The Reagan Counterrevolution 69 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
In 1980, when the U.S. economy was last in serious trouble, Ronald Reagan offered the correct diagnoses that government was the problem and not the solution. His message resonated with voters, propelling him into the White House to implement an agenda of lowering marginal tax rates, reducing government spending and business regulations, restoring sound money, abolishing entire government departments, and basically allowing free market vibrancy to unshackle an economy burdened by big government. Though in practice much of the Reagan revolution never materialized, at least in theory his basic premise was sound.
In contrast, the country has now hitched its wagon to the views of Barack Obama. We don’t know much about what he truly believes about economics, but the little that we do know is not encouraging. Obama has repeatedly heaped the blame for the current crisis on the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the greed of the wealthy. For him, the free market is the problem and government is the solution.
The President-elect has promised to cage the destructive forces of capitalism, impose more regulation, raise marginal tax rates, increase government spending, and restore prosperity by redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those considered to be more deserving. Like most of his generation, Obama believes that economic growth results from consumer spending, primarily from the middle class. Any policy that keeps the consumers headed to the mall will be promoted.
Unfortunately, while Reagan had a hard time getting his full agenda through Congress, Obama will likely be much more successful. The effort to concentrate more power in Washington will be far more appealing to Congress then Reagan’s idea of restoring it to the people.
This sharp contrast in philosophy should not be taken lightly. Reagan looked to unleash the pent-up free market forces that had been smothered by a generation of Great Society reforms and uninterrupted Democratic control of Congress. Today, the public is looking for the Obama Administration to create the growth that the free market has apparently destroyed. The hope that our economy will grow as a result of government spending and micro-management is the most seminal shift in political philosophy since the New Deal.
Despite the absence of Reagan’s promised spending cuts, the economy generally did well during his presidency (The growth would have been more genuine if the cuts had been delivered). However, Obama’s policies will immediately make the current situation worse and the nation will suffer severely as a result. Rather than a sharp recession at the beginning of his term followed by a significant expansion, the recession that Obama inherits will be far worse when his first term ends.
What nearly all politicians, on both sides of the aisle, fail to understand is that the current contraction and credit crunch is necessary to restore order to an economy that is horribly out of balance. Years of misguided fiscal and monetary policy and market-distorting regulations have resulted in reckless borrowing and spending on Main Street, pervasive gambling on Wall Street, and rampant fraud and corruption at every intersection. America’s borrow and spend economy, and the bloated service sector that evolved around it, must be allowed to topple, so that a more sustainable economy grounded in savings and production can rise in its place. Any government efforts to delay the adjustment and spare us the pain will backfire, turning this recession into an inflationary depression.
Of broader concern however is the sharp turn in ideology, and what it means for the future of our nation. If this is a permanent shift, then America will lose any resemblance to the economic titan of the 20th Century. Our standard of living will decline sharply, our economy will be ravaged by inflation, tens of millions will be unemployed, more individual liberties will be surrendered, and rugged individualism will be supplanted by the nanny state. In short, Latin America may extend north to the Canadian border.
However, if this shift proves temporary and Obama’s reign either ends in one term or if he can summon the intelligence and courage to reverse course once the situation deteriorates, then perhaps one day there will be light at the end of a very long tunnel.
While all of us can certainly hope for the best, prudence suggests that we had better prepare for the worst. Not only does that mean divesting our portfolios of U.S. dollar denominated investments but preparing for the possibility of emigration. With economic conditions at home becoming increasingly intolerable, the call of freer economies and greater prosperity abroad may be too tempting to resist.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 69 comments:
Is there anything... anything at all... that might take precedence over a slight reduction in the amount of wealth in your "portfolio"? Are you truly so greedy... so selfish... that you would outsource the wealth of this country to one of those with "freer" economies (Communist China I presume) if any attempt were made to lower the gap between your "portfolio and my dinner table and reogn in the stupidity that brought us the current debacle in which you and your ilk remain bulletproof while we working stiffs take the hit for your stupidity and greed?
Excuse me again, but isn't outsourcing most of the decent jobs and much of the investment in this country something you've already been doing for a while now?
Of course I've gone on way too long but attitudes like yours, based on maintaining the Wall Street stranglehold on the wealth of this country was most likely the main reason Obama was elected in the first place. Just what the hell do you accomplish by threatening to take your little marbles and go somewhere else to play if he doesn't continue the exact same policies that brought us the biggest financial meltdown since 1929?
Step two, Take LARGE steps to return living wage jobs back to the United States. When the general population makes a living, the economy prospers. Could go on, but will hush, for I know it's an exersize in futility.
"What nearly all politicians, on both sides of the aisle, fail to understand is that the current contraction and credit crunch is necessary to restore order to an economy that is horribly out of balance. Years of misguided fiscal and monetary policy and market-distorting regulations have resulted in reckless borrowing and spending on Main Street, pervasive gambling on Wall Street, and rampant fraud and corruption at every intersection."
You say regulations were the problem yet recklessness were too in the same breath. If they had been better regulated the recklessness could not have happen. Look you made a great call with the housing collapse but don't get fooled by randomness. You can't be right every time and this article is proof of that.
free markets are wonderful if you can find one that isn't rigged by the speculators/hedge finds. we haven't had a free market for many yrs. a market with responsible wise regulation is what is needed.
reagan's policy was to give reckless irresponsible tax cuts to millionaires and delusionally promise that something would actually trickle down to other citizens.
all that happened was the yachtbuilders grew rich while everyone else starved.
reagan's policy was to militarily outspend the USSR in hopes they would be bankrupted sooner than us. our bankruptcy has now occurred.
reagan was a failed movie actor in B movies who suddenly impersonated a president for 8 yrs. the performance deserves an academy award.
> jack
Why? Because socialism doesn't work. Having large public and private sector unions force contributions to one political party who then creates industry conditions to scare off competition including foreign. This will of course have disastrouos - look at Europe that all score significantly higher in education level. They have large unemployment and dismal GDP. They keep interest rates high because inflation will trigger more automatic union raises.
Show me how you are going to produce a TV in this country with higher minimum, higher health costs from nationalizing, more litigation, higher environment regulation and costs, and much easier union organizers.
Now we get to the envy part over disparities in wealth - this too has been played out in Europe and it works for politicians and impoverishes the citizen. Why would the portfolio (we have 7 trillion on the side) invest with these hurdles when other areas are significantly better. You can get mad all you want but it is futile - the investor- like everyone else doesn't go to work for free- nor should he be forced to keep his currency here.
What socialist state citizens will not tell you - many barter or work under the table, this constituency votes in higher taxes, the rich citizens leave and come back from tax free havens and have ribbon cutting ceromonies with the same politician who is giving them tax breaks to open a new factory celebrating foreign investment (with all sorts of perks).
Think about it - part of this current decline is a flight of capital. It it is very difficult to reverse investor confidence. Equal portfolios is failed religion - everyone talks it but why don't you read about how some of the most liberal polticians in the US amassed their fortunes and their current effective tax rate.
At the same time it cannot be denied that he was a decent man, and tried to do his best, but his best mainly helped the better off elements in the US.
And finmah, I don't remember hearing about any socialism in Sweden except from my upper middle class students of international finance. Actually, the relation of socialism to Swedish social democracy is about the same as that be tween a rap standard and a Cole Porter evergreen.
In other words, no relation at all.
Can you write a focused and concise analysis of why we're in such a historic financial turmoil and what exactly was the role of regulation in this turmoil. I think that effort will make your case more believable. The general statements like regulation is bad is not strong enough evidence. As economists we should be able to back up with empirical data.
I would argue that the lack of regulation is exactly why the bankers' greed got out of control and now we're all paying for it. The gov has to step into the situation after all, because the final tab of that greed is running into trillions (yes, with a T), and no private enterprise has that kind of money; besides when you start selling those junk CDO and CDS vehicles to foreign enterprises, the gov will be forced to step into resolving any conflicts. So, how do you propose the private enterprise to be able to self-regulate. I think the current situation already self-evident of what self-regulation can cause.
And now we have a new President who clearly promises an acceleration in regulation at rate not seen since Richard Nixon. If you care to check the numbers, just click here: www.mercatus.org/uploa...
So, Peter, you are correct in your prognosis. The end of prosperity is near.
Just take Social Security, the idea that the burden of one generation's retirement should weigh on the shoulders of another generation.
Blind faith in the efficacy of government is no less ideological than blind faith in the free market.
And what happens to a blind man when he negotiates dangerous terrain? Bodily harm.
On Nov 09 09:37 AM russ wrote:
> The bias and Pollyanna view of Reagan undermines everything that
> follows in the post. The fact remains that the so-called free markets
> are often manipulated and abused for short term personal gain, whether
> it be by the John D. Rockefellers of yesterday or of today. Unfortunately,
> we need government to set a moral-operational standard to prevent
> excess and greed and when they do not, the result is a loss of confidence
> and market value, just as we have seen. Reagan was a bumbling ideologue
> confusing his movie lines with reality and eventually confusing everything.
> In the end, his mental deterioration was such that he was a functioning
> movie prop
I suggest you emigrate, but leave behind the money you have looted from the system in your association with the gangster capitalism that has been the current practise for many years.
BTW, I speak as someone who has been a conservative all my life.
Capitalism though bears only a passing resemblance to the pillaging which has occurred, with vast sums taken by fraud whilst real wages stagnated.
We need an economy that is powered by real savings and real production. We manufacture nothing in the U.S.A. Yet every stimulus packaged discussed is making the U.S. consumer go to the shopping mall and spend money buying foreign products. Tell me this -- all those manufacturing jobs we lost we replaced with what? Engineers and technicians who made $50 an hour now make $15 an hour in the service industry flipping burgers? It is one thing for a politician to stand on a pedestal and speak mightily about free trade and not erecting trade barriers but it is entirely another thing if there is no backstop program to help/assist those displaced to move into alternate jobs where they make the same amount of money. Tell me this -- we have destroyed nearly 100% of the manufacturing jobs in this country and replaced them with nothing! Now outsourcing has taken hold and is destroying all our technical jobs and replacing them again with -- NOTHING! We need to fix the real two problems that we have no savings and we manufacture and produce nothing in this country. Otherwise all we are doing is putting a bandaid on the wounds until the day comes when they are ripped apart by foreign investors who hold trillions of dollars of our debt and we will then have to shape up and become a mighty economy again or go down the tubes and become subservient to China and India and let them use us like we used them. How about China and India opening up call centers here because we have now become the low cost low wage poor country and the income level and spending power of their populations have gone up? How about when other economies of the world will do to us what we have done to them the last few decades as the situation completely reverses and we would work for them instead of them working for us? That day is coming my friends and nothing short of a radical realization of our follies and immediate corrective actions will fix it!
Markets without some level of law and order, transparency and oversight is like a farm without a fence. It simply does not work.
And, the author gravely under estimates Barack Obama, who under the hood represents a new generation of pragmatist with the idealistic gloss needed to gain the support of the American public.
That said, I do agree that re-regulation of the markets could easily run amuck, if it is tooled by old school democrats. The as guilty as republicans of lacking any form of vision.
Regan was the right man for his time, Barack is the right man for out times.
that way and we find ourselves, the citizens of America, getting
punked once again.
There is a thing called moderation. There is another thing called balance. For the past forty years America has become more and more unbalanced economically. A smaller and smaller percentage of people have managed to get a greater and greater percentage of the world's wealth. Those in power have relentlessly pushed for this, or, have not cautioned enough against it until we are where we find ourselves today: FUBAR.
When people with power, official or unofficial, don't act with wisdom and foresight a cataclysm eventually results. How close are we to such a thing right now? I don't pretend to know, but the "chicken little" posturing
of Peter Schiff really put me off.
If Obama moves towards "socialism" it may well not be such a bad thing. Some delivery of relief to working stiffs and the unemployed would be every bit as helpful to the economy as the "socialism" for the rich that came down in 2001 and just last month for Goldman Sachs and Wachovia Bank.
Am I a "leftist"? Left of who? Rush? Alan Greenspan? Larry Kudloooow?
Peter Schiff can move to Bumfuk, Egypt for all I care. Neocon gangster capitalism has proven, definitively, just how bad it sucks, but I'm going to remain an American and I feel one heck of a lot better supporting Barack Obama than I ever could the posturing faux cowboy who hasn't left D.C. yet.
it is always a source of amusement & consternation that the people who control the republican party insist on running morons for national office. i suppose it is because morons are easier to control than people with a live brain function.
> jack
He stole the excess funds from those programs to fund tax cuts for millionaires, to fund weapons systems and still left $ 3 Trillion Dollars in debt.
It pains me to think of my grandfathers and my fathers, both who died never collecting Social Security, money going to fusn tax cuts for Millionaires just like the excess from Social Security unber Bush is used to off set his tax cuts for Millionaires.
Even Buffet said he did not need or want these tax cuts. The tax cuts were the main reason for the Budget Deficts. Read Ben Stiens Yale Economic Review
www.yaleeconomicreview...
Instead, they make hummers and blame their stupidity on the unions.
On Nov 09 09:34 AM surgcare wrote:
> All you left wing "whinners" who supported Obama are about to find
> out just how bad Obama , Reid and Pelosi can destroy america .Those
> who think america is the greatest country are totally delusional
> . Why is it that the american auto makers can't survive in their
> own counry while foreign automakers like Honda ,Toyota etc are doing
> well . UNIONS Wall street didn't bankrupt the auto and steel industry
> and next the airlines , its the unions .
If Obama's "stimulus package" (or packages) incur debt to build transportation and energy infrastructure, we win. If these are tax rebates to the middle class (still employed) or broad based corporate bail-outs, we lose. If our corporate tax structure continues to be 35% top bracket cut by a myriad of loop holes, rather than a lower top bracket without any loopholes, we lose. If his proposed corporate tax credits for new jobs is properly implemented, we win.
Regulation does not have to be big, but it must be effective, or we lose. What we seem to have accumulated are voluminous and ineffective regulations. A number of regulations repealed or changed in the past couple of decades could have prevented much of the current crisis. Of course, recovery from the technolgy bubble collapse would have been muted, but the entire current boom/bust scenario would have been less drastic.
Monetary and fiscal policy mistakes have also contributed to our problems, as Peter Schiff (and many commenters) have stated. But many of them have missed a KEYnsian (capitalization is deliberate) argument that should be brought back into our policy discussions. The specific Keynes theory that I refer to is the adjustment of fiscal and monetary policy for economic conditions. He proposed that taxes should be cut and monetary policy expanded during downturns and that taxes should be raised and monetary policy more restrained during economic expansions. This can be done within the "sweet spot" on the Laffer curve to moderate the business cycle. What has been largely forgotten since 1980 is the proper use of the fiscal (taxation) variable to adjust up as well as down, depending on the business cycle. Only the monetary (Fed) tools have been used, and some would argue that they have, at times, been used poorly, especially from late 2003 to 2005. Monetary tools without application of fiscal tools have produced less results than might hsve been acheived.
He grew debt at an incredible rate and increased government spending in the areas least productive to the overall economy, created policies that led to a smaller group getting more of the rewards, he was an emperor with no cloths.
Obama is going to need to spend, at the worst of times, after the failed Republican policies have mortgaged the future so that Wall Street Barons could have ice sculptures that peed alcohol and buy preserved sharks for $10 million dollars while people are losing homes and jobs.
CDO's and Mortgaged backed securities are what passed for innovation instead of the things that came out of the government programs of the 70's, PC,s, space business, the Internet, all paid for originally by tax dollars. They paved the way for the "Reagan expansion and he frittered it away like most people that inherit wealth.
The only question is whether the foolish ideological madness that made it acceptable to start a war that benefitted a sitting Vice President more than anyone else has dug us into a hole too deeply.
For now I will maintain hope and confidence in the American People and the Global community that we will dig deep, even sacrifice where we need to and emerge as the great country we once were.
Though pure capitalism is no more than an ideology but what Winston Churchill said does make some sense:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism (ever growing and gigantic government) is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
Mr. Schiff certainly is incapable of distinguishing between business - which is what the markets are about - and unfettered human greed, which is inherent to the human being when unchecked, be it by rules, laws, regulations, religion or prison.
The notions of socialism, leftists, governments meddling etc. bandied
about in various comments I have been reading lately show only that the persons using these political definitions don't know what they are talking about.
It seems to me, though, that they have been fed with a smattering of "knowledge" and a great deal of militant so called "republican" ideology. And "so called" means that republican credo does not sanction robbing the world to make more, more, more, more money. It used to call for justice and honesty. Amen
Who is John Galt?
I get little satisfaction knowing that your world will tumble around you when you manage to finally have your way. One of the great tragedies is that those of us who would be content to continue to work and save, building a future for ourselves and our families and the greater good that our 'selfishness' would contribute to, will suffer as well.
I have told both my two college age children that they should not necessarily expect to live out their lives in U.S., that they do not owe it to the commonweal to allow themselves to be enslaved to the collective. These days, however, there are few places left for the well meaning individualist to escape to and most of us still love the country of our birth in spite of the perverted cripple that creeping multiculturalism and despotic socialism has turned it into. We would rather not leave but whether my children move to Shanghai as Rodgers advises, take a job with some roving foreign multi-national or fall into poverty with the rest of the 'prols' you are unlikely to get any more productivity out of them than did Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. They too thought the rank and file would eventually fall into line either out of fear or lethargy.
I remind you who cheer on the coming 'where's-mine-ism' that The American Revolution was fought under the chant of 'No taxation without representation' and that every Chinese regime in history was overthrown because it repressed and starved its populous. You think this is a revolution? You haven't seen a revolution until people who would rather be working than fighting decide it's time to fight.
the end of prosperity is HERE, friend.
hilarious how obama, who isn't even in office yet, is projected by schiff to push us further into the abyss than we are already. perhaps you SHOULD start packing your bags, petey. (its exactly what i had pondered if mccain had gotten in....LOL). i hear the caymans are BEAUTIFUL....
bon voyage.
On Nov 09 10:15 AM GerryB43 wrote:
> Let us look at the record: economic growth restored, inflation contained,
> stock market at record levels, huge increase in jobs, all while winning
> the cold war for freedom-loving people of the world. Pretty good
> record in spite of not getting the entire growth agenda enacted into
> law. This legacy of Ronald Reagan has been eroded by two decades
> of creeping increases in state control of the activities of our daily
> lives. The number of pages added to the Federal Register each year
> is a pretty good measure of the level of regulatory interference
> in the economy and it is now at an all-time high. After a sharp
> decline in the Reagan years, it has climbed steadily through both
> the Clinton and the Bush years. It is not just the Federal intrusion
> - state power has steadily increased too. The myth of the Bush deregulation
> is just that - a lie told repeatedly by too many politicians and
> media pundits.
>
> And now we have a new President who clearly promises an acceleration
> in regulation at rate not seen since Richard Nixon. If you care
> to check the numbers, just click here: www.mercatus.org/uploa...
>
>
> So, Peter, you are correct in your prognosis. The end of prosperity
> is near.
can anyone say - SOUR GRAPES......?
On Nov 09 09:34 AM surgcare wrote:
> All you left wing "whinners" who supported Obama are about to find
> out just how bad Obama , Reid and Pelosi can destroy america .Those
> who think america is the greatest country are totally delusional
> . Why is it that the american auto makers can't survive in their
> own counry while foreign automakers like Honda ,Toyota etc are doing
> well . UNIONS Wall street didn't bankrupt the auto and steel industry
> and next the airlines , its the unions .
You're imagining Mr. Schiff has certain opinions and views that he actually doesn't. You've read quite a bit between the lines in his latest post here... and you're projecting your impotent anger on to it. Just because someone is interested in protecting their wealth doesn't mean that they don't care about the country, support corruption, etc. etc.
Mr. Schiff is interested in true economic prosperity for our country and believes that current government policies are misguided and counter-productive. I know this because I've read one of his books. He's really quite sane and makes his points persuasively. If you disagree with this views that's up to you but please keep your childish lashing out to yourself.
On Nov 09 08:27 AM User 294358 wrote:
> So... still... the only important thing in all of this is your "portfolio"?
> And you'll still support anything that boosts your portfolio no matter
> what it does to the rest of the country? And you'll oppose anything
> that levels the playing field between Wall Street parasites who make
> their living sucking the life's blood of this country and producing
> nothing while the people who actually work for a living go without
> basic necessities in order not to adversely affect your "portfolio"?
>
>
> Is there anything... anything at all... that might take precedence
> over a slight reduction in the amount of wealth in your "portfolio"?
> Are you truly so greedy... so selfish... that you would outsource
> the wealth of this country to one of those with "freer" economies
> (Communist China I presume) if any attempt were made to lower the
> gap between your "portfolio and my dinner table and reogn in the
> stupidity that brought us the current debacle in which you and your
> ilk remain bulletproof while we working stiffs take the hit for your
> stupidity and greed?
>
> Excuse me again, but isn't outsourcing most of the decent jobs and
> much of the investment in this country something you've already been
> doing for a while now?
>
> Of course I've gone on way too long but attitudes like yours, based
> on maintaining the Wall Street stranglehold on the wealth of this
> country was most likely the main reason Obama was elected in the
> first place. Just what the hell do you accomplish by threatening
> to take your little marbles and go somewhere else to play if he doesn't
> continue the exact same policies that brought us the biggest financial
> meltdown since 1929?
>
On Nov 09 06:28 PM Ruven77 wrote:
> What is more alarming than Schiff's correct analysis is the fact
> that so many of you who bother to read this kind of thing not only
> don't agree with it but. as is the habit of the left, rather than
> debate or refute the pertinent issues would rather trash the icons
> of the opposing side whether it is Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan.
>
>
> Who is John Galt?
>
> I get little satisfaction knowing that your world will tumble around
> you when you manage to finally have your way. One of the great tragedies
> is that those of us who would be content to continue to work and
> save, building a future for ourselves and our families and the greater
> good that our 'selfishness' would contribute to, will suffer as well.
>
>
> I have told both my two college age children that they should not
> necessarily expect to live out their lives in U.S., that they do
> not owe it to the commonweal to allow themselves to be enslaved to
> the collective. These days, however, there are few places left for
> the well meaning individualist to escape to and most of us still
> love the country of our birth in spite of the perverted cripple that
> creeping multiculturalism and despotic socialism has turned it into.
> We would rather not leave but whether my children move to Shanghai
> as Rodgers advises, take a job with some roving foreign multi-national
> or fall into poverty with the rest of the 'prols' you are unlikely
> to get any more productivity out of them than did Stalin, Mao or
> Pol Pot. They too thought the rank and file would eventually fall
> into line either out of fear or lethargy.
>
> I remind you who cheer on the coming 'where's-mine-ism' that The
> American Revolution was fought under the chant of 'No taxation without
> representation' and that every Chinese regime in history was overthrown
> because it repressed and starved its populous. You think this is
> a revolution? You haven't seen a revolution until people who would
> rather be working than fighting decide it's time to fight.
[attitudes like yours, based on maintaining the Wall Street stranglehold on the wealth of this country was most likely the main reason Obama was elected in the first place.]
What I find interesting is that his campaign was heavily funded by Wall Street.
It's anybody's guess what he's going to do.
"We should not be having this argument. Reagan was the proof. After tax CUTS, tax revenue went UP. thats it game over, argument done."
That observation has no meaning. One needs a controlled experiment to be able to make a valid conclusion. If, under essentially similar circumstances, tax rates remained unchanged, how would tax revenue have changed? You don't know so the conclusion in the quote has no value.
In fact, several studies have been made (hypotheticals) that have argued that if the Reagan tax cuts had not been made, or if they had been reversed as the economy recovered during the 1980's, tax revenues would have risen much more.
The problem is that no one has been using both sides of the fiscal policy equation. Since 1980, there have essentially been only tax cuts (except for Bush 1 in 1990). We would have better control over the business cycle fluctuations if we worked both ways on the Laffer curve, increasing taxes during expansions and cutting taxes during contractions. To make this work, of course, there must be discipline on the spending side so that deficits are run only during contractions.
Too many argue that Laffer showed that the more you cut taxes, the greater the tax revenue produced. That shows ignorance. The Laffer curve predicts that when you cut high taxes, tax revenues will increase; when you cut moderate taxes there is little impact on tax revenue; and when you cut low taxes, tax revenue will decrease. Obviously, going all the way to zero taxes means that tax revenues will decrease to nothing.
It is disturbing that this debate among supposedly informed people often degenerates to uninformed demagogery rather than logical argument.
Do I have this straight? Any more info or opinions on this? Does this appear to be a big money supply control lever? Mr. Schiff, is this a part of the regulation that you feel should be eliminated? Thanks.
Give Obama a chance. He's the best alternative you have in hand. Did you seriously think the brain-trust that put Sarah Palin on the ticket would have the smarts to tackle this problem?!
But I will say this: By all means, YES! Please do emigrate.
Oh you stupid ignoramus; reality can kick you in the face and you'll say you felt like hitting that shoe with your face. So I'm supposed to believe that because about 7% of the country think the things are on the right track (about the same percentage that stole most of the assets of this country over the last eight year)? Or I should believe the 22% who believe our genius GOP president and congress over the last eight years took us in the right direction (the 15% who are waiting for the end time which they believe Bush was headed on the right course and the other 7% mentioned above). Everyone else who has been hurt by these policies is, of course, wrong.
Any apparent growth during the Reagan years was created by enormous, unprecedented socialist-style, government deficit spending, giving the illusion of an increased GDP, which only that above-mentioned 7% saw any real increase in financial advancement. Wages have been stagnant or falling since the Reagan years, primarily because GOP has run things the whole time, with the exception of two years when Clinton had a small congressional majority. But the greatest single flaw in trickle-down, voodoo economics, which even Alan Greenspan has finally been forced to admit has a fundamental flaw, is that it is a rigid ideology, that ignores reality. The flaw Greenspan noted it that he failed to take into account a minor thing -- HUMAN NATURE. Yes, the market can be effective and efficient, if channeled and regulated properly, but what that moron Greenspan and his ilk, like you and Reagan and Friedman, failed to understand as do all ideologues who ignore reality in favor of a simplistic, faith-based interpretation of reality is that though people do for the most part act in their self-interest, they more often than not act in their own short-term self-interest at the expense of the long-term self-interest necessary for the success of the type of free market laissez faire policies they embraced. So instead of most of the concentrated capital over the last 28 years which was left so modestly taxed invested in productive areas of the marketplace, most was put in hedge funds and other instruments that offer no benefit to society or long term capitalist interests in favor of short-term monetary gains that skim most of the excess capital off the top of the system, acting as a parasitical element on the system, and so GDP is often seen growing, while in real terms businesses are simply consolidating and all the productivitiy gains are mostly the result of mechanization without any of the financial benefits shared below the top few percent. Ultimately, this is unsustainable as few and fewer people are able to afford the goods that are created by few and fewer people due to technology, until we finally reach crisis (which is where we are now). Even factoring in the tremendous growth and boom of the high-tech revolution, the de-regulation of the financial markets sent more money into non-productive, parasitical investments rather than into the venture capital sector and the boom busted far sooner than the potential presented. The housing bubble was from the same, as more and more people were given the illusion that they were sharing in the tremendous high-tech boom, they did not share proportionately in the enormous wealth created, but to pacify them, they were given loans so they had the purchasing power which they should have earned from the country's tremendous growth, building the housing boom on a house of cards instead of on a sustainable underlying reality. To paraphrase one of F.D.R.s cabinet members regarding the Great Depression and he economic times that preceded it, "A small group held all the money, but in order to play, they provided loans to everybody else to keep the game going. Once, the few with the money became fearful that maybe the loans might not be paid back, they stopped lending. Game over. Period."
On Nov 09 09:34 AM surgcare wrote:
> All you left wing "whinners" who supported Obama are about to find
> out just how bad Obama , Reid and Pelosi can destroy america .Those
> who think america is the greatest country are totally delusional
> . Why is it that the american auto makers can't survive in their
> own counry while foreign automakers like Honda ,Toyota etc are doing
> well . UNIONS Wall street didn't bankrupt the auto and steel industry
> and next the airlines , its the unions .
Let's do a trade. I will sell GDP, and buy unemployment. Trade starts Jan1, 2009. 100 bucks a percentage point. 4 year trade. On January 1, 2013, trade settles.
I have offered this to my big mouthed Obama accolytes and not one of them has taken it. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Keep drinking that koolaid pal, never mind all the dead bodies at your feet. If you just keep believing in that which your clearly don't understand it will work eventually.
Albert Einstein said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
But don't worry this does not apply to you because, clearly you are SURE your right.
So you, Sir, want us to go four more years like the 8 we already «enjoyed» ?
On Nov 09 08:27 AM User 294358 wrote:
> So... still... the only important thing in all of this is your "portfolio"?
> And you'll still support anything that boosts your portfolio no matter
> what it does to the rest of the country? And you'll oppose anything
> that levels the playing field between Wall Street parasites who make
> their living sucking the life's blood of this country and producing
> nothing while the people who actually work for a living go without
> basic necessities in order not to adversely affect your "portfolio"?
>
>
> Is there anything... anything at all... that might take precedence
> over a slight reduction in the amount of wealth in your "portfolio"?
> Are you truly so greedy... so selfish... that you would outsource
> the wealth of this country to one of those with "freer" economies
> (Communist China I presume) if any attempt were made to lower the
> gap between your "portfolio and my dinner table and reogn in the
> stupidity that brought us the current debacle in which you and your
> ilk remain bulletproof while we working stiffs take the hit for your
> stupidity and greed?
>
> Excuse me again, but isn't outsourcing most of the decent jobs and
> much of the investment in this country something you've already been
> doing for a while now?
>
> Of course I've gone on way too long but attitudes like yours, based
> on maintaining the Wall Street stranglehold on the wealth of this
> country was most likely the main reason Obama was elected in the
> first place. Just what the hell do you accomplish by threatening
> to take your little marbles and go somewhere else to play if he doesn't
> continue the exact same policies that brought us the biggest financial
> meltdown since 1929?
>
Both sides need to quit the finger-pointing. Life is never as bad as you think it is under a president which does not represent your political views, and never as wonderful as you hope it will be with a president who does.
It is the EXTREMIST-CAPITALIST TINKLE DOWN policies of that actor that have caused the collapse!
Obama hasn't even become president yet.
All those aging neo-CONs who cut their political teeth in Ronnie's White House have been in power for 28 years!
Ronnie's boys did a great job of destroying a once great nation and are now intent on destroying the rest of the world before they get dragged off to The Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity!
Apparently you weren't paying attention on election day.
The country REPUDIATED Reaganomics and neo-CONservativism.
Don't go away made, but DO go away!
On Nov 10 09:51 PM YoYoMaMa wrote:
> What a bunch of blathering idiots!!! Our government can't save us.
> Never has, never will. The only person that can determine your destiny
> is the guy or gal in the mirror.
>
> Both sides need to quit the finger-pointing. Life is never as bad
> as you think it is under a president which does not represent your
> political views, and never as wonderful as you hope it will be with
> a president who does.
On Nov 10 12:00 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> !RuleNoRules said:
>
> "We should not be having this argument. Reagan was the proof. After
> tax CUTS, tax revenue went UP. thats it game over, argument done."
>
>
> That observation has no meaning. One needs a controlled experiment
> to be able to make a valid conclusion. If, under essentially similar
> circumstances, tax rates remained unchanged, how would tax revenue
> have changed? You don't know so the conclusion in the quote has
> no value.
>
> In fact, several studies have been made (hypotheticals) that have
> argued that if the Reagan tax cuts had not been made, or if they
> had been reversed as the economy recovered during the 1980's, tax
> revenues would have risen much more.
>
> The problem is that no one has been using both sides of the fiscal
> policy equation. Since 1980, there have essentially been only tax
> cuts (except for Bush 1 in 1990). We would have better control over
> the business cycle fluctuations if we worked both ways on the Laffer
> curve, increasing taxes during expansions and cutting taxes during
> contractions. To make this work, of course, there must be discipline
> on the spending side so that deficits are run only during contractions.
>
>
> Too many argue that Laffer showed that the more you cut taxes, the
> greater the tax revenue produced. That shows ignorance. The Laffer
> curve predicts that when you cut high taxes, tax revenues will increase;
> when you cut moderate taxes there is little impact on tax revenue;
> and when you cut low taxes, tax revenue will decrease. Obviously,
> going all the way to zero taxes means that tax revenues will decrease
> to nothing.
>
> It is disturbing that this debate among supposedly informed people
> often degenerates to uninformed demagogery rather than logical argument.
>
>
as buffett ( the only honest man on wall street i know of) said before congress recently,
You say you lived through the 1980s, but you don't seem to recall the "starve the beast" argument. The Reaganites believed that this would be true, that deficits would inevitably lead to a reduction in government spending. But this is the true lesson of Reagan; that there is no connection whatsoever between revenue and spending.
On Nov 09 08:27 AM User 294358 wrote:
> So... still... the only important thing in all of this is your "portfolio"?
> And you'll still support anything that boosts your portfolio no matter
> what it does to the rest of the country? And you'll oppose anything
> that levels the playing field between Wall Street parasites who make
> their living sucking the life's blood of this country and producing
> nothing while the people who actually work for a living go without
> basic necessities in order not to adversely affect your "portfolio"?
>
>
> Is there anything... anything at all... that might take precedence
> over a slight reduction in the amount of wealth in your "portfolio"?
> Are you truly so greedy... so selfish... that you would outsource
> the wealth of this country to one of those with "freer" economies
> (Communist China I presume) if any attempt were made to lower the
> gap between your "portfolio and my dinner table and reogn in the
> stupidity that brought us the current debacle in which you and your
> ilk remain bulletproof while we working stiffs take the hit for your
> stupidity and greed?
>
> Excuse me again, but isn't outsourcing most of the decent jobs and
> much of the investment in this country something you've already been
> doing for a while now?
>
> Of course I've gone on way too long but attitudes like yours, based
> on maintaining the Wall Street stranglehold on the wealth of this
> country was most likely the main reason Obama was elected in the
> first place. Just what the hell do you accomplish by threatening
> to take your little marbles and go somewhere else to play if he doesn't
> continue the exact same policies that brought us the biggest financial
> meltdown since 1929?
>