taking the money of the wealthy for use by the government does not help the middle class.
It does if it increases employment through jobs programs, and it does if we have more progressive tax rates as we had in the 90's which helps reduce the deficit and provides more take home for the consumer class with which to buy things which creates demand which stimulates the economy.
A person that thinks a consumer economy can proper without demand is either a fool or blinded by greed.
that's like saying you can fly if you grew wings.
a person who thinks giving the more government money is going to help things ignores both history and current events
Tell me how it is you think a consumer economy can prosper when most of the countries wealth is at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers?
tell me how you think people who become more and more dependent on government will ever find the ambition and drive to go out and make themselves more valuable and deserving of higher wages?
Most people are aware that there are for more people than there are jobs, and it takes demand to create jobs. That's why most people see no reason to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy.
For those who have not studied Economics 101, without consumer demand, a consumer economy cannot prosper. You just can't spin your way around that.
most people know that this government is wasting billions of dollars a week and that you can tax the rich 100% (and assuming they don't kill you) and that will not solve the deficit.
Most people aren't smart enough to understand that your envy based desire to tax the rich more only puts a band aid on the problem and gives your welfare socialist masters more excuses to spend even more money to buy the votes of people who think like you.
Fortunately, most people have a better understanding of economics than you do!
Yeah right. but you aren't one of them
I understand one of the basics in economics that you somehow missed, that consumer demand is necessary for growth in a consumer based economy.
First, I am flattered and honored that you believe I have a presidential campaign. But I do not. I am not running for president nor am I an employee of any presidential campaign or even an unpaid advisor. My views on this matter do not have to be in sync with anyone. There are my views.
Second, I have stated that my taxation and budget platform consists of the following main points
*** raise the federal income tax on all American earning dollar one by five points across the board
*** cut at least $300 billion in spending today
*** have 100% of earners pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings instead of just the lower 93% of earners as it is today
*** freeze Social Security benefits at the current levels plus a modest inflation increase if necessary
*** abolish the special rates for both capital gains and inheritance taxes and treat them as normal income
But page 2 talks about how governments aren't the source of consumer demand.
From Stiglitz above…like the Great Depression, was preceded by large increases in inequality…"
And did Stiglitz state what caused this reduction in inequality that preceded the Great Depression? WWII maybe? I think so…maybe we should start another one to relieve this ‘income inequality’…it worked once before.
From Stiglitz above, "It is no accident that the periods in which the broadest cross sections of Americans have reported higher net incomes—when inequality has been reduced, partly as a result of progressive taxation—have been the periods in which the U.S. economy has grown the fastest. It is likewise no accident that the current recession, like the Great Depression, was preceded by large increases in inequality. When too much money is concentrated at the top of society, spending by the average American is necessarily reduced—or at least it will be in the absence of some artificial prop. Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher-income individuals consume, as a fraction of their income, less than lower-income individuals do."
What I am not sure I see in the above is how lowering the wealth gap by making some poorer helps the people at the bottom richer. I guess that is why he used the word PARTLY.
The question he needs to be able to answer how to close the gap by the people at the bottom up. Not sure that closing the gap by making the top poorer is more important than the question he/you did not address.
The problem is most of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top by 30 years of supply side economics and financial deregulation. The solution is to to reverse those failed policies.
So you are saying the working class in this country must be willing to lower their standard of living so that the rich can get the even bigger tax cuts for the rich that Romney has pledged?
That's your sales pitch to the working class for the November elections? Really? And you expect them to buy that???
How could WWII be the cause of the inequality that preceded the Great Depression, since it began after the wealth inequality?
But page 2 talks about how governments aren't the source of consumer demand.
Which doesn't disprove the point. If you really understand logical fallacies, you would know that. In effect you failed to make a response.
If you take a limited time frame, sure. I suggest a wider time frame. The minimum wage in constant inflation adjusted dollars has been declining since the late 70s.
Ironically, it says in that report, in several places, that unemployment rose after the minimum wage was increased.
Here's the deal. If you really don't believe that the minimum wage has any negative effect, then would you support a $100 /hr minimum wage? After all, if it has zero negative effect, then why not give everyone a six-figure income?
You'll need to provide me with a citation of this. I can't find that anywhere. The only thing I found was that they to change it so that you can only deduct medical expenses over 7% of your gross income. The problem is, that rule doesn't start until 2013. So why would companies need waivers for 2010, and 2011 and 2012?
Which doesn't change my point, nor contradict it.
I disagree with the concept. Assuming that you mean to imply that a liquidity trap is the result of a demand for money being greater than the supply of goods. The reason there is a liquidity trap is simply because there is a lack of qualified borrowers, not a lack of things to buy. Banks do not lend money because they have tons of money to lend. Banks lend money because there is someone that is qualified to take out a loan, with a high chance of repaying it.
Funny because I was just talking to a bunch of leftists in the other threads who swore that companies were not expanding. Yet here you are claiming they are.
I wonder which of you is right.
The problem is most of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top by 30 years of supply side economics and financial deregulation. The solution is to to reverse those failed policies.
None the less, government can be used as a tool to boost demand during certain shortfalls.
Snorting meth can boost energy during periods of fatigue.
Which is another way of saying the short term benefits have to outweigh the long-term costs/risks. When they don't, it becomes too tempting to go overboard with the stimulus or quick fix, until you need to apply it constantly just to avoid catastrophe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?