Republican positions have no basis in reality

If that was true than I'd like to know why Obama keeps shifting his position more like the Republicans? Didn't he just agree to cut business taxes? Didn't he also agree to give tax breaks to business that moved into the country? Didn't he extend Bush's tax cuts? All Republican positions.

 

First of all, most wealthy people do not squat on their money. They invest what they don't consume. Thus, the money flows outward to others just as surely as if they had spent it.

Secondly, wealth can't flow anywhere without wealth flowing in the opposite direction, as previously mentioned. How can their be a "net upward flow," then, when any money traded to a rich person will be exchanged for something else flowing from the rich person?

Market value is subjective. If you sell me a widget in exchange for $5, it is because the widget was worth more than $5 to me and less than $5 to you. Acts of exchange could not take place otherwise.

 

I said "wealth" not "money." Usage of property is a form a wealth, insofar as it fulfills the preferences of the consumer.

Who? How so? By what mechanism?

 

This is a stupid question. I was going to try to answer it but it's so ignorant it's not worth addressing.

 

Well, isn't that convenient? And very typical of pro-aggressionists: to resort to smarmy one-liners after their preschool talking points are made short work of.

 

The wealthy own a much higher percentage of the wealth/money supply now than they used to before deregulation and tax cuts.

 

He is explaining what is known as the circular flow of an economy. In an economy without trade, government, or a financial sector, wealth equally flows. The only difference is the form of that wealth when it is flowing from households to firms, or firms to households.

 

Deregulation? Tax cuts? I guess you didn't read my first post:

"Economic controllers also make much of changes to income tax rates, ignoring other factors such as deductions, leniency of tax avoidance laws, levels of borrowing, state and local tax rates, tariffs, excise taxes, payroll taxes, inflation, etc. When you look at the more relevant statistic of total government revenue as a percent of GDP, you find that it has only risen steadily over the years. Thus, the economic burden of the state has grown, not shrunk. Regulations have also only expanded over the years. The claim that we've been living under some laissez-faire regime for thirty years is a left-statist fantasy."

As shown by this graph:




Wow, those dastardly Republicans sure have gutted poor Mother State.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...rowing-rich-poor-gap-20110223-141311-132.html

There, I debunked your asinine position in two sentences.

 

Obviously, you're not paying the slightest iota of attention to anything I'm saying. I'm saying that we have not have a free market or anything close to a free market since 1979. We have not had "supply side" or "deregulation" or any such thing. Rather we have--and have had since at least the 30s--"mixed economy" quasi-fascism without a year, month, or week of relief.

Thus, as a free marketeer, I wash my hands of any economic ill of recent times, as it did not happen under the auspices of the kind of free market I support, but under the muddled economic statism that you support.

 

What you said was that money cannot flow upwards, which is utterly preposterous.

 

Non-sequitor. We are not anywhere close to overpopulating the earth, and no there is no such thing as too much economic growth as long as it's natural.

What is a "quality" standard of living? It's all relative. This makes no sense at all. Our standard of living is "Quality" compared to 1962. 1900's standard of living was "quality" compared to Midieval Europe. 1900's "quality" standard of living would be considered poverty today. I disagree that using the tools of totalitarianism to force people to remain at levels that may have otherwise been considered "poverty" 50 years from now is a sustainable way for a healthy society to advance. Kinda reminds me of how during the enlightenment, the Catholic Church used government force to cause science to remain stagnant becuase advancement of humanity supposedly contradicted the Bible.

Not necessarily, but you misunderstood my point. Technological increases will always occur and always lead to economic growth. By saying that economic growth is unsustainable so the government should intervene to cause economic growth to remain stagnant, you're essentially saying that technological improvement should be outlawed. I disagree that is a sustainable way of running a healthy society.

 

Science and reality say otherwise.

What is natural about our economy? Only farming, logging and fishing.

 

No basis in reality is like idology, Just a idea with no substance. Sounds good on paper, and is easy for the simple minded to follow. Hence it's effectiveness on the masses of dumb people. Take religion for example.

 

I was talking about wealth not money (anything of value to people is wealth), and I meant given a free market atmosphere of voluntary exchange. Of course, aggression can cause wealth to flow from the victims to the aggressors without reciprocation.

 

Baseless claim.

Exactly my point. There is hardly anything natural about our economy because it is all artificially controlled through some form or other of central economic planning. And you're advocating more central economic planning as a solution to problems caused by central economic planning.

Baseless claim.

 

That's nonsense. We can easily and comfortably fit the entire population of the US just in Texas alone.

You have no idea WTF you're talking about.

Also crap. "Natural" references the desire for private citizens to transact based upon each other's needs, skills and items to trade.

 

Yeah that's why you gotta get them while they're young. Perpetually inform little children that they're going to burn in Hell for all eternity if they don't have faith. It's not like that will (*)(*)(*)(*) with their heads or anything.