Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Cigar, Nov 27, 2017.
The dying remnants of debt based consumerism?
Nope - just more bitching-on-a-blog about how the world as we know it is falling apart. In fact, life goes on in America. The rich get stoopidly richer and the poor can go to hell.
Hell is all about Income Disparity in the so-called Greatest Democracy on Earth ...
NB: "Income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for some 30 years."
Who was PotUS 30 years ago and caused upper-income taxation to come crashing down? It all started with JFK in the 1960s but it was, finally, Replicant Ronnie Ray-gun who performed the hatchet-job. See for yourself here: History of Income Tax Rates Adjusted for Inflation.
And nowadays, we-the-sheeple are paying the awful consequences of this historical fact:
Within that bottom 90% lives almost all of the American "middle-class". But also 14% of fellow Yanks are living below the Poverty Threshold (meaning earning $24K a year for a family of four). (See that figure from the Census Bureau for your state here.)
Nationally, that's close to 41.3 million American men, women and children. Comparably, the states of, say, California and Nebraska.
Now tell me I'm just making-it-all-up ...
Try again. This time present a counter-argument:
Tax cuts are a reference to the idiocy of supply side economics (and it is idiocy as its based on a naive understanding of flawed labour supply theory. Naive understanding of flaw is impressive in its own way mind you!). Reference to innovation would, at the very least, refer to encouragement of SMEs. You don't get that by pandering to the rich elite dear chap...
Tax-cuts are simply a tool necessary in times of crisis to relaunch the economy by giving consumers more money to spend.
Taxes are a necessary evil. It has proven idiotic to think that a market-economy can do everything. It cannot, so governance is necessary at all three levels - town/city, state and national to assure certain communal necessities.
And one of the more profound idiocies (found in the US) is that the two fundamental attributes of mankind (the mind and the body) can be provided with all that is necessary to function correctly by a market-economy.
Only the intervention of the state can assure that Education and Healthcare can be available to all and always as necessary ...
Why promote consumption when you can boost the economy, with long term gains, through investment?
I get a pretty good tax cut under this plan, and I'm not rich, so piss off
Because a market-economy depends first and foremost upon consumer consumption. It is the largest part of aggregate demand at the macroeconomic level. Workers work in order to fulfill their own part - they are the ones who demonstrate Demand for goods/services.
I.e., consumption "drives" the economy. (Quite simply: Consumers Buy and Businesses hire workers to produce goods/services - which they also buy. Making consumers not businesses the key players in the Demand and Supply Economic Model.)
Investment is ALWAYS justified by Consumer Demand. This is the first lesson any business-person learns. Without consumer-demand there is no logical reason whatsoever for businesses to justify investment expenditure.
There are exceptions:
*There is no consumer demand to go to the moon, and yet we get a kick out of it happening.
*There no consumer-demand whatsoever to live below the Poverty Threshold, and yet about 14% of the American population is forced to do so. (So, some subvention of revenue in this category is necessary.)
*There is consumer-demand for Education (primary through tertiary) and we've learned that it can be crucial to both the economy and thus the way we live. So, it should be a key on-going investment provided to all who seek to better their lives.
*Ditto a National Health Service that has proven (in other numerous comparable economies) to assure longer lifespans and better living conditions.
I could go on, but why bother the point is made. The economy - just on its own - cannot sustain an acceptable lifestyle if 14% of the population is incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold and another 20/30% are living above the Threshold but still in comparative poverty. (Whilst about 20% of those in the upper-income category are earning mind-bending salaries tens and hundreds and thousands of times more than those in the lowest category of poverty.)
PS: So what does the Donald Dork do? He fulfills a campaign-promise and reduces upper-income taxation. Yeah, right! Who are really the people in dire need - like himself and his family ...
Highest rates are being applied to those earning a few multiples af the mean, not "tens to hundreds of thousands times more"
Simple solution is to finish HS and not get pregnant by a stranger . Has nothing to do with economy but rather liberal attack on and destruction of the American family and American values.
No, not much.
But these are the real consequences here from the NYT:
Six Charts That Help Explain the Republican Tax Plan
Namely, and I quote:
In red above means effectively top-income rates are lowered. Whereas bottom rates remain about the same ...
top 1% pay 46% of all taxes, not 1% as they should, so we must reduce their taxes!!
But the bottom rates aren't paying and likely get free cash in the form of credits
BS, here's what happens:
Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Soclialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses
Humanity gave feudalism a go and evolved away from it. Eventually humanity will evolve away from american style capitalism as well, and for the same reasons.
The solution is to remove the socialism for the aristocracy
Bwa ha ha ha ha, yeah, make sure you vote, bwa ha ha ha ha ....
What do you mean when you say "depends upon"?
Here's a thought experiment. Let's say, by some weird phenomenon, overnight every tool and machine made of metal, plastic, or silicon suddenly disappeared. Assuming that consumer demand didn't change, would GDP go up or go down? Would our standard of living improve or deteriorate?
"Is driven by ..."
That will never happen, so the question not relevant.
It won't happen because automation assures that production continues - just with far less workers on the production line. This keeps costs down and allows companies to continue manufacturing - otherwise they would easily decamp and set up operations in Mexico and import products ...
Totally absurd and childlike. It would cause an instant and deep and decades long depression
Someone taught you to say socialized losses when really the bankers paid back all the loans they received and many banks went bankrupt and owners and shareholders of those banks Lost their total investment. Compare that to field individuals getting welfare every month and never paying back a penny. Now that is a real socialized loss in on a scale 10,000 times greater than a tiny Wall Street issue.
So? It's income and must be declared and taxed (even if at minimal rates).
Aint no free-lunch anymore in America - especially for those below the poverty-threshold. What they get allows them to "survive" not "live".
what they get is free food free housing free education free medical care free military free infrastructure valued at about $60,000 per family this is more than the average French man has to spend. In fact our Poor live in apartments bigger than what the French middle class lives in
While @LafayetteBis avoided the issue, @james M recognized that the key to a productive economy is capital equipment. Without tools we would be digging up tubers with our bare hands.
In their next life, they should open a book and do a few hours of math, science and english homework every day while in public supported schools.
They never paid back a penny of the $1.3 trillion per year over 4 years that the got from the FED I the form of QE. Not only did they receive this cash, the FED removed worthless assets from their books and paid them face value.
How many folks that lost their shirts on their investments got cash from the FED at face value?
Separate names with a comma.