpoint. Seriously, who do you bail out? Any homeowner who defaults? Or is there some criteria? Who sets up the criteria, what are they, and who manages it? It's a big enough mess already, and I'm not happy about the existing bailout, but a direct homeowner bailout would quickly spiral into complete disaster. Corporations are not more deserving than individuals, but they are far more transparent than individuals, and government is far more capable of dealing with the bailout of a handful of corporations than of millions of individuals. Recognizing those realities isn't corporate favoratism.

[fishbob]

Aside form short term stimulus from rebates, what has demand side economics under Bush done?

Can't say for certain, but it might have actually done some good if the supply hadn't all moved overseas. Which means that all the rebate money went overseas too.

[corplinx]

Can't say for certain, but it might have actually done some good if the supply hadn't all moved overseas. Which means that all the rebate money went overseas too.

So, does demand side economics require economic isolationism to work right?

[leftysergeant]

So, does demand side economics require economic isolationism to work right?

It worked for over two hundred years.

Ever hear of an import tariff?

[webfusion]

An email was just sent to me, and it made me think of this thread ---

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea. I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,

Patriotic retirement:

There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with these 3 stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

[WildCat]

An email was just sent to me, and it made me think of this thread ---

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea. I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,

Patriotic retirement:

There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with these 3 stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.
Why not just give every man, woman, and child $100,000? It'd even be cheaper!

But all this would be likely to do is spur inflation and create a bubble which would burst soon enough and then we'd be right back where we started from, or worse.

[webfusion]

How much is 40-million x $1-miillion? What fantastic number results from that equation?

[WildCat]

How much is 40-million x $1-miillion? What fantastic number results from that equation?
Lots and lots of zeros...

[webfusion]

I swear that avatar kitty just *winked* at me.

[Ziggurat]

1) They leave their jobs.

So the solution to our economic problems is to drastically cut our economic output? Why would that help?

[leftysergeant]

Agreed, but it was the general tone of lefty's post, the use of loaded terms like Robber Baron that irritated me.


It fit jerks like those at the financial products division of AIG.

It fits Halliburton. It fits Murdoch.

[leftysergeant]

But all this would be likely to do is spur inflation and create a bubble which would burst soon enough and then we'd be right back where we started from, or worse.

Actually, we would be better off. People who had bought homes would have their homes, GM, re-organized and pressured to build decent cars, would be able to sell cars and restore the pension benefitsthey screwed up (if the unions get their act together) and the people who bought into Ponzi schemes like the derivatives market would be stuck with nothing. Any new commerce would then, if proper regulations are re-instated, be based on production and distribution of actual value.

Works for me.

[Skeptic]

The minimum wage actually enabled working people to hope, realisticly, of someday moving up to middle-class status.

What! And join the EXPLOITING, EVIL classes??? Why would the workers want to do that?!

[webfusion]

So the solution to our economic problems is to drastically cut our economic output? Why would that help?


I believe that the point made was that 40-million Americans take early retirement with their Million Bucks, and the jobs they leave will then be available for 40-million other workers, under the age of 50.

By the way, I'm still surprised that nobody noticed that the amount of money the proposal would require is
$40,000,000,000,000 (forty trillion)

In other words, the proposal is using bogus numbers.

To put it in perspective, the world's total GDP in 2007 was $57,000,000,000,000

[Ziggurat]

I believe that the point made was that 40-million Americans take early retirement with their Million Bucks,

Dumping money into the system is not the same as dumping wealth into the system. All it does is transfer existing wealth to people who will no longer be productive, and devalue the currency in the process.

and the jobs they leave will then be available for 40-million other workers, under the age of 50.

And why do those 40 million not already have the jobs that are being given up? Because generally speaking, they're not as productive workers and the ones who are retiring (if they were, they'd have equivalent jobs already). So you've just tanked worker productivity as well. Furthermore, many of those jobs would simply be eliminated because of the decrease in available workers with sufficient skill.

Forcing people not to work in order to make more work for other people won't succeed, because there is no lump sum of labor which needs to be performed. The demand for labor will change with its productivity, and if you sink productivity, you sink demand. That's why France's 35-hour work week didn't solve their unemployment problem. Your support for this idea is apparently not serious, but the logic behind it is sadly quite common.

[webfusion]

Zig, I think the entire thing is just a dumb joke, yes, and circulated by know-nothings in emails because they think it really sounds good.

[leftysergeant]

And why do those 40 million not already have the jobs that are being given up? Because generally speaking, they're not as productive workers and the ones who are retiring (if they were, they'd have equivalent jobs already). So you've just tanked worker productivity as well. Furthermore, many of those jobs would simply be eliminated because of the decrease in available workers with sufficient skill.

"The poor are poor because they are lazy." Riiiight. Seems to me we heard that out of a total waste of skin who somehow became POTUS a while back. He was as wrong as you are. Don't blame the working poor for the mess we are in.

Any stimulus that does not go to increasing the demand for domestic production is, as noted elsewhere, a losing game. Enabling big xorporations to move the supply off shore got us where we are, not the demands of workers for a living wage.

The demand for labor will change with its productivity, and if you sink productivity, you sink demand. That's why France's 35-hour work week didn't solve their unemployment problem. Your support for this idea is apparently not serious, but the logic behind it is sadly quite common.

Care top provide some evidence for this bit of woo?

[leftysergeant]

What! And join the EXPLOITING, EVIL classes??? Why would the workers want to do that?!Most of the living-wage jobs I have had since retiring from the military were provided by middle-class people who had saved enough money to start a business.

Phil "No poor person ever gave me a job" Gramm is an idiot. No poor person needs what that lunatic has tro offer. Middle-class business people know he and his kind are not their friends, but the allies of the Walton larvae.

[Puppycow]

yet, over and over again and again not only has this "plan" failed

Not for the plutocrats it hasn't! :cs:

[Ziggurat]

"The poor are poor because they are lazy." Riiiight.

Nice strawman. Productivity is a measure of output, not effort. And the primary reason older workers generally have higher productivity is because they have more skill. Because they've had more time to acquire skill. The same person's productivity will generally rise over time, along with their salary.

Don't blame the working poor for the mess we are in.

I didn't. Next time, spend a little more effort trying to understand what I actually said. You clearly don't have the hang of this whole reading comprehension thing yet.

[DC]

You REALLY Don't like the free market system, do you ,guy?

no sure not.
Anarchism for companys didnt and will not work.

[Cobalt]

"The poor are poor because they are lazy." Riiiight. Seems to me we heard that out of a total waste of skin who somehow became POTUS a while back. He was as wrong as you are. Don't blame the working poor for the mess we are in.


HINT: It usually isn't because they're lazy, but barring a severe medical issue, they're poor because they keep making the same stupid ass mistakes that cost them money. It isn't Rush Limbaugh's fault they're not making good choices, it isn't W's, it isn't Rupert Murdoch, it's their own. I know it kills you to hear this, and I know you'll just deny, deny, deny, but there it is.

[leftysergeant]

HINT: It usually isn't because they're lazy, but barring a severe medical issue, they're poor because they keep making the same stupid ass mistakes that cost them money.


The only dumb mistake that they made as a class was when they had unionm jobs and voted for dirt-dumb Ronnie and the Bush and the Shrub and screwed up the ecconomy.

What kind of dumb mistakes are you talking about? Sounds like the same old blame the victim crap that the GOP has been spewing since jelly-brain's presidency in 1981.

[Cobalt]

The only dumb mistake that they made as a class was when they had unionm jobs and voted for dirt-dumb Ronnie and the Bush and the Shrub and screwed up the ecconomy. No it wasn't just them, but thanks for playing!


What kind of dumb mistakes are you talking about? Sounds like the same old blame the victim crap that the GOP has been spewing since jelly-brain's presidency in 1981.

Lets see. We'll just go with the example of a family who can barely support their child. They have another child. How are they going to move up if they're too *********** stupid to slap on a rubber? **** like that isn't being a victim, it's being irresponsible and plain stupid.

[leftysergeant]

Lets see. We'll just go with the example of a family who can barely support their child. They have another child. How are they going to move up if they're too *********** stupid to slap on a rubber? **** like that isn't being a victim, it's being irresponsible and plain stupid.

We have the fundies (far right) telling them thaty God disapproves of condoms, and that they are supposed to breed an army of Christian soldiers to prepare for Armageddon, and they have idiots in government health agencies telling them that abstinence is the only effective birth control method.

They also have cheerleaders for the right wing telling them that there is an unlimited opportunity to move up, so expect to be doing better and to be able to feed the rug rats.

Then you have the vast numbers of families who thought they were on their way up, but who found themselvews without a job as the investor class abandoned them for off shore sources.

There are a hell of a lot of impoverished people right now who had it all before jelly-brained Ronnie's bubble ecconomy burst.

Don't blame the people who bought into your Republican woo-woo for their own poverty while you still advocate the same crap that got us here.

[Cobalt]

We have the fundies (far right) telling them thaty God disapproves of condoms, and that they are supposed to breed an army of Christian soldiers to prepare for Armageddon, and they have idiots in government health agencies telling them that abstinence is the only effective birth control method. Pathetic excuse. Not every moron having more kids than they can feed worships god, and not all Christians follow the Bible to the letter. You should visit reality and actually know what you're talking about before you make lame generalizations.


They also have cheerleaders for the right wing telling them that there is an unlimited opportunity to move up, so expect to be doing better and to be able to feed the rug rats. Well if they didn't have kids they couldn't afford, or use their welfare check to buy twenty inch rims for their rusted Cadillac maybe they could.


Then you have the vast numbers of families who thought they were on their way up, but who found themselvews without a job as the investor class abandoned them for off shore sources. That sucks for them. But they could find another one. If you just sit there and bitch, your situation isn't going to improve. And just so you know, the job doesn't belong to the employee, it belongs to the employer. They're free to do with it whatever they wish. I know that makes you just so mad.


There are a hell of a lot of impoverished people right now who had it all before jelly-brained Ronnie's bubble ecconomy burst. Again, quit bitching and do something about it.



Don't blame the people who bought into your Republican woo-woo for their own poverty while you still advocate the same crap that got us here.
Not a republican, kiddo. I'm one of those poor people, and I actually know it's my own damn fault. But guess what?! I'm gonna *********** DO something about it! I'm not content to sit around and piss away my life, I'm actually going to make something of it. I want to drive a slick Alpine White M5. I want a nice house. And I'm going to make it happen.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things about me anymore, boyo.

[Magyar]

Because if coporattions go down the tubes they take a LOT of jobs and people with them.
I have problems with the bailout, but it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I hear this all the time from pro business people - usually large business owners waiting for tax payer hand outs, but not small business, ALL the while screaming about the free market blah blah blah.

If a large corp fouls up, WHY would it not be replaced by an existing small or even multiple small businesses that could do it better, hire more people then one large company (because some jobs would be duplicated) and generate more activity to the economy?
Provided that the services/goods the original corp had was of value in the first place.

This meme of "protect the Corp, because the world will come to end if you don't" seems to be nothing more than a self serving fear tactic that has no basis in reality. Especially, IF you truly believed in the free market instead of using it as a red herring to line your pockets.

Edit - for example a very common these especially in the software industry is that people who get fired/layed off will start their own company because they saw things that they didn't like or feel they could do better than the original. Thus you have multiple versions of Linux etc etc.