|
|
|
|
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 1:49:11 PM | Hey scorpion
You have to understand how the US Consititution is set up in the first place, and its place and how it is implemented in the first place. The US Constitution LIMITS the powers that the Federal govt. has. This was done because the writers just came out of an era where they had an overreaching, overriding monarchy, and wanted to make certain that wouldn't happen again.
In order for a law to considered unconstitutional, a lawsuit first has to be brought on behalf of a certain issue, lets say, on behalf of owners of guns, who want to overturn a local statute that says you cannot own guns. The local gun owners would say that this is a "Constitutional Issue", because it contravenes the First Amendment, then an appeal would be filed to the Supreme Court on behalf of the guns owners. It would be defended by the ones who are backing that particular law. Then both sides would make their oral arguments, AFTER the Supreme Ct. has looked at and considered the written arguments. At this point, most of the Supremes have pretty much made up their minds, having read and considered both arguments, yet on occasion, they will change their minds. After oral arguments, the decision is written, usually with a dissenting opinion also written.
To say that the 10th amendment is a thorn in the side of all politicians is not really on point, as the supreme court only sees cases that challenge the Consititution, and most of what they do does not contravene the Constitution. The gun control laws are a perfect example. There are places where the local laws REQUIRE local citizens to carry guns, and there are places where gun ownership itself is a felony. THAT is the beautiful part of the Consititution, in that due to the physical size of the country, you will always have differing views, and the Consititution allows for those views. This is why it is set up for the Constitution to harness in and control the Federal Govt., instead of the people.
As far as particular taxes going for specific purposes, that has been tried in California, doesn't work, as the state legislatures will take from those coffers for their own uses. Perfect example is gas tax. How could it be any easier to track how much gas tax was collected, and where it should be used. However, they get around it somehow......... Typical politicians.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 3:33:25 PM | Keynes in the depression was primarily arguing against the liquidation of assets policies that were being spouted and saying that this would create greater devistation to the poor and middle class than he felt a country spouting Christian morals should do. He didn't like the hipocracy of the idea and the potential devistation, pain, suffering and death that a total free market would create.
Your simple idea of cutting taxes is talk radio b.s. and doesn't take into account the period between the cuts and the growth where the government can't meet debt obligations etc. ... it also isn't that simple to calculate even if 100 level economics courses lay it out that way... in rality it is not an easy math formula that always works.
Where did you get your Phd. in Economics?
During WW2 ... Galbraith advocated price and wage controls ....[you think whats happing now is a big deal ... well that was way more control by the Administration.
What is happening today is not really precident setting ... its just acting on past precidents during what is considered crisis situations.
Its easy to say the crisis isn't a crisis but we don't know what would have happened if the banks went down and GM and Chriysler went down. Its all b.s. speculation and thinking one way or another is right is stupid. We have to deal with what we have and go from there.
as for ..
Seeing how most business pays over 1/3 of everyting they make in taxes, ... that is totally false.
you have absolutely no understanding of business taxes if you believe that one. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 3:55:42 PM | Hey thorb.
You wrote;
"our simple idea of cutting taxes is talk radio b.s. and doesn't take into account the period between the cuts and the growth where the government can't meet debt obligations etc. ... it also isn't that simple to calculate even if 100 level economics courses lay it out that way... in rality it is not an easy math formula that always works."
You would do well to look at actual charts of the effect a rate cut in capital gains has on that particular activity, and how long it took for the treasury to collect MORE instead of less............................. Just one example.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:12:54 PM | rate cut in capitol gains.... is one very small part of taxes my friend.
and I love 2 dimensional charts on economic change ... they really tell us so much.
try doing it in a matrix with all the other factors of society also in play....
that would be closer to reality. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:17:56 PM | ^^^^^^
Tax rates get cut, taxes amounts collected goes UP............. and that is not reality.....
Other societal factors as what? That it makes it easier to buy/sell, ESPECIALLY for those in the lower income brackts? Now that would be a bad thing........ because why? Or is it because we are taking the capacity of the politicians to do their social experimentation? Another bad thing, right?
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:50:48 PM | RE Msg: 101 by Paul K:
You have to understand how the US Consititution is set up in the first place, and its place and how it is implemented in the first place. The US Constitution LIMITS the powers that the Federal govt. has. This was done because the writers just came out of an era where they had an overreaching, overriding monarchy, and wanted to make certain that wouldn't happen again. I got that. We've got lots of laws like that.
In order for a law to considered unconstitutional, a lawsuit first has to be brought on behalf of a certain issue, lets say, on behalf of owners of guns, who want to overturn a local statute that says you cannot own guns. The local gun owners would say that this is a "Constitutional Issue", because it contravenes the First Amendment, then an appeal would be filed to the Supreme Court on behalf of the guns owners. It would be defended by the ones who are backing that particular law. Then both sides would make their oral arguments, AFTER the Supreme Ct. has looked at and considered the written arguments. At this point, most of the Supremes have pretty much made up their minds, having read and considered both arguments, yet on occasion, they will change their minds. After oral arguments, the decision is written, usually with a dissenting opinion also written. That's a reactive system, like expenses. It works well, when you have very few cases, and where most of the people are honourable to not sue for unfair claims, and to be proactive to sue for most of the things that they are entitled to.
But when you don't have that:
1) When you have lots of people suing for things they are not entitled to, then the rights of others often get trampled on, because it's really hard to clarify the truth when so many are very astute at manipulating the jury.
2) When you have lots of people not suing for things they are entitled to, then the rights of others often get trampled on, because those trampling on their rights know those people will not sue very often.
3) When you have lots of cases, then the admin for those cases rises astronomically, just to deal with them, and lots of claims are settled unfairly, because they just get lost in the huge numbers that the courts have to cope with.
In that situation, it becomes more like wages based on hourly rates, because that's exactly what you get, lots and lots of wage slips for each day, lots and lots of workers trying to claim for a lot more hours than they worked, and lots of workers who are being pushed by supervisors to work lots of extra hours without pay, and that pushes those workers past their strength, and then those workers perform far worse, or have a breakdown, and you lose good workers, and have to pay for their time off work.
In those situations, proactive mechanisms become far more efficient and cheaper. So companies with workers on an hourly rate, put in time-clocks, to punch in and punch out, and employ people to make sure that the workers are punching in their time-cards, and no-one else's, and employ book-keepers to work out wages objectively, and pay them rather than waiting for them to claim they are owed $500, for only working hours worth $250.
There is a rise in general admin in adding all those measures. But it works out a lot cheaper, because you still need to employ just as many people to work out all those claims in a reactive system.
However, it takes rather a long time for people to realise that, because a lot of people would rather cut costs and not pay for the extra admin right away. Many would rather lose money hand over fist for years, before some bright spark does a very complex study that shows conclusively that they'd be better off using a proactive system.
We've got the same problems here too. Healthcare, welfare benefits, education, and cases to protect rights, all are currently reactive, and they all have huge numbers of people cheating the system, and huge numbers of people who don't know enough about the system to get what they need and are entitled to, and lots of cases are delayed or have to go through several appeals to get dealt with properly, some taking several years.
Eventually, it will become proactive. But at the current rate, maybe not for 100-200 years. That's a long time to correct a serious imbalance, which will SAVE us a lot of money to do so.
This is why it is set up for the Constitution to harness in and control the Federal Govt., instead of the people. Yes. But when the PEOPLE are the ones who have to bring suits to the courts, under their own expense during the duration of the court proceedings, it's the PEOPLE who are trying to control the Federal Government, using the constitution and the law to support their claims. Whoever brings the suit, controls if it is brought at all.
As far as particular taxes going for specific purposes, that has been tried in California, doesn't work, as the state legislatures will take from those coffers for their own uses. Perfect example is gas tax. How could it be any easier to track how much gas tax was collected, and where it should be used. However, they get around it somehow......... Typical politicians. That's not a problem for the system. That's a problem of not actually doing anything about the system when it's being abused.
The UK is going through the biggest political scandal in many years, the MP expenses scandal, because a lot of MPs were claiming tens of thousands of pounds for expensese they weren't really entitled to. The laws are changing now to restrict them from such practises.
You can also pass laws to restrict politicians from "borrowing" from designated coffers for use in other areas. You just need to do it, and not be afraid to go after dodgy politicians, like you did with that senator from Illinois. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 5:01:07 PM | Hey scorpion.
Very nicely written, but you missed the major point.
you wrote:
"It works well, when you have very few cases,"
In reality, there are very few cases that make it to the supreme court level. Look up and see just how many ajudications the supreme makes every year.................... There is a good reason for this, and that is the idea is to keep as stable a system as possible, and that involves very few changes. Seeing how every case that shows up before the Supremes is potentially a change in the Consititution............. well, you can see the potential for chaos if they were to hear thousands of cases per year...............
You wrote:
"Whoever brings the suit, controls if it is brought at all."
HUH??? What do mean by this? I missed your point entirely. If there is a serious Consititutional issue that arises, lets go back to the gun control example, there will ALWAYS be found enough money or attorneys who will work pro bono, for either side, if necessary to bring it before the supreme court. Lack of money is never an issue at this level.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/3/2009 4:15:29 PM | Paul, There is two sides of a curve. The thing about Laffer is that like trying to find the optimal price point for a product. Most products don't find this level, along the elasticity scale. So too deep of a cut you transfer the Federal obligation down to the State level. This causes taxation problems in themselves, such as sale, property, or income tax. Then you have to deal with the Corporate tax structure. Taxes aren't mono-dementional. You have to look at the symboitic nature of the Federal and State tax structure.
I remember seeing a interview on CNBC with Laffer (Kudlow report) where he was advocating for Kenyesian spending. Yes the direct spending is Government directed. The point that I didn't bring in my last point and I think is very important, is that the US was on the Gold Standard vs. our current Fait monetary system. This is what keep inflation under control after the depression. We also weren't printing money at an alarming rate.
Thorb, most people now argue that the leading cause of the Great Depression was the run on the Banks. I don't see the colapse of General Motors, or Chrysler rising to the same level. However, I do think that Finance Banks, and Insurers do rise to that level. I think the Congress just go save happy and overreached. I am not arguing that GM should've gone out of business. Chrysler has been having problems before Dylalmler bought them.
The Constitution states in Article I section 9 No Money shall be drawn form the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to Time. So where is the printing of all the expenditures of all these public funds being spent? Is some in the Congress getting kick-backs for the use of the Treasury? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/3/2009 4:33:59 PM |
the leading cause of the Great Depression was the run on the Banks
It was the run on the banks (staged by J.P. Morgan in the early 1900s) that convinced the President and the American people that they needed a (private) central bank for economic stability.
The cause of the great depression was the Fed's contraction of the money supply. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/3/2009 5:02:31 PM | ^^^^
Lets see now, since the Fed contracted the money supply, that caused thousands to buy stocks on very thin margins, and when they couldn't meet those margins, everything collapsed. BUT, it didn't collapse until the Fed contracted the money supply...........................
Somehow that is supposed to make sense.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:01:06 PM |
since the Fed contracted the money supply, that caused thousands to buy stocks on very thin margins
Did I forget to mention that before they contracted it they were running the presses constantly churning out dollars to create an illusion of wealth? Where do you think all the money that pumped up the market came from? They created the bubble, then popped it with a pin. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:45:46 PM | Hey dukky
The "bubble" that was created was created by people buying stocks on razor thin margins, and it popped when a great deal of them couldn't meet the margin calls.
but I agree with you, it was the feds fault..............
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/4/2009 1:18:08 AM | | Yeah...It was just "standard" procedure for a crooked central bank; pump up the credit so everybody borrows like crazy to "invest" (see the similarity to the "housing crisis?" - cheap mortgages, cheap credit...Buy now & sell at a profit when the price goes up) in the "boom", then withdraw the credit by contracting the money supply (credit)...All of a sudden, prices drop...investors have insufficient money to make the payments, margin calls...forced sales...panic selling..."POP"...There goes the weasel bankers. taking their money back along with all the security they demanded, like houses & farms... | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:29:50 AM | Hey dukky
It was a lot different then when compared to now. There is so much "dis-information" in your post that it is hard to know where to start. During the time before the depression, almost anybody could buy any stock on margin. "On Margin" means that with a very small percentage up front, almost anybody could buy stocks, and if they went up, sell them and keep the difference between the price they contracted for the purchase, and how much they sold the stock for. In this contract to buy is a proviso that says that if the stock went down a certain amount, you would be liable for the full amount of the contract. At that time, there were kids barely out of high school that ran information back and forth, after all, al gore hadn't invented the internet yet, and they were making MILLIONS, albeit on paper. When the market took a dip, as it normally does on occasion, all of a sudden a lot of people couldn't meet the margin calls, and defaulted........... This is what led to the market collapse, as the increase in stock values was illusory at best. THAT is what led to the eventual collapse.
What kept us there was a combination of the Smoot-Holly tariff act that acted as a block to free trade, and implementation of keynesian "economics" to a certain degree...........
I wrote this because you seem to have a general lack of what really happened........
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/4/2009 10:51:35 AM | I know all about margin buying & margin accounts. What you are overlooking is that the creation of so many dollars (which weren't required by the economy) resulted in them going into the stock market, thus inflating the value of stocks and kicking off the stock market bubble, which being unregulated (the wonderful "free market" at work) allowed a 10:1 margin. Once the man in the street saw that a small investment yielded great returns over a short time, he became a gambler (He probably didn't understand market fundamentals anyway) and put as much as he could into the market. This was a "wonderful" state of affairs for the common man, who seemed to be getting rich for doing nothing...and so the bubble grew until...something popped it...Guess who started reducing the money supply, which stopped the buying spree, which caused some selling, which caused a dip, which caused the margin equity to dry up, which...well, you get the idea.
Have you noticed the similarities between the "easy money" of the twenties and the "cheap mortages" of the late nineties & beyond? Have you noticed the enticement of profiting on a home mortgage and profiting from margin buying? (They both relied on values continuing to rise). Have you noticed what burst both bubbles? Have you noticed (in both cases) who had the control of the money supply to do it? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:47:31 AM |
Tax rates get cut, taxes amounts collected goes UP............. and that is not reality.....
simply ... no ... that is not reality ... without other factors causing more money to be generated.
that is like saying I cut the water flow and more water flows into the tub.
Other societal factors as what? That it makes it easier to buy/sell, ESPECIALLY for those in the lower income brackts?
you think a decrease in capito gains would give lower income people more money ... your crazy ... maybe some of the middle class
but mostly only the rich.
gawd you have a twisted idea of what reality is.
Other social factors ...
the biggest being consumer confidence ...
means more than any of your other crap.
that is the main reason for the market recovery ...
its confidence mixed with speculative greed.
the reason to keep jobs and get money flowing is to bolster confidence in the economy and get people spending versus saving . As was stated before ... saving is up ... mainly due to lack of confidence and any tax cuts would most like go into saving on their own without a bolstering of confidence. If you cannot be confident in a job with what was once the largest corporation in the world then where can you? Hence some support for GM was given instead of your stupid idea of just liquidating them and burning all the people involved.
As for Keynes and the great depression ... he was just a young man and fought hard to stop fools with the same ideas you have from slashing and burning many many more people than got taken down as it was. ... Galbraith who helped keep inflation and greed from destroying the ww2 effort was very impressed by Keynes and I have to respect his opinion. Galbraith was respected and rewarded by Kennedy with the ambassidorship to India and took direct phone calls from him regularly even though he was a Canadian with an Agricultural Economics background who taught at Harvard. I think I will give a bit more creedance to their ideas than some regergitated rhetoric.
other social factors ....
the value of the US dollar on the global market
[changing imports and exports and therefor production levels , job security , wages , taxes paid]
interest rates for borrowing ...
causes cost of buisness to rise or fall changing taxes due
causes cost of mortgages and rents to rise and sometimes fall changing deductions on taxes and therefor taxes collected.
cost of transportation
food
utilities
in otherwords ... all of the standard essentials of life
cost of healthcare
they all make a difference and if not factored into the formula ... your formula is b.s.
then even when they are factored in ... the variability of the formula from +or- factors shown in dummy varriables .. makes it unreliable.
so much for the accuracy of your economic math formulas. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/4/2009 5:44:43 PM | Hey thorb
you wrote:
"simply ... no ... that is not reality ... without other factors causing more money to be generated.
that is like saying I cut the water flow and more water flows into the tub."
I've heard off point analogies before, but that one is the furthest off point I can imagine. I am never surprised to hear it, because usually those who say that have been schooled in a certain way of thought, and they don't even bother looking at what actully happened.
Here is what I mean. When you cut the tax rates, what that does is leave money for R&D, hiring, growing business. I know that according to you, all that the greedy evil corporations will do is vote each other raises at the top, but what actually happens is that commerce....... ready for this?............ GROWS THE SIZE OF THE PIE. Cutting taxes is not a zero sum game. It is very dynamic, in that you are not taking money from one entity to the detriment of another, what you are doing is allowing commerce to grow. AND, it HAS worked everytime it has been tried.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/4/2009 5:53:49 PM | ^^^Great post. That is why it is important to look at the CPI both weighted and unweighted, libor, forex, consumer confidence is how fast money is moving in the system. I think you should add the big ticket items too, Housing, and Cars. These numbers are a great indicator of how healthy an economy is. I feel secure in my job to spend my money on a product that I will be paying on years. I can get the money lended to me at a fair rate. My personal (leverage/margin) isn't so thin that normal fluxuations in the Consumer Price Index (inflation) is going to hurt me. I am secure that my dollar is going to hold some value, I can get the same amount of goods at a stable rate of tenure.
Because I work for a MNC multinational corporation, I don't put a lot of stock in the global market. It is to volital to factor correctly. Just look at oil production out of Nigera. Constant disruption.
Models give a idea of what is going to happen when certain factors occur. Too bad all of the above is showing bad things ahead for us.
Gadget. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 12:37:18 PM |
Here is what I mean. When you cut the tax rates, what that does is leave money for R&D, hiring, growing business. I know that according to you, all that the greedy evil corporations will do is vote each other raises at the top, but what actually happens is that commerce....... ready for this?............ GROWS THE SIZE OF THE PIE. Cutting taxes is not a zero sum game. It is very dynamic, in that you are not taking money from one entity to the detriment of another, what you are doing is allowing commerce to grow. AND, it HAS worked everytime it has been tried.
Paul are you just talking about corporate tax rates? I'm curious, as one of them evil economists I can't resist this :P | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:09:41 PM | Collateralized Debt Obligations, falsely held up by Credit Default Swaps, and the CDOs, built entirely out of subprime mortgages, rated AAA through an outdated mechanism and inexperienced raters, leading to trillion dollar deficits ..... causing major banks and financial institutions to fail unless they are "propped up" by taxpayer dollars ... and decreasing taxes is going to solve this??
In publicly held corporations, a Board of Directors, elected by share holders, hold management responsible for performance of the company. The feds now represent a sizable portion of the "ownership" of some companies. Major shareholders have a right to influence performance decisions in a corporation. This has been the case for decades. The only "murky" area remains that the feds seem to be operating outside of the BOD mechanism, and giving direct orders to management. IF this is the case, this is not good.
It's not a good idea to murky the boundary between the federal government and private industry. But this was done by necessity. Through Art 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the feds have the power to "regulate commerce;" however, this seems to be a case of the feds having sizable ownership of Commerce. Since it was out of necessity, and it seems to be meeting no Constitutional Challenge, I won't quibble with that. But it's still not a good idea. Korea can do it through its chaebol system of governance, but it's not a good idea. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:37:09 PM | I am never surprised to hear it, because usually those who say that have been schooled in a certain way of thought, and they don't even bother looking at what actully happened.
beats not being schooled at all Paul .... you obviouly cannot comprehend the rest of my post.
your little model is over simplified and has not worked every time ... you are a perfect example of someone who has fallen for talk radio propaganda and seems to want to support the rich getting richer while the poor become more slaves than they already are. Have fun in your rose coloured world of b.s.
Cutting taxes for the lowest denominator of people would help but cutting taxes for the exploitive rich is relying on trickle down economics ... hmmm ...
this is where the poor rely on the upper and middle class to leave them some crumbs of that bigger pie. Generally that bigger pie has just gone to the rich ... who are now proportionally richer than ever in history. Therefore greedier and less trustworthy of letting them have any more to trickle down off their glutonous chins.
if you want to look at actual graphs [I know you like them] about the effect of tax cuts to the rich in the economy you can see them at ... http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html ...
notice its a .org site not a .com
here are their conclusions .. drawn in 2003 ... so the real picture has been available for a long time.
Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.
| |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:50:38 PM | It's a simple economic fact that the poor and middle class need the tax cuts to put money into their hands to buy things and boost demand...which will boost production and create jobs...which will prove profitable for the companies, etc.
Cutting taxation at the top will accomplish what? The extra money won't be invested in declining company stocks (and will probably be invested in a growing economy like Asia), and companies won't have any reason to ramp up production,.. so it's little benefit to the economy to give tax breaks to the corporations and the rich. The only ones to derive benefit is the corporations and the rich...The economy (and most of the people in it) will still suffer. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:52:48 PM | RE Msg: 107 by Paul K:
Very nicely written, but you missed the major point. I might have made it unclearly.
you wrote:
"It works well, when you have very few cases,"
In reality, there are very few cases that make it to the supreme court level. Look up and see just how many ajudications the supreme makes every year.................... There is a good reason for this, and that is the idea is to keep as stable a system as possible, and that involves very few changes. Seeing how every case that shows up before the Supremes is potentially a change in the Consititution............. well, you can see the potential for chaos if they were to hear thousands of cases per year............... The word case, means a situation that happens. If 1000 people in America get assaulted each day, that's 365,000 cases of assault in a year. Even if 95% of those cases were the same people being hit every day, that's STILL 365,000 cases. It doesn't matter if the situations are similar either. They are still different cases.
The number of cases of infringement of rights making it to the Supreme Court, are very small, because most cases of infringement of rights are never taken to court, and the vast majority that do, either are thrown out of court, or are resolved by another court. But, the number of cases is still huge.
Perhaps I was wrong to use the word "case". If "situation" or "event" or "single occurrence" is what you would understand, then by all means, use that to understand how I said "case". Remember, I was describing it in terms of commonly occuring things, which would almost never reach the Supreme Courts, but where rights are trampled over, every single day, such as the huge numbers of cases of fraud that small businessmen suffer from.
You wrote:
"Whoever brings the suit, controls if it is brought at all."
HUH??? What do mean by this? I missed your point entirely. If there is a serious Consititutional issue that arises, lets go back to the gun control example, there will ALWAYS be found enough money or attorneys who will work pro bono, for either side, if necessary to bring it before the supreme court. Lack of money is never an issue at this level. There is plenty of money and plenty of attorneys. But that doesn't change one fact. For a case to be brought, someone has to bring it, and it is those people who are ultimately able to shut down a trial of a situation, simply by never taking it to the attorney in the first place, and the attorney simply does not know that the case exists, or he cannot persuade the person to bring the case to trial. It's a subtle point, like "you can draw a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." It doesn't matter, till your horses are too dehydrated to work, and still refuse to drink, because then, no matter what you do, you cannot get them to work. All you can do is shoot them, and buy new horses. In the same way, if people won't bring their problems to court, which most don't, and it makes their productivity much lower, which it does, then you cannot make them take their problems to court, but the country suffers anyway due to a huge lack of productivity, and you as a beneficiary of that country, suffers as a result.
The only way I've seen that this works, is when the agencies of the government act proactively, to seek out infringement of rights wherever it exists, and punish those who violate other's rights highly, to such an extent, that no-one wants to take the risk, and everyone ensures they don't violate other's rights. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 8:12:02 PM | Thorb, those charts were an oversimplification of what was occuring durring the periods of question. Many of the periods orginaztion highlights were periods of rectraction in the business cycle (recession). You had to know what each President was doing and why he chose to do it. Regan did a good job, but then again, he blended various economic theory to come up with his Trickle down theory. They make no mention of the tax increase in 1991 under H.W. Bush. Or the switch to the Fait system by Nixon, or gas crisis. Then you have to factor in minium wage and inflation as a reflection of income growth.
I'm a Fair tax myself. However this isn't a very good research proposal. Someone with a background in economics would question it. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/5/2009 8:24:42 PM | they are just working with the simple results that were claimed.
showing the claims were false under their own terms.
its simple two dimensional graphs that Paul was advocating.
he is proven wrong.
as for questioning it ... all economic models are constantly questioned and for good reasons.
As I said before .... to factor everything in the model is so complicated that nobody has a reliable predictor.
even Regan's main man David Stockman [budget director] later became very skeptical about trickle down ideas.
they only favour the rich. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
