[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by evollove

How does this happen?

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just asking.

I'm one of the few people who will fess up and admit I don't understand how complex economic systems work.

So how do austerity measures hurt the overall economy?

Look, I'm not saying they don't. Chill. Hey, it's just a question. Fuck you, I'm just trying to figure it out. No need to call me that. Oh, bite me.

After the past 30 years it is perfectly safe to say that Trickle Down economics does not work. That is to say, the lowered tax rates for businesses and the wealthy "job creators" as well as deregulating the market do NOT increase government revenue streams, do not increase real wages, do not increase the overall productivity of the economy. All they have done is go on to to create record setting profits for corporations. So Europe shouldn't be interested in these trickle-down models which are disguised as austerity measures. This is particularly damaging to countries like Greece where such high proportions of people work for the government and state-own businesses. Austerity means to cut government jobs and contracts with private businesses, this is an automatic decline in real wages and investment in the market. Further, you can't readily replace teachers and public workers in the private market, so you inevitably have a net hole in the economy. While it seems counter-intuitive that when the government pays people and for services that the government makes money, but this is an investment. These workers pay taxes so a share of the money goes directly back into the system, and further these workers own houses, cars, pay their bills, buy all kinds of consumer goods, and pay for all kinds of services. In this process, the keep the economy flowing and growing, the government spending works out to be an investment. When you cut this spending, you cut the investment and immediately lose in the short run. Trickle-down theory suggests that in the long arc, economic growth under lowered taxes will generate more income and a larger market, however in the real world this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. In fact, there almost seems to be an inverse relationship because the largest period of job growth in US history was between 1991-1999, second largest was post-WWII, both periods when we also had much higher taxes

[evollove]

1.) I thought austerity measures had more to do with less monies going out than the source of monies coming in.

2.) The austerity measures taken in Europe seemed to have a negative effect very quickly, while the trickle down theory takes a little while to fuck things up. Right?

3.) Speaking of money, if I send you some, would you consider using paragraph breaks?

[ilduclo]

the austerity measures that are taken are largely reductions to payments to lower income people. these people spend what they take in, and usually right away, and the money they spend is almost immediately into the economy and providing what is called a "multilplier effect" so that the money is spent over and over again and continues to work to stimulate the economy.

when payments are made to higher income people a lot of time it is not as good for the overall economy, some of it is spent, but a lot goes to investments and for really high income people (rMoney) overseas.

these are not speculations, but established economic facts. however, they are ideas that are not well known because it is not in the interests of the wealthy for these ideas to be well understood.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

the austerity measures that are taken are largely reductions to payments to lower income people. these people spend what they take in, and usually right away, and the money they spend is almost immediately into the economy and providing what is called a "multilplier effect" so that the money is spent over and over again and continues to work to stimulate the economy.

when payments are made to higher income people a lot of time it is not as good for the overall economy, some of it is spent, but a lot goes to investments and for really high income people (rMoney) overseas.

these are not speculations, but established economic facts. however, they are ideas that are not well known because it is not in the interests of the wealthy for these ideas to be well understood.

exactly

though i would say "it is not in the SHORT-TERM interests of the wealthy" because some wealthy people see it better. warren buffett sees it and henry ford saw it when he paid his workers enough so they could afford to buy a car (unheard of at the time).

the koch brothers however sell toilet paper so they don't give a fuck about people being able to afford pricier goods.

[evollove]

Thanx. Clearer.

But:

1.) Were exorbitant pensions really one the causes of economic instability in Europe, or was that a bullshit excuse? I realize the collapsed housing market set off an awful chain-reaction, but did pensions contribute at all?

2.) If the theory that more money in pockets stimulates the economy, it seems having the wealthy pay little to no taxes follows the same logic, only on a larger scale. Why is this not accurate?

Again, just asking questions. I assure you my politics are otherwise solidly leftist. (Except I hate all immigrants. And blacks and Jews and Catholics and homosexuals. Native Americans kinda annoy me too. And femi-nazis. Aside from that, you couldn't tell the difference between me and Howard Zinn.)

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by evollove

Thanx. Clearer.

But:

1.) Were exorbitant pensions really one the causes of economic instability in Europe, or was that a bullshit excuse? I realize the collapsed housing market set off an awful chain-reaction, but did pensions contribute at all?

No, in Greece rampant corruption and in Spain relying too much on a housing market bubble (hey California sound familiar?) caused their more immediate impacts.

2.) If the theory that more money in pockets stimulates the economy, it seems having the wealthy pay little to no taxes follows the same logic, only on a larger scale. Why is this not accurate?

No because the wealthy don't spend their money on groceries, consumer goods, and bills, they spend it on investments and savings and long term profits, hence why trickle-down doesn't work in the short or long term.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

No because the wealthy don't spend their money on groceries, consumer goods, and bills, they SEND IT TO CHINA

fixed!

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

When people are broke, its not brand new cars and 40" TVs that the are putting on debt, it is groceries, electric and phone bills, kids' clothes and school needs, etc etc..

not to mention healthcare, if i am not mistaken.

and instead of saying that people should be taking out loans that they cant afford, shouldn't one be saying that banks shouldn't be giving out loans that they know people can't pay back?

[evollove]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

No because the wealthy don't spend their money on groceries, consumer goods, and bills, they spend it on investments and savings and long term profits, hence why trickle-down doesn't work in the short or long term.

1.) The few wealthy people I know can be accused of buying too much, not too little. Also the wealthy need to eat, pay bills, etc. And like most people, they get a strange thrill buying shit they don't need at the mall. In my very limited experience, the affluent love to spend.

2.) Investments and savings, at lest theoretically, seems to be good for all. Investments in businesses allow the businesses to expand, hire more workers, etc.

Savings in, say, banks, allows for more capital. Person A saves money in bank; person B walks in and asks for a loan to start a small business. The bank has the money thanks to person A.

This is all theoretical. Why doesn't it work?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

1.) The few wealthy people I know can be accused of buying too much, not too little. Also the wealthy need to eat, pay bills, etc. And like most people, they get a strange thrill buying shit they don't need at the mall. In my very limited experience, the affluent love to spend.

2.) Investments and savings, at lest theoretically, seems to be good for all. Investments in businesses allow the businesses to expand, hire more workers, etc.

Savings in, say, banks, allows for more capital. Person A saves money in bank; person B walks in and asks for a loan to start a small business. The bank has the money thanks to person A.

This is all theoretical. Why doesn't it work?

if you wanna get nerdy let larry summers tell it

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dbb65da8-9...tml#axzz29NBSl

Originally Posted by fugazifan

and instead of saying that people should be taking out loans that they cant afford, shouldn't one be saying that banks shouldn't be giving out loans that they know people can't pay back?

that's like saying people are retarded children and banks are 100% responsible for the actions of individuals. so no. it takes 2 to tango.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

fixed!

Thank you for clarifying, I was most intentionally using investments as a euphemism

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

if you wanna get nerdy let larry summers tell it

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dbb65da8-9...tml#axzz29NBSl



that's like saying people are retarded children and banks are 100% responsible for the actions of individuals. so no. it takes 2 to tango.

i wasn't saying that banks are 100% responsible. but i also don't think that interest rates should be so high that they make it impossible for people to pay back loans, regardless of whether somebody made an informed decision to take out a loan or not.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

i wasn't saying that banks are 100% responsible. but i also don't think that interest rates should be so high that they make it impossible for people to pay back loans, regardless of whether somebody made an informed decision to take out a loan or not.

I agree, it takes two to tango but it doesn't in the case of predatory lending. These lenders were like line sharks, they were out scouting all over the hoodz of America, they were multi-lingual, they were manipulative, they were deceptive, they exaggerated how easy it could be, and it spiraled out of control as banks increasingly were looking to sign the next poor person from the ghetto like majors were trying to sign the next Nirvana in 1992..

By the way, tonight's debate, when Barry keeps it smooth and cool, he is icing this thing. Mitt is just trying to rowel him up to get a bit of angry black male because a lot of white folks still feel threatened by the angry black man. The whole thing is silly, but Barry is preaching it like a sermon, the ol Bill Clinton and Ronny Reagan approach, so he needs to keep rolling with it. He doesn't need to bite on Mitt's obvious troll bait to get a quarrel, he should keep that smug smile and swagger like Joe Biden had against that geeky Paul Ryan. Smug wins in Am-uh-rer-icah yo

[!@#$%!]

lol, i think mittens was PWND by obamanos this time around

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

 

[Pookie]

 

[chrome noise tape]

Chris Rock's Message For White Voters

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyK7TEDxTmA&feature=related

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

"..wearin mom jeans.."

"..Mitt Romney's family has more people in it than a Tyler Perry movie.."


fucking priceless..

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Pookie

 

Fantastic.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Fantastic.

funny thing that chart summarizes "middle east" (middle earth?) going for obama 79% but it doesn't show you how our Lord & Master, Israel, in characteristic wingnut fashion, prefers Romnesia:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...s-the-favorite

they of course have the swine Bibi Netanyahu as their prime minister, and have been basically under right-wing control since Rabin's assassination (with the exception of a brief Barak interlude that went to shit quickly) so please Israeli public GTFO of our polls