 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA
|
|
|
Subject: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: mousethief Date: 14 Jun 02 - 06:25 PM I have a thought I'm kind of pushing around concerning trickle-down economics, to wit: It's never been allowed to work. As soon as it shows signs of working, which is to say as soon as real wages rise, Greenspan, who has ruled our economy for 20+ years, increases interest rates. Having defined "inflation" as "increase in real wages," he has successfully kept it at bay -- and American workers mired in the 1970's -- for lo these many years. As a result, nothing has trickled down. As soon as it looks like economic prosperity is really going to trickle down to the wage slaves at the bottom of the employment heap, Greenspan stomps out with a mighty stomp. Real wages in this country have not risen appreciably in the entire time that Greenspan has been in office. Meanwhile CEO compensation has soared, and the tax structure has become increasingly regressive. We keep feeding money into the top, and waiting for it to trickle down, but it isn't allowed to. Greenspan has equated trickling down with inflation, and done everything he could to prevent it. The rising tide hasn't floated the boats at the bottom because Greenspan has carefully and successfully prevented it from doing so. Thus we can't even say that Voodoo Economics has been a failure, because it's never been tried. Thoughts? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Celtic Soul Date: 14 Jun 02 - 06:57 PM There was a time when minimum wage was *supposed* to be the least you could earn and still survive...even supporting a family. That was the intent. The problem is not merely interest rates...it is taxes. If your income goes up, then the amount of money at a given percentage that the government takes also goes up. There is *NO NEED* to raise the *rate* of taxation, but that is exactly what has happened time and again here in the States. Add to that the fact that, when women entered the job market, the greed factor amongst commercial businesses took an awful toll on prices. What was once something some people did so they could live a lot better than average has become a necessity for most...the dual income family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Celtic Soul Date: 14 Jun 02 - 06:59 PM Oh, and keep in mind that, regardless of the fact that the name of the central bank here in the US is "The Federal Reserve Bank", it is a *private business*, not a branch of the government. It has stockholders that it answers to...not the American people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Amos Date: 14 Jun 02 - 08:24 PM I thinnk the reason Voodoo economics is inefficient or downright unworkable has less to do with Greenspan, although it's an interesting argument, than with the top tier of the tricklebeing the government. This is kinda of like hooking your fuel line up so it passes through a giant spnge and wondering why your MPG is so low!! The inefficiencies of cost-benefit at the government acquisition level are legion and still going strong in spite of best intentions by government administrators. The very nature to f the system supports this -- separated turfs, rice bowls, sycophantic power hierarchies and all the rest of the worst. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: kendall Date: 14 Jun 02 - 09:14 PM example of trickle down: If you want to feed the birds, just feed the horses. Waste is eliminated in more ways than one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: JohnInKansas Date: 15 Jun 02 - 11:17 AM mousethief - I'm puzzled by your concept that inflation is good for the working people.???? Having lived (barely) through the 17 to 23% annual inflation of the Kennedy administration, and during - and after - that period participated on the Executive Committe of my union, where I had access to detailed and, I believe, accurate information on the "real income" of a large number of my fellows, I can assure you that in general, high inflation rates are a disaster for anyone whose income is from salary or wages. For anyone on a fixed income - there is no ambiguity. Celtic Soul - I had the delightful opportunity to offer - and defend your thesis - in a "debate" with Dr. Paul Samuelson in one of my classes in 1958. (Even at the time, I had the impression he agreed, but he made a good test of it - including sarcasm, ridicule, and personal abuse.) About six months later, he used essentially the same arguments I had used in his testimony before the United States Senate. His (and other) testimony apparently had some effect, in that the U.S. Congress finally agreed to "index" the income tax brackets to the "cost of living index" - taken as a measure of inflation. In the U.S., if the "average income" goes up, the tax brackets supposedly go up with the income. Theoretically, the same real income will remain in the same marginal tax rate bracket. The downside is that, as soon as Congress figured out they'd killed a favorite scam, a rewriting of the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports was ordered, with the result that the "CPI" is no longer a valid (or comprehensible) measure of inflation. (And is not one of the principal indices used by Mr. Greenspan.) Note: This has nothing to do with "trickle-down" or any other theory. The only point is that the "facts" being cited may be less than persuasive in any context in which you might want to use them. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Sorcha Date: 15 Jun 02 - 11:45 AM I just know that in this non-CEO household there is never enough money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Jun 02 - 03:24 PM "Trickle down" is Reaganese BS for "Lets make our rich friends so rich that the poor can live off their leavings." It is a testimony to the ignorance of the general public that Ronnie ever got away with using the phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bev and Jerry Date: 15 Jun 02 - 05:29 PM We have an idea.
Suppose the government gave subsidies to each of the poor people in the country in the form of tax rebates or just sent them a check. They would spend this excess money in the stores owned by the rich to buy products manufactured by the companies owned by the rich and soon the rich would become even richer and pay more taxes to the government. So, the government would get back all its money and maybe even make money on the deal.
This idea is called "trickle-up economics".
Sounds just as feasible as doing it the other way around. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: kendall Date: 15 Jun 02 - 06:23 PM Did you notice that EVERYTHING doubled in price during the Reagan years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Celtic Soul Date: 16 Jun 02 - 01:05 AM Hey, Bev and Jerry...sounds good to me, *and* has the added effect of giving money to people who actually *need* it as opposed to those that have more than they know what to do with. I like it. Where do I sign up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Hrothgar Date: 16 Jun 02 - 05:45 AM "soon the rich would become even richer and pay more taxes to the government" You wanna bet, keed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: John Hardly Date: 16 Jun 02 - 07:06 AM "trickle-down economics" makes no analysis as to who are the haves and have nots in an economy. It merely states the economic law that productivity is more important to an economy than is money. It also accepts that money sent to the Government is non-productive. To that extent I like your theory Alex -- government interference with the economy is only good for the quick fix -- and I'm just cynical enough to figure that the elites (not the haves) are the ones who actually gain from the manipulation. The Reagan boom was and always will be one of the most mis-understood economies in our history -- but trickle-down economics it was not. The concept that there should have to be spending discipline along with any tax cuts was completely ignored and the tax cuts that were promised at the beginning were un-delivered in rapid order. Still, I'm hopeful that if we can ever out-grow our socialism/capitalism rhetoric, and understand that aspects of both are always going to be necessary and/or demanded. Without capitalism there will be no product (or not enough for the poorest among us to survive), without socialism the government will be marginalized. Government will always be about more government. IMHO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jun 02 - 08:29 AM Lets give tax breaks to corporations so they can spend them on advertising telling us to eat more fat and sugar, use more gas get bigger cars. That is certianly for the public good. It makes government inefficiency look like a blessing. If the government were really concerned with our welfare there would be a concerted effort to pay down the debt. Not just the deficit. But of course that won't happen. because then so called "conservatives" like Mr G.W. Bush wouldn't be able to buy our votes with our own money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: John Hardly Date: 16 Jun 02 - 09:58 AM Corporations and their manipulation are/is not capitalism -- it is an accomodation made to allow for a socialism/capitalism blend that more find more tolerable. Sure makes a nice, easy target though for those who do not understand economics any more than to see that some have more than they. And G.W.Bush is not a conservative. He never has been. He ran on conservative rhetoric in order to secure a (less than smart) base. He is no more conservative than Clinton was liberal. If Bush is conservative then one would have a bit of trouble explaining the last half year of Limbaugh shows or the writing of Will, Hume, et al. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: van lingle Date: 16 Jun 02 - 11:12 AM Rather than trickling down the wealth of this country has been gushing upward at an alarming rate since the Reagan administration (and through Clintons') where it's being concentrated amongst a very small portion of the population. The multinational corporations who beg tax incentives, rebates (in some cases retroactive ones), exemptions, whatever you care to call them, so that government "won't tie their hands", "allow them to be creative" and "let the free market" work in all too many instances send their capital overseas to exploit cheap labor, and avoid environmental regulations and safe contruction practices. The money trickles away not down. Big business, left unfettered, will almost always go where they can make the most profit without other considerations.vl |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Peter T. Date: 16 Jun 02 - 12:27 PM Small markets work well by themselves, because they can be self-policing; large markets need government in order to work -- it is a question of increasing complexities at different scales. Check out Somalia anytime you want to see how an large unregulated market works. Governments are part of the solution. They are a common pool of money that helps to build public goods that the market requires to function, including market regulation, law enforcement, security, roads, education, and (in civilized countries) universal health care. It can be debated which services are better handled privately, which publicly. I tend to believe that many public services are better kept public, because they depend mightily on people believing in the virtue of service (e.g. nurses, teachers). Some government money is wasted, some private money (see the CEO discussions above) is wasted. The question is which local inefficiency helps create the largest overall efficiency. Real pure scientific research is notoriously wasteful of money according to accountants: but it is worth it in the long run. If you try to regulate many local inefficiencies, often the larger system will collapse -- ever been involved in a work-to-rule? yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jun 02 - 03:14 PM Thank you John for reinforcing my point about Bush. But I can't have you calling me one of "those who do not understand economics any more than to see that some have more than they." I brought corporations into the discussion because they are the major forces in today's economy, because they were the major recipients of Mr. Reagan's largess and because as Van Linge so elequently pointed out, they are purely profit motivated and do not have our best interests at heart. Anyone who does not factor the actions of corporations into discussions of fiscal policy is truely ignorant of economics. If I were looking for "nice, easy targets" I would have gone after this: ' "trickle-down economics" makes no analysis as to who are the haves and have nots in an economy. It merely states the economic law that productivity is more important to an economy than is money. It also accepts that money sent to the Government is non-productive. ' John "Trickle-down economics" makes no analysis at all. but the name alone implies "top - down". Would you have us believe that the economic benefit was supposed to tricle DOWN from have nots to haves? What you call an economic law has certianly not been proven by any means, and is very clumsily worded for a law. There cannot be any modern economy without money. And productivity is not very important onto itsself. The Old Soviet Union was very productive in making steel and making tanks. They weren't good at toilet paper and housing. Thier money was tightly controled but nearly worthless in foreign exchange. Obviously money and productivity were part of the problem but inseperable parts. To say that one was more important than the other is irrelevant. And finally "It also accepts that money sent to the Government is non-productive." What kind of claptrap is this? Of course a huge percentage of money sent to government is very productive. Have you not heard of the multiplier effect in deficit spending? Have you ever used a highway? and airport? a port? a hospital. And of course Reagans favourite use of money sent to government, "Defence". Where would our economy be without these things? "Tricle Down Economics" as it was used really had nothing to do with economics, Mousethief is quite right in saying it never got a chance. Problem is there was no real theory to try. It was just a buzz phrase like "evil empire" which the Reagan administration trotted out to justify what ever they felt like doing at the time. That's why critics called it Voodoo economics. The definition shifted so much it could not be pinned down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: John Hardly Date: 16 Jun 02 - 06:23 PM Jack, Thanks for calling me on my poorly framed and poorly worded post. I didn't catch how personal it came across until I re-read it after I read your reply. For that I apologize. I, the mental midget, haven't the where-withall to stage a war of wits with any on this forum -- thus I merely cede to your points. Some day I may learn to avoid threads that are just bound to piss me off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jun 02 - 06:46 PM Wow! OK, well that wasn't as much fun as I thought it would be. I appreciate the apology. I really don't like to be called ignorant, even though I often am, unless it truely in jest. I think that ideologically you and I are not far apart. It is in the details that we differ. I'm sorry that I got personal and responded so harshly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: GUEST,ozmacca Date: 16 Jun 02 - 07:39 PM Always thought the best way to make the economy work equitably (and in favour of those who deserve it most) is as follows: At a chosen arbitrary date, such as, let's say, January 1st of each year, all the assets of the country, including the entire assets of its' government owned and operated sector, its' corporate sector, and all the individual citizens, would be calculated as having a monetary value. This total monetary sum would then be divided equally among the citizens. Then, after I've spent mine, all the assets would be calculated and shared, then, after I've spent mine..................... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: toadfrog Date: 16 Jun 02 - 07:39 PM Fine. There are lots of things wrong with Bush, his policies and the like. But the absence of inflation is not a matter of concern or a reason to protest. Reagan did not invent the expression "trickle down." That was Herbert Hoover's phrase, & I think after him it lost a lot of its popularity, or became a dirty word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 16 Jun 02 - 10:56 PM Hey, this ol' hillbilly may not know too much but what we need is some TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS. This ain't about Clinton, Bush A or Bush B, Reagan. It's about the ruling class who continue to keep a few moves ahead of their widget makers. No, this ain't about Greenspan or the Federal Reserve. It's about a very well orchastrated scam to convince US workers to increase production to fight, ahhhh, pick one or more: 1.Japan; 2. the Axis of Evil; 3. the Unions; 4 the War on Terrorism (waht a joke...) 5. (fill in your favorite corporate scapegoat). Well, Bottom line, the widget makers are not only working harder and longer but now chances are they will FRIGGIN DIE on the widget assmebly line. And when the crybaby ruling class plays their old tune "We Need Mo Money to Build More Widget Plants for the Workers" this ol' hillbilly gotta just shake his head and laugh. I mean, whatz ya' gonna do. Ahhhhhhhhhh, just what happened to the widget plant you all just closed up and fired 20,000 widget makers from????? Hunhhhhhh? What, did the FRIGGIN ALIENS extract them from the planet???? Yeah, what a moronic story. (Incidently, if anyone out there actaually belives that line, I've got a bridge to sell you.) No, this ain't about trickle down, which is a LAUGH. No, it isn't. It's a very sad comentary on the heart of those who by the luck of picking the right parents. SCREW THEM. They should get off their butts and put a few peas on the pot. They are not entitled to nuthin!!!! What a bunch of "welfare mentality" folks. Yeah, what we need is TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS, where widget makers are compensated and valued for what they produce, rather than a "trickle down" system that obnly promises thast these folks will never, never, never enjoy the fruits of their labor. VOTE GREEN. BOBERT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: cetmst Date: 17 Jun 02 - 08:00 AM Let's make this a music thread. Who wrote and who recorded Trickle Down ? - have been unable to find it on DT. Cho: We will wait for the wealth to trickle down; We will wait for our ship to come around; We will fast and we will pray for that blessed day; We will wait for the wealth to trickle down. We are the poor, yes we are the unemployed And our lives have seen some very little joy So we trust that those on high will do us good bye and bye And we will wait for their wealth to trickle down. Cho. We are the workers, yes we are the refugees; We're in your country, it's the price of being free. Please let us stay and we'll work well In your restaurants and hotels And we will wait for your wealth to trickle down. Cho. It's a struggle to pay our income tax And we really would like some money back But please give the rich the biggest cut And they'll pull us out of the rut And we will wait for their wealth to trickle down. Cho.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jun 02 - 08:41 AM Do a google search for trickle down lyrics. A bunch appear but not that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jun 02 - 10:49 AM Trickle-down economics is a great big shining lie promulgated by rich people who desire to become much richer and have little or no intention of trickling down any of it. This is why they do mergers that destroy numerous small independent companies which used to be healthy, for example. It is the opposite of genuine social responsibility. Corporatism destroys independent small local capitalism as a matter of course. It's almost a new form of Communism, except its purpose is financial profit, centralized financial profit, for a VERY few. It has no other loyalty than to the bottom line. The Ferengi would be impressed mightily, I'm sure. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jun 02 - 11:06 AM Ferengi??? All right LH... I didn't think I would have to say this to you but... "Its just a tv show!!!!!" Corporations are useful enough when they are not given undue influence and power. Any one can buy shares so they are democratic enough. As long as we remember what they are designed for. To make profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: mousethief Date: 17 Jun 02 - 02:31 PM I don't believe inflation is good for working people. Inflation is rise in PRICES not rise in WAGES. Greenspan's unique and evil contribution to the wealth gap in this country has been to confuse the two. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jun 02 - 03:33 PM Agreed on the inflation bit, Alex. Inflation enriches those who create the money (mostly banks...by creating new money out of thin air through loans...and governments) at the expense of those who don't (the general public). Jack - Well, the Ferengi, with their "rules of acquisition" are simply a handy symbolic example to use when alluding to corporatism...since the very foundation of their whole social order is monetary PROFIT by any means possible, regardless of consequences. I thought the S.T.Next Generation show was very interesting in that it was the only show in TV history to portray a society that managed to function very well entirely without money. Amen to that! It's a wonder they even allowed it to air in this society. What could be possibly be more subversive? That's why I liked it so much...not because I worship Star Trek. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jun 02 - 05:59 PM I was only kidding. Star Trek tends to paint with very broad strokes. The Ferengi are exaggerated corporations and money grubbers. They would create societies which were "one trick ponies to make a point about aspects of our society. When used properly it was a good device, but often, it just became cartoonish. The Ferengi were a cartoonish embodiment of greed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 17 Jun 02 - 08:03 PM Hmmm. Don't know how you are going to take this, Alex, but for once we are in agreement. :>) And in reply to the numerous corporation bashers who delight in bashsing corporations, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Abolish all corporations. What would you have then (other than massive unemployment)? How long would the bread lines be? Long. Yes, corporations are in business to make a profit. How much? As much as they can. That's what they do! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jun 02 - 11:16 PM I understand your perspective on that, Doug, based on what you are familiar with, but I've seen the downside of it too...and I've seen some of the healthier alternatives to it. If you want capitalism, I believe in REAL capitalism...which is local businesses run by local people employing local people in a unique and creative way. Corporations kill real capitalism, and they do it with absolute relish. Stalin did the same thing, only in a much more violent fashion, and for a somewhat different purpose...but mostly for raw power. In this society, money IS power. In Stalin's society the Party and the guns of the military were power. You obviously cannot instantly abolish all corporations, no more than you can instantly abolish all gasoline-powered automobiles or all addictive substances... not without causing a social and economic collapse. I am not recommending abolishing all corporations. I am recommending policing them far more rigorously, establishing a coherent international legal system to do that, and restricting their powers in various ways...in other words, a gradual transformation of the present status quo into something different. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jun 02 - 11:23 PM My name ain't Alex. You need good laws to keep corporstions in check. and we need to be vigalent. Look at Enron/Anderson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jun 02 - 11:28 PM When he said "Alex", he was referring to Mousethief... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 18 Jun 02 - 01:49 AM Yep, I was, LH. I was replying to Mousethief's original post. I believe he signed it Alex. L.H., I'm sure you are aware that by far the largest number of corporations in the U. S. are small businesses privately owned, or owned by people who buy their stock, including employees of those companies. You guys alwas target the biggies, and the small companies get lumped in too because they are corporations too. If there is a more efficient, system out there, I am not aware of what it is. I assume you would say, "socialism" but that really hasn't seemed to work real well has it? I think there are a much greater number of "have nots" in socialist economies than in capitalist. As to Enron and Anderson, Jack the Sailor, how would you have prevented it happening? I assume you are vigilant, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: kendall Date: 18 Jun 02 - 02:02 AM Why do businesses incoporate? to protect themselves against the people they screw! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 18 Jun 02 - 02:09 AM The problem with corporations of any sort is when the line gets crossed from the corporations existing to serve people, to people existing to serve the corporations. (I think this can be said about governments, too.) I think in our (western) society, that line has been crossed to a very large extent, especially by the large corporations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: kendall Date: 18 Jun 02 - 11:39 AM Definition of a criminal: A person of a predatory nature who lacks the capital to form a corporation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jun 02 - 12:17 PM LOL!!! Great comments, Kendall...and right on the money. Ditto for you, Carol! Governments and large corporations have indeed lost sight of their original mandate...which was to serve humanity. Doug - I'm not against the smaller outfits, regardless of whether or not they are corporate, but I do think Kendall is right that incorporating has been used as a way for protecting the owners of businesses from the consequences of their own irresponsible behaviour. Matter of fact, I know it has. That's precisely why my own Dad incorporates everything he does...to escape from personal accountability for things that don't work out. It's irresponsible, and should probably never have been allowed as a form of business in the first place. However, I'm not an absolutist, Doug, and I think that many different systems have much good to offer, whether alone or in combination. I like a society that mixes capitalism and socialism in more or less equal parts. I like societies without money (which can be done and has been), but I am agreeable to societies with money if suitable laws are in place to regulate basic morality. Some socialist systems are pretty good, some are not. Some capitalist systems have worked well, some have not. Some tribal systems have been great, some have not. Even some monarchies were good and some were not. This isn't a case of having to choose either one thing or the other, with no compromises. Society is like a marriage...you have to compromise in order to establish justice and harmony. Or would you prefer a dictatorship, and have it all ONE way? (I'm just asking that rhetorically...I know you do not believe in dictatorship). - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Kim C Date: 18 Jun 02 - 01:57 PM I wondered why my big-time college degree never made me rich like they said it would...................... hmmmmmmmmm............... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jun 02 - 02:51 PM You should've sold it to someone else, Kim...maybe on Ebay... You coulda made Big Bucks!!! :-) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Kim C Date: 18 Jun 02 - 03:07 PM Either that, or I could have had a clandestine sexual affair with a high-ranking official and written a book... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Mark Clark Date: 18 Jun 02 - 03:58 PM Since when did corporations have a mandate to serve humanity? In the U.S., corporations used to be viewed with a proper amount of distrust. Since the eighties, corporate types have been held up as some kind of model for the rest of us. It's turned the U.S. into what is largely a nation of predators each trying to outdo the other by any means and way beyond the limits of mere avarice. Business people even get together for prayer breakfasts; I guess they're asking God to hand them more of our money. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Jun 02 - 04:16 PM DougR Corporations are just a tool like any other. My point is that since they are not created inthe public interest. The public should regulate them and keep an eye on them. Something like Enron/Anderson is much less likely now that we are aware that it can. Of course you seem to be saying that corporations can do no wrong. That since corporations supply jobs they should be given a free hand. As usual you have employed that over used tool of the so called right. If some one makes any criticsm what so ever. You wrap yourself up in the flag, pull out the rhetoric and extreem example and call critics silly predjudical, meaningless labels, like "Corporation Basher". I know you were speaking to mousetheif. I believe mousethief was talking tongue-in-cheek. Especially when he called it "Voodoo Economics". DougR, Aren't we unlucky that we haven't given "Voodoo Economics" a try? Don't you think that giving something called "VooDoo Economics" a fair try would inspire confidence on Wall Street. Do you think from his words that Alex wants us to give it a chance? As to Enron/Anderson, What I wouldn't have done is give blind support just because Ronnie or GW has used a fancy buzzword. These people are trying to manipulate us do you support that? By definition a corporation has no mission or resposibility for public good. Articles of incorporation and mission statements are concerned with profit and growth. Any public good is a biproduct. If we want public resposiblity, As citizens we have two choices. Be vigilant and punish our law makers (with votes) when they get too cozy. Or as some would have us do, follow blindly and trust institutions that by definition, only have their shareholders' and executives' interest at heart.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 18 Jun 02 - 04:26 PM Where in the world did you get the idea, Carol C, that corporations exist to serve people? Corporations exist to make money for their stockholders. Pure and simple. There is no line to cross. If the corporation makes money, it stays in business. If it doesn't it goes out of business. Simple as that. Businesses incorporate so that the corporation, rather than individuals operating it are taxed on corporate profits. True, there are legal implications to incorporating also. Protection against some types of lawsuits is provided the officers and directors of a corporation. I'm not a CPA, but I think that is correct. People tend to hone in on the Enron whose officers made bad business decisions that adversely affected the stockholders and employees, while many of them lined their own pockets with lots of dollars. There are bad apples in every basket. Enron is only one of millions of corporations in the United States, and all of them are not run by crooks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Jun 02 - 04:40 PM DougR, For once I have to agree with you. An excellent explaination of corporate responsibility. It is the role of the government, accounting law, business laws, the SEC to weed out the bad apples. We as the public should trust corporations only to serve their stakeholders. If our politicians cozy up too much, we must watch to see if they are serving those stakeholders, or us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 18 Jun 02 - 04:44 PM And for once, Jack the Sailor, I agree with you! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 18 Jun 02 - 05:55 PM If we think of corporations as existing to provide jobs and a livelihood for people, and to provide society with goods and services that people need, they can exist to serve people. If the corporations bleed large numbers of people dry and ruin the environment, it can be argued that they are not serving people.
Like anything else, they can be used for good or for ill. One example of a responsible corporation that exists to serve people is Real Goods... If I had any money, I'd probably invest in this company myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jun 02 - 06:29 PM Any wise businessman of good character serves the public, as Carol has indicated, and in so doing will definitely make a good profit, provide jobs, and produce something valuable at the same time. Sharks, on the other hand, only pretend to serve the public, while exploiting their workers, manipulating people through misleading advertising, producing something harmful or overpriced or useless, and generally worsening social conditions for all but a few at the top. The second paragraph describes the activities of those whose only real motivation is greed and lust for power. As far as I'm concerned they are criminals, although they may be clever enough to do it without technically breaking any laws. Thomas Jefferson himself warned that if Americans forgot their high ideals and became mere materialists in search of goods and money they would destroy all that he and his compatriots had fought for so hard in the Revolutionary War... That is what, to a great extent, has happened. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Hrothgar Date: 19 Jun 02 - 03:44 AM A company is a legal person, with no arse to kick and no soul to save. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Terry K Date: 19 Jun 02 - 04:27 AM I really should resist being drawn into this morass of bigotry and sheer ignorance of the realities of the economic world but I can't. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders; yes. Who are their shareholders? Some wealthy individuals, yes; the directors of the company, yes; senior employees of the company, yes; other fat cats, yes; and all of these categories account for perhaps one percent of the total stockholders. The rest is owned by pension funds, mutual funds, healthcare providers, insurance companies, other companies (whose stock is owned by etc etc) and so on throughout the whole of the economy. The "main" shareholders, therefore, are holding the stock on behalf of and for the benefit of almost everyone in the nation, indirectly. So you need to look just a tiny bit below the simplistic surface in order to establish whether your points are based on reality or simply left wing folkie prejudice. The assumption that the world is divided between "widget makers" and "ruling classes" ( - no offence Bobert, you said it better than many others, who also meant it) is trite and naive. The assumption that to "do well" depends on having the right parents is simply silly. And Kim C, I know lots of people who were not held back by having a "big-time degree". Oh and Mousethief, you probably ought to know that wage inflation and price inflation are interdependent - prices increase because the companies' costs increased, including cost of raw materials, cost of rent and rates, cost of wages etc. It's a fact of life and is out of the control of the companies - they have to pare these costs to a minimum in order to stay competiitive, otherwise they make less money, which means even less available for wages. I'd love to see some of you guys get into a position to experience these facts first hand, and see what solutions you might propose! And inflation absolutely DOES NOT benefit people who have money (they lose money because of it) and it is NEUTRAL for people who have no money at all. Now that's what I call simplistic! So there! cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 19 Jun 02 - 05:32 AM One difference between a company like Real Goods and a lot of other corporations is that the shareholders take an active interest in the kinds of business decisions that are made by the company. They expect the company to make decisions that are socially and environmentally responsible. They may not get as large a return on their investment in the sort run as a company that makes shortsighted, bottom-line oriented decisions, but it could be argued that they benefit more in the long run.
Real Goods provides a good demonstration of how a company can make socially and environmentally responsible decisions and still make a good profit for the shareholders. And there are hidden costs that come with shortsighted, bottom-line oriented decision making. Costs associated with a damaged environment and all of the health issues and health care costs that come with that (such as increasing incidence of asthma and some forms of cancer). And a reduced quality of life for a lot of people due to poor and shortsighted management practices (such as forced overtime, poor workplace conditions, lack of job security). So when these types of costs are factored in, the benefits to the shareholders who are not wealthy are not necessarily significantly greater with companies that make shortsighted, bottom-line decisions, than with companies that make socially and environmentally responsible decisions, and may in the long run be much less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Grab Date: 19 Jun 02 - 08:51 AM Re CEO compensation, you'd have to say that it's all relative to the job they do. Compare it to sportsmen. The really good ones, like internation, Olympic quality, are earning pots of money. And because there aren't so many people with that level of skill, we consider it acceptable that they get that level of pay. If the team managers don't think they're worth that money but still pay them, more fool them. And if you don't think they should be paid that much, but you still pay for tickets (or cable TV subscription) to see the game, more fool you. Now look at CEOs. There aren't that many really big companies, and those that there are have massive shareholder pressure to keep the company working effectively. If the CEO can do that, does he not deserve the money he gets? There's a temptation to look at CEOs and say "I could do that", just as there's a temptation to look at a soccer player in action and say "hell, that's not so difficult". But zillions of small businesses go bust each year bcos the guys who started them can't manage effectively, which gives a depressing but effective commentary on how good the average person's management skills really are. And what happens if the CEO doesn't perform? Answer: he gets slung out by the shareholders. And who are the shareholders? Answer: anyone with investments or a pension fund. If you have investments, the success of these companies benefits you directly, and their failures cost you directly as well. Places like Andersen are used to provide independent verification that the CEO is performing to standard; if the CEO screws up and Andersen conceals the evidence then we're in a world of hurt, which is why Enron was such a big deal. CEOs screwing up is not big news, it happens all the time and the directors sling them out, but CEOs screwing up and the auditors protecting them is a major betrayal of trust. If the CEO screws up and the shareholders (and directors) don't act in their best interests and boot him out, more fool them. Suppose all CEOs had a cap put on their salaries, so the boss of Intel and the next 2 layers of management all retire, bcos it's no longer worth them working. They can't hire a CEO from outside, bcos the same has happened in every company throughout the US. So you're left with the boss of Intel (and of every other large company throughout the US) being some manager who's got no experience of that level of responsibility. No-one now wants to invest in these companies, bcos no-one knows whether they'll continue to be successful, so share prices go down the toilet. And when share prices go down the toilet, your pension fund, for which you've been contributing your whole life, will suddenly become worthless. And are you going to be happy about that? hell, no! Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 19 Jun 02 - 11:43 AM Thank you Terry K., and thank you Grab. Excellent posts. Carol C: Hooray for Real Goods. They are evidently achieving their company goals and they are to be commended for doing so. I have never heard of the company, but I'm going to do some research on it because it sounds like a very interesting company. Not all corporations are polluters, Carol, nor do they generate health problems such as those you describe. Making money is not sinful, and if the corporations didn't make money they would be out of business. I agree with Terry K. that what we are seeing in this thread, on the whole, is "just left wing folkie prejudice." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 02 - 12:21 PM Well, corporations are no sin in themselves just like not all people are good or bad just because they are people. Most small businesses that at one time were sole proprietorships have HAD to incorporate. In these days of monsterous settlements for rather silly minor inujuries, the "Mom 'n Pop" companies cannot afford to pay the insurance premiums for the over $1,000,000 hit because a clumsy customer falls down on one's premises. Didn't used to be that way but it is... So really, it isn't necessarily about corporations, per se, but bad corporations and a self perpetuating system that keeps the same folks wealthy and the worker bees on the assembly lines. Oh sure, the wealthy folks will be more than happy to lend you some of their dough (evidenced by the number of unsolicited credit card offers every worker bee get in the mail daily) but the intent is to keep your sorry butt in debt so that you'll have to work way past when you thought you'd retire and for a lot of folks until they drop on the assembly line. (St. Peter don't ya' call me 'cause I can't go.... I owe my sole to the company sto...) And things don't change. Like I said earlier. The wealthy think they deserve to be wealthy because.... well... they born that way. Upward mobility is not something that occurs with any degree of regularity. The system won't let it. Yeah, I know, Bobert's same old song and dance routine but, hey, it's true. Things won't change as long as our choices are folks that represent the interests of those with the dough. What we'll get is more failed "trickle-down" which don't trickle but barely drip. What we need is TRICKLE UP economics where folks are paid a decent wage for their labor, have a share in the profits and aren't dependent on the table scraps of the rich... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 19 Jun 02 - 02:06 PM Bobert: no offence intended, but I do believe (perhaps by accident of birth) you live in the wrong country. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 19 Jun 02 - 07:05 PM Not all corporations are polluters, Carol, nor do they generate health problems such as those you describe. I know. Real Goods is an example of a corporation that is not a polluter. That's why I mentioned it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 19 Jun 02 - 10:58 PM Ahhhhh, Doug, no offense taken. Exactly which country do you have in mind. Oh, before answering that. I'd kind of like a country where the information is not so manipulted so as to create a nation of followers willing to follow the next guy off the cliff. And one where mega corporations don't think of their emplyees and a necessary nuisence. And one where the folks in the pulpit are preaching love rather than hate. Yeah, which country do you have in mind for the Bobert? I kind of like this one since I've spent the last 55 years here and have built a nice home here on the Blue Ridge with 5 acres of gardens. Oh yeah, and I've also spent countless hours working on commitees that have brought a lot of cool things to my community because of ideas I've had that are now reality. Yeah, where would you have me relocated to, Doug? Reminds me of the "Love it ot Leave it" bumber stickers, which really is a very un-democratic ideal. Can this really be my friend, Doug of the R? I believe that someone has made off with the real DougR and stuck in a cranky one. Hey, my friend, I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm trying the hardest I can to paint some alternatives that don't involve blowing up folks, that involve folks and is inclusive. And, though I am curious as to which country you have selected as my "dream" country, Iz ain't going... No sir. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Jun 02 - 11:12 PM You know what they called the counterparts of us "left-wing" folkie types in Soviet Russia and Red China, Doug? Counter-revolutionaries, traitors, capitalist saboteurs, subversives, and spies.... Same situation, slightly different label. Poor Terry K. must have been abducted by Ayn Rand at a very early age, and suckled on Extract of Atlas Shrugged, a powerful conservative growth hormone. I fear that nothing can be done now to alert him to the dangers that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently alluded to. They were all dangerous subversives, guys...Jefferson, Washington, Sam Adams, Tom Paine...all of them...and they had far more in common with us "left-wing folkies" than you would care to imagine. Were they alive in America now, they would BE left wing radicals, and YOU would be the adjutants of General Cornwallis, supporting the established ruling order. That is my opinion. Not that Cornwallis' adjutants were BAD people. They weren't. They were just conventional people, doing what they thought was right and proper at the time. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 02 - 12:24 AM Hey, Bobbert, no offense intended! I would think, based on what LH has espoused, that Cuba would fit you nicely! Send me a postcard, okay? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 02 - 12:37 AM Terry K I really should resist being drawn into this morass of bigotry and sheer ignorance of the realities of the economic world but I can't. If you have to start with an insult you really should have resisted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Terry K Date: 20 Jun 02 - 02:17 AM Oh dear - Little Hawk seems to have resorted to bollocking on in some panic-mode code language. Whatever it's supposed to mean, there aren't any points discernible to us mere earthlings. I've got Jack the Sailor sounding very hurt about my opening gambit, the least important part of my post, and ignoring the rest. So, since when was an opposing view, based on common sense and reason, an insult? And Bobert the supposed "widget maker" who has no hope of achieving anything because of the evils of the "wealthy" and the "ruling classes" - yet has somehow managed to acquire a "nice home here on the Blue Ridge with five acres of gardens". That sure as hell smacks of the B word to me. And Grab's excellent points have so far passed almost unnoticed, presumably because they are too difficult to be answered with rhetoric and dogma? But I'm not sure it'll have any lasting effect. cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 20 Jun 02 - 02:24 AM It's just that your tone has such a sneering quality to it, Mr. K. Do you really need to have that in order to make your points? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 02 - 02:49 AM Hmmm, Terry K., I thought I had acknowledged Grab's excellent contribution to this thread. I just reviewed the posts, and, in fact, I did. Carol: sarcasim is a stranger to threads like this? I don't think so. Were I an unkind person, which I sincerely do not believe I am, I might point out one or two of yours ...:>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 02 - 02:58 AM Greenspan is a jew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:02 AM Could be, DougR. As many as one or two is it? I guess I'm going to have to work on that. But I don't think Little Hawk or Jack the Sailor or some of the other people on this thread have done anything to earn such response. But they probably don't need me to stick up for them. I should probably just mind my own business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:04 AM Did you post that for the shock value, GUEST, or do you have a point? Bush isn't a Jew. How do you explain him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:13 AM No, Carol, I suspect L.H., Jack the Sailor, and other people on this thread can speak for themselves. But you are of one voice so that should provide comfort, right? Your snide remark about the president must have some purpose, I suppose, but to such a Guest, it will probably have little impact. If it made you feel better though, right on! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:17 AM I knew I could count on you Doug. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Terry K Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:24 AM Ms C - sorry for sneering - I have to admit that I do feel sarcastic when confronted by the cosy togetherness of those who purport to pronounce on issues they quite clearly do not comprehend, and who only bring along simplistic stereotypical prejudices. Oh shit, now I sound pompous! And responses such as mine are not so much "earned" as "deserved". It's what discussion is all about - but I'll try to behave to your no doubt impeccable standards in future. Doug, I did notice your mention of Grab, hence my "almost unnoticed" but I really meant unnoticed by those above who would disagree with him if they knew how! cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:45 AM Thanks Terry K. When you think about it though, it really is all about style isn't it? The irony you used on me in your last post (this bit: but I'll try to behave to your no doubt impeccable standards in future), was elegant, and I appreciate it for that. So cheers to you, too ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jun 02 - 04:26 AM Bev and Jerry, the Shrub tried that this past year....remember the so-called tax rebate they hoped we'd all go out and spend? It was really a "loan" on what we could all expect when we filed for tax refunds this year! Smoke and mirrors. As far as corporations shielding themselves...some people do their best and still fail, whether it's because Wally World comes in and takes over their business because they cannot compete, or one wrong decision by a partner, or whatever, sometimes it just happens and they are only human. I don't think they should have to lose their shirt over it. However, I am talking about small corps. In the case of larger ones, there has to be more accountability with the big decision-makers. I suppose they could distinguish between the two the same way they tell me I will be punished for a pre-existing condition and have to wait six months for health insurance because Roger's employer has less than 51 employees, while those with over 51 do not have to wait for coverage. IMO, we need a revolution of some kind. During the nightly news I counted 10 prescription drug ads in the span of twenty minutes and most of them didn't even say what they treat, they just told people to "ask their doctor for the purple pill." And, with the news of the prez and his cronies being in bed with the drug companies and letting them in on the new law Bush wants to enact regarding prescription drugs, we are going to see more ads, pushing their agenda and their pills. That is fact which they actually attested to, today. We've also got more and more ads urging people to live the most unhealthy of lifestyles, eating FAST food, going FAST, doing MORE all of the time, using up the natural resources, instead of balancing their lives in moderation AND that ALL feeds into the GREED of COMMERCE and COMSUMERISM. Until we have more brave doctors like the woman on Cape Cod who ended all contracts with insurance companies and went to private pay only; until we have ordinary citizens who refuse to go along with what big business and government tries to dictate; until we make our unions strong, again, and available to all workers, etc. it won't do a damn bit of good for us to sit here and debate this. ACTION is what is needed. So, if that makes me a subversive left wing folkie, so be it. Calling each other names isn't going to do anything but perpetuate the status quo, which is just what the establishment wants. kat no longer a member of any political party |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:50 AM Terry Terry Terry, I really should resist being drawn into this morass of bigotry and sheer ignorance of the realities of the economic world but I can't. So you opening "gambit" Is to call posters to this thread bigoted and ignorant. Who are their shareholders? Some wealthy individuals, yes; the directors of the company, yes; senior employees of the company, yes; other fat cats, yes; and all of these categories account for perhaps one percent of the total stockholders Can you name ONE company where 99% is not owned by, as you call them, Fat cats? Three people own 80% of Microsoft. The Waltons own Almost all of Walmart. You seem to have forgotton a concept called controlling interest. Pretty much every company is by definition owned by Fat Cats. Else wise another Fat Cat would buy the shares for control. Interesting "Gambit" there Terry K, Accuse others of ignorance, then demonstrate your own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 02 - 02:54 PM kat: you promoting a revolution? A revolution wouldn't be much of one if the revolutionaries didn't tote guns, would it? It's my understanding that the majority of liberals would, if they could, take away all of our guns. Sorry. I just don't think a revolution at this point is going to fly. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:15 PM A revolution can be a turning of the Wheel, DougR, a Time for Peace, a Time for Change...nothing says it has to be a violent revolution, except maybe small minds of backwards-looking people.:-) Jack, why's JohnBoy still living in that one room at his parent's then? Don't they have enough so's each kid can have their own place, now?**BG** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:44 PM Kat, I often wondered that myself, But I've read that The Waltons are the richest family in the nation. Was Warren Buffett the guy who wrote "Cheezeburger in Paradise"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:48 PM Snide remarks, sneering, and suchlike are always appreciated with great relish (and amusement) by those who AGREE with the viewpoint of the poster...and unappreciated with great irritation and affront...by those who disagree with the view of the poster. Thus we all demonstrate our human frailty and our fragile little egos. And that, Terry, is why I responded to the nasty tone of your post with my own sarcastic remarks. I'm human, just like you...and it's hard to resist responding in kind when attacked with malice. Be assured, your ignorance is just as apparent to me as mine is to yours. Everyone is ignorant. Most people are far more ignorant than they would ever be willing to admit. I usually find your viewpoints on social issues to be appallingly wrongheaded, and I'm sure you have the same experience regarding my viewpoints on social issues. That is unlikely to change. We were born, it seems, to provide each other with opportunities to feel smug and superior. I find this amusing enough at times that it's almost worth it...but... It's soooo predictable. Both of us are smart people too, with plenty of facts we could dig up to support our logical arguments, but it will avail us nothing in the end. The cleverness of the mind is not the highest aspect of which humans are capable. Unconditional love is the highest aspect of which they are capable, and intellect is a mere sideshow in comparison to that. What I object to about this whole human society is that it has its attention fixed on anything and everything but unconditional love. We are barbarians, Terry...virtually all of us are...hiding behind our complicated, ego-driven, ignorant little competitive agendas. If I didn't know there was a higher purpose than that, I would give up hope entirely regarding humanity. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 20 Jun 02 - 04:19 PM Well said, Little Hawk. I was trying to find the words that echoed a similar sentiment but this ol' hillbilly ain't a word guy. Ideas? Yeah, but elequence and spelling ain't my strong suit. Terry: The fact that I have put together a nice house with 5 acres from my toils, sacrifice and determination, does not change the fact that the system would crumble if everyone did it my way. Never owned a new car. Not even close. Never got in much debt. Ain't into consuming the junk that rolls off the systems assembly line. Well, they don't care if a few folks like me slip the net as long as I don't teach too many others who go out and teach a few more because that it their greatest fear. A loss of control. When we don't want their junk and don't want to borrow their money for it, they're in trouble. But they're doing a fine job of manipulating enough folks to keep eevrything hunky-dory on their side. Heck, they control the media and they control the means of production so heck, it's really their game to loose, ahhh, BTW, they may do if they stay on such a greedy and mean spirited course. As for your own mean spirit, hey, that's your problem. If it works for you, in the words of Dr. Phil (just funnin here) then go for it. If it doesn't, take a deep breath, close your eyes and try to present yourself more positively. And my motivation here is not win-loose. Just pointing out alternatives for alternatives, like ideas, are seeds of what can be. DougR: Cuba is out. Too hot and my ferns won't like it. Nor will the P-Vine. As fir the gun thing, I think we would both agree that some folks just shouldn't have guns. Right. I mean, we don't give them to the two year old to go out and play with. Nor do we give them to prisoners. So with that as a premise, if I wake up some morning and decide to shoot at all the red cars I see, then I hope that someone will come and get my gun away from me, but until then, leave my gun alone and I'll do the same for yours. And in spite of the number of left of center friends I don't know any that want to out law guns. Just who made that lie up, anyway? Nevermind. Just glad to be "the Bobert" again, Dougie, rather than "the writer". Feels all warm and fuzzy. Come on over here and get a big ol' Bobert hug, fella... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 02 - 04:33 PM I don't necessarily disagree with Terry K's opinion. His tactics are questionable. If he wants to start out by calling everyone ignorant, then he should line up his own ducks a little better. Yeah Terry this discussion is just what everyone needs morAss . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jun 02 - 10:14 PM Doug, I guess there are a few "liberals" who would "take your guns away" if given a chance...and those few tend to be very noisy. I'm not one of them. As a matter of fact, I am not a liberal at all. I'm an out and out radical. Liberals don't impress me any more than conservatives do. They are both bent on merely tinkering with a social system which they think is "normal", when in fact it is downright insane. If they were tribesmen in tropical New Guinea, they might well think it was normal to practice cannibalism too. Monkey see, monkey do. Conformity is one of the most common diseases humanity will ever have to deal with, and it is the main buttress of every oppressive system that has ever flourished on this planet. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:07 PM Bobert: Bosnia? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: GUEST Date: 20 Jul 02 - 04:23 AM So much for the "free market." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 20 Jul 02 - 11:16 AM Exactly what's so free about corporate welfare. Isn't that like a subsidy? And if corporations are subsidized, doesn't that give them an unfair advantage in a 'free market" economy? Hmmmmmm? Don't take no Wes Ginny slide rule to tell which way the wind blows... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 02 - 11:27 AM Well here's how it works, Corporations give gobs of money to campaigns, and bribe elected officials with stock options. Laws get change and the US people return the donated money 100 fold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 02 - 01:18 PM Well, we've just had a massive repudiation of about 7 years of "trickle-down" economics by Mike Harris's Conservatives in Ontario, Canada. It resulted in great damage to our schools, hospitals, and public services...in economic disaster for our towns and cities (who had the bills dumped on them)...in a number of deaths from polluted water (due to cutbacks in inspection of same)...in a vastly greater number of homeless, and a lot more deaths on the street...wow. All for a "tax break" (a puny one). Ha. How easily people are fooled when you tempt them with a little personal greed. Mike has now retired from politics. His successor, Ernie Eves, is trying hard to disassociate the Conservative Party of Ontario from Mike's former policies, sensing a looming disaster at the next election. Give 'em an inch, and they'll steal the whole tape measure. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 02 - 01:46 PM I've been reading this thread with great interest but I'm still stuck on JohnInKansas's statistic about "17-23% percentage inflation during the Kennedy years". For instance, I would have thought that the inflation rates would have been much higher during the Carter years than under Kennedy. I believe that the USA inflationary spiral is dated from 1967- and I thought it was because until then there was relatively little inflation, postwar. I've gone looking for the stats and haven't found them, no doubt due to my search methods. Can anyone clarify this for me or direct me to a site? Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jul 02 - 02:01 PM Your wish is my command http://www.orst.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/in1500.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jul 02 - 10:01 PM Thank you, JacktheSailorLad. But now I really am confused. I haven't had any reason to suspect JohnInKansas of prevarication so what gives, JIK? According to the graph there was a lot more inflation in the Eisenhower years than there was under Kennedy and when it got to Reagan Good night, Nellie!!. However, nowhere did it get to 20 percent, even in the mid-teens. Any answers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jul 02 - 10:12 PM Figures that it exploded under Reagan... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 20 Jul 02 - 10:34 PM Yeah, LH, it would be Ray-gun. Makes sense. He was really the first president that I can think of that was owned lock, stock and barrel by the ruling class. They were really p.o.'d by Carter winnin' the White house and just figured it was time to flex their corporate muscle and stop democracy right in it's tracks... And the rest is history. One corporate puppet after another ever since... And, in case this ol' hillbilly ain't mentioned it recently... Vote Green Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 21 Jul 02 - 01:02 PM Right! Green!!! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 02 - 01:50 PM Left! Green! (Or does that mean that YOU are voting green this year, DougR?) :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DonD Date: 21 Jul 02 - 04:16 PM Another left-wing folkie here. And ignorant, too. But the most significant things I have to show from my experience with the corporate world are my -- preconceptions, and I won't give 'em up until you pry 'em out of my cold dead hands. The only trickle down I've experienced has been accompanied by someone trying to tell me it's raining. I've worked for a number of corporations -- what you'd call small ones, but what are now uniformly defunct ones. I've even owned a couple, equally defunct, and I tried to give myself a golden parachute, too. Maybe I'm too literal, but did you know that a parachute made out of gold falls like a rock, and one colored gold may save your life but afterward you're just down and nowhere. One curse of capitalism as we know it is the principle of 'grow or die'. The balloon has to keep getting puffed up until it bursts; either the contents are revealed to be just hot air, or the puffer has to stop to catch a breath and the whole thing jets back in his face and flies off around the room. An entertaining moment, but all you're left with is a damp piece of rubber. Another curse is the stock market: the biggest gambling casino in the world! Investing in a business may be valuable, but trading in its stocks or bonds is no more than shooting craps. The bet isn't on how well the company will do but on how well it will be perceived to be doing by money managers and brokers, whose only interest is to keep the wagers flowing. We demean race-track touts but esteem investment bankers. Of course we're talking about the 'big' corporations, not those thousands of 'little ones' as if each of them doesn't have the goal to become 'big'. How many make up the Dow-Jones? The S & P? The Fortune 500? How many are in the tiny percent that control the vast majority of the wealth and buy and sell the governments of the world. And don't talk to me about the value of either professional athletes or CEO's. Today's paper reports that some NFL or MLB team is paying over $30 million a year to athletes who are no longer in the game. Just the same as so many 'big' corporations are paying millions of their stockholders' money to ex-CEO's. Years ago when railroads were 'big' corporations, the CEO of the NY Central screwed up royally, lost the company millions, and was fired (with a healthy thank you check!). He was immediately hired by another railroad which had dumped its screw-up CEO, with the explanation, "How lucky we are to find a man with his experience!" Some clever journalist wrote that Bush #1 was born on third base and had the strange idea that he'd hit a triple, and I believe that that's a commomn misperception among many of the old boys network, and those who believe their bought-and-paid-for PR. Aside from all of that, it's a great country and a great system -- if we can just fix it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jul 02 - 04:52 PM Nice summation... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 21 Jul 02 - 06:33 PM No, Ebbie, I'm encouraging EVERY Mudcatter to vote green! I'm with old Bobert here! :) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jul 02 - 07:26 PM Well, does that mean that the Mudcatter named DougR will vote green? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 21 Jul 02 - 07:51 PM Think my ol' buddy Doug got into a burning rope patch... Either that or the aliens really have abducted him and left a Doug look-alike but not sound-alike in his place. I know we haven't worn him down. Not the DougR I know! Hmmmmmmm? I think he's doing Mohammed Ali's "rope-a-dope". No, maybe he signed on to be one of Asscroft's spies. Yeah, that's it. He's gonna lure us in and then... BANG... a big net falls over our head and off to where ever Asscroft plans on taking the liberal and radicals when he finally gets his plan in place. Hmmmmmm? Would you really narc out on us, Dougie? Hmmmmmm? Hmmmmmmmm?... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 21 Jul 02 - 10:37 PM DougR is personally taking credit for Al Gore's loss in the last presidential election. He campaigned vigorously here in the Mudcat on behalf of Ralph Nader, and figures that's what accounts for the slim margin that enabled Jeb to have the election overturned by the Florida Supreme Court.
*BG*
And a smiley in case anyone doesn't see the humor in my post... ;^) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 21 Jul 02 - 10:38 PM ...but you want to keep an eye on DougR during election years. He's sneaky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: baywop Date: 22 Jul 02 - 08:14 AM I personally saw DougR in Florida, sticking chads back into ballots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jul 02 - 10:24 AM hahahha |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 02 - 10:26 AM Ahhhhhhhh, thanks CarolC. I should have been able to figure that one out. Whew! I'm glad to know that he hasn't been carted off by the aliens... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 22 Jul 02 - 02:02 PM Maybe you converted me, Bobert! Suppose? When the AG contacted me I told him there was no point in my reporting Mudcat enemies of the current administration because there wasn't enough disc space on any government computer to hold all the names! :>) Carol C: I don't know why you doubt my sincerity so much. :>) Ebbie: I don't always do what I suggest that others do. Baywop: Guilty! **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 22 Jul 02 - 04:06 PM What sincerity DougR? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jul 02 - 10:51 PM You're cute, DougR. Wrong, but cute. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 02 - 02:15 PM Nah, Dougie, there ain't no convertin' you. I think you are on Junior's payroll and as long as the checks keep coming, you'll rise to his defense on any issue, any place and any time. But, since you are good sport about it, I'll keep trying to convert you becuase in the words of Ebbie, "You're Wrong". Cute? Well maybe... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 23 Jul 02 - 05:21 PM Bobert: you making a pass at me? Ebbie: I hope you are! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 02 - 05:47 PM Yuck, Dougie. I was just tryin' yo say somrthin' nice after telling you that you were wrong. Better luck with Ebbie, pal... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 24 Jul 02 - 01:17 AM Aw heck, Bobert, everybody knows Ebbie is already taken. You sure you're not interested? Oh well, that's the story of my life. Nobody wants me. Sob! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jul 02 - 09:44 AM Har! Har! Doug, I appreciate your sense of humour...you are becoming a wise old fox, due to the rigors of Mudcat membership. By the way, I now have ironclad scientific PROOF that Left is hot and Right is not!!! It happened this way. I have a new apartment with a small walk-in shower. The landlord made the mistake, when he built this shower, of aiming the shower nozzle at the entrance rather than at the wall. Accordingly, it goes out the entrance and all over the washroom, getting everything wet! Your normal shower curtain is unable to deal with this at all, as it just gets blown out of the way. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Well, we finally solved the problem by getting a huge, heavy, way too long shower curtain to hang across the entrance...it's so long and heavy that the stream of water can't push it out of the way or get under it. Fine. But I digress. The main point here is the shower tap itself. It's a single tap that turns right or left and rotates up or down. Adjusting it so as to get the temperature you want is a damnable business, because even a tiny twist right or left can cause a radical change in temperature, while a tiny twist up or down can cause a significant change in force. It's bloody annoying. However, one thing is absolutely clear. If you turn it to the left, you get hot water. If you turn it to the right....you get cold water. It's an open and shut case. Left is hot. Right is not. Now that it's been proven under laboratory conditions, we don't really need to waste time and mental effort debating all these divisive issues endlessly, do we? I am sure that, bolstered by this compelling scientific evidence, you will settle down comfortably with the rest of us in the glorious ranks of the Left. But gosh, it's gonna be dull with no one out there left to disagree with...uh...I mean right to disagree with... Eh? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 24 Jul 02 - 02:40 PM Wow, LH. That is a compelling scientific demonstration of the first and second principles of the first fundamental law of reality as we know it.
What's troubling me now, though, is what happens when we examine the third part of that law with the same thorough scrutiny that you have applied to the first and second parts.
As I understand it, the law, in its entirety, goes something like this: "Hot on the left, cold on the right, and shit don't flow uphill." Your elegantly designed demonstration is ample proof of the first two principles, but I'm afraid the third principle will probably have to be discarded in light of current circumstances in the political and corporate environments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 02 - 03:23 PM Well, danged! After reading Little Hawk's post, I was about to welcome Doug over to the other side, but now with this third principle stuff coming to light, it might be premature. So ya think the sh*t is flowing up hill, CarolC? It could just be floating to the top and if that is the case then I believe there are sufficient higher principles that would allow Doug to slip over to the correct side. I mean, the guy is getting real lonely, CarolC. Hey, it's been tough on him being one of the lone died in the wool Bushites around these parts and I think it's wearing him down, especially now that the Bush/Bin Laden thing is runnin out of gas at the same time that Bushenomics is crashing all around him. Plus, I allready placed an order for his balck arm band and commie card. Whaddayathink? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 02 - 03:23 PM Well, danged! After reading Little Hawk's post, I was about to welcome Doug over to the other side, but now with this third principle stuff coming to light, it might be premature. So ya think the sh*t is flowing up hill, CarolC? It could just be floating to the top and if that is the case then I believe there are sufficient higher principles that would allow Doug to slip over to the correct side. I mean, the guy is getting real lonely, CarolC. Hey, it's been tough on him being one of the lone died in the wool Bushites around these parts and I think it's wearing him down, especially now that the Bush/Bin Laden thing is runnin out of gas at the same time that Bushenomics is crashing all around him. Plus, I allready placed an order for his black arm band and commie card. Whaddayathink? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 02 - 03:26 PM Well, danged! After reading Little Hawk's post, I was about to welcome Doug over to the other side, but now with this third principle stuff coming to light, it might be premature. So ya think the sh*t is flowing up hill, CarolC? It could just be floating to the top and if that is the case then I believe there are sufficient higher principles that would allow Doug to slip over to the correct side. I mean, the guy is getting real lonely, CarolC. Hey, it's been tough on him being one of the lone died in the wool Bushites around these parts and I think it's wearing him down, especially now that the Bush/Bin Laden thing is runnin out of gas at the same time that Bushenomics is crashing all around him. Plus, I allready placed an order for his black arm band and commie card. Whaddayathink? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: CarolC Date: 24 Jul 02 - 04:29 PM I think DougR would look stunning in pink ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 24 Jul 02 - 05:00 PM I do. Bobert, I guess you were so proud of your last message you dedided to recite it three times in case we missed the first toss. I answered LH in a PM, since he was kind enough to PM me the message he wrote above. I have been appointed by GWB, himself, to continue my efforts to correct the wrong thinking so many of you left-wing commie types espouse here on the Mudcat. I will continue. I will prevail! I will go have another drink! :>) DogRu (Hic!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jul 02 - 08:19 PM Bobert, are you seeing triple too? I wonder what's going on? Must be a right wing plot of some kind... It's kind of reassuring to know that Doug has not betrayed his original principles. Besides, Dubya needs some help on this forum from time to time. :-) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 02 - 11:23 PM Hey, could be a conspiracy, but as muc as Ilike conspiracy, I think is was the caffienated coffee there, Little Hawk. And I'm real disappointed about Doug backin' out on the defection. I had the black arm band and membership card ready for him. But, hey, life goes on. And I'm not too sure I'd want Doug over here anyway. You know, Little Hawk, we'd always be feeling for our wallets wonderin' if he'd pick pocketed us for Junior since Junior seems to be runnin' out of bread to keep things going since he gave away all the surpluses to his rich owners.... I'm jus' funnin with ya' there, Dougie. Yeah, CarolC! Pink. Not Pinko. But pink... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 25 Jul 02 - 12:01 AM See there, I told ya'even Bobert doesn't want me now. Nobody wants me (except GWB!) Keep an eye on those folkies, he told me. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 02 - 10:49 AM Yes DougR GWB DOES give a rats ass about you. and Ed MacMahan is coming to YOUR house. You may have already won 10 million dollars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: DougR Date: 25 Jul 02 - 01:26 PM And I can't wait to SPEND it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Trickle-down Economics in the USA From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 02 - 07:22 PM Keeping an eye on folkies is a thankless task! This is one reason why I seldom volunteer any more for folk festivals. I used to when I was young, enthusiastic, and just a tad naive...but I learned. :-) I was mainly there to play music anyway, and eventually that was what I restricted my activities to...well, mostly. I'm not going to explain that any further... Anyway, all I can say, Doug, is you've got MY sympathy! I hope the money comes through in order to make up for the time lost in what is sure to be a fruitless endeavour. Gad, what we do for country, Mom, and apple pie! - LH |