OT: Rating the President

[Dralasite]

Here something I don't understand. How is W's tax policy different from Bush seniors? I don't think they call it "trickle down" economics anymore (its "supply side" now, right?), but I can't tell how it is different, if it is.

[Fyron]

(sound familiar? lower taxes on the wealthy make people want to borrow by lowering interest rates)"

Maybe you need to read an economics text book too. Those 2 things are in no way directly related. Lowering interest rates does not _always_ cause problems. In fact, sometimes it is the best thing to do for the economy. It depends on the current issues at hand. And, the president has NO influence/control over interest rates.

The main cause of the depression was lack of regulation of the stock market and banking institutions.

No, that is not true. There were many things that caused the depression, not just 2. Overproduction as a result of WWI caused a lot more damage than lack of regulation. Regulation in no way equals prosperity. Too much regulation does more harm than not enough regulation (unless you want to support the huge corporations at the expense of small businesses, of course).

I guess trying to help these people doesn't fit into your philosophy, but a revolution probably would have been worse

Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.

the New Deal helped alleviate the tensions.

My argument was that FDR's actions did nothing to help the economy. The GDP continued to fall throughout most of the first and second New Deals. Only WWII saved us from the depression.

As far as the deficit goes - where did you get your info or did you just make that up?

Let's see... overspending + low tax revenue = deficit.

There was a spike during WWII - but based on how you feel about war that shouldn't bother you.

And how do I feel about war? I have made no Posts indicating how I feel about war. What do you base this on?

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Fian:
Well, in America the Rich are the ones persecuted, because they make a smaller voting block than the poor.

Now thats funny. If they are persecuted why don't we get rich american boat people down here, instead of poor iraqi/afghani/pakistani ones?
They might be a small part of the voting block but I've got this suspicion they're somehow getting their own way, based on the facts that they own every fricken thing and continue to get richer and richer.

Askan

[Fyron]

People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe you need to read an economics text book too. Those 2 things are in no way directly related. Lowering interest rates does not _always_ cause problems. In fact, sometimes it is the best thing to do for the economy. It depends on the current issues at hand. And, the president has NO influence/control over interest rates.

The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.

No, that is not true. There were many things that caused the depression, not just 2. Overproduction as a result of WWI caused a lot more damage than lack of regulation. Regulation in no way equals prosperity. Too much regulation does more harm than not enough regulation (unless you want to support the huge corporations at the expense of small businesses, of course).

That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.

Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.

You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.

My argument was that FDR's actions did nothing to help the economy. The GDP continued to fall throughout most of the first and second New Deals. Only WWII saved us from the depression.

You may be right - I am not going to look up the number, but the New Deal was instituted because there was a genuine fear that the government might collapse.

Let's see... overspending + low tax revenue = deficit.

You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious.
The rich own/control pretty much everything.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious.
The rich own/control pretty much everything.

---

That is how it is everywhere. That is how it has always been. Why is the US so special in that regard?

The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.

Except that the economy is not so simplistic as it has to be for that to work.

That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.

There was less overproduction after WWII than there was after WWI. I did not say that overproduction was the only cause, only that it was more important than the 2 things you mentioned.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.

Don't take what I said out of context. That is worse than drawing conclusions about things I never mentioned.

You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.

The deficit did not magically become a problem in the 80s. It was a problem long before then. The 80s are only when it became popular for people to complain about it.

[ February 06, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]