OT: Our Economy (US)

[Atrocities]

Political parties are all about economic policies. When you say that blaming one is ridicules, you fail to understand that blaming one is exactly correct in this instant. If you do not understand economics, then you do not understand the argument. There are two types of Americans, those who earn intrest, and those who pay it. 90% of Americans pay interest, and it is that 90% who also pay 99% of all taxes. The rich are protected and they will always be. That has been the nature of our unequal economy since its inception.

For the 90's, many Americans earned a lot of extra money, stocks, over time, better paying jobs, and Clintonomics (Clinton’s Economic Plan) took 27% over your standard tax rate. He paid down the deficit among other things. However, Americans were paying more taxes instead of saying money. Now, we are in a recession, and most Americans had no savings to fall back upon when the song stopped.

I did, but many of the people I worked with did not. In the Last 9 months the only people who have profited from this economy of the kind of people who bottom feed. You know them, the investment bankers. The people who buy your home at public auction and then bill you for the balance while selling your dreams at an incredibly inflated profit.

Economics has made and broke many countries, USSR for one. Back in 94 Clinton passed laws that seriously limited several sectors of the Free Market. We are now feeling the strangle hold of those laws.

The major difference about these two political parties is simply a difference of economic views.

One method of economic stimulus my work, while the other may work better or worse. Worse is where we are now. Where do you want to be in 6 months from now? Home at your desk playing SEIV, or living in an over inflated costly apartment eating TopperOnmin trying to play SEIV pbw on dial up?

Look what happened in the past, and see what worked and what did not. Higher taxes, wage fixes, and price fixing have always caused inflation and poor economic times. While lower taxes, free market, and no economic restrictions, say past those to prevent meltdown, have always brought about good economic times.

In the 90's, free market was attacked, AT&T, Microsoft, Health care, Tabacco, firearms, auto makers, forestry, etc. Sure some of these, indeed most, profited by stepping on the small guy, but that is how free market works. Its is not a "government kept fair" system. That line of linking is called socialism. Unfair business practices can be addressed and stamped out in court, or buy consumer protection laws. But to have the Government come in and take to trial nearly every business in the US during the 90's for liability issues was killing our economy.

Law suites and legal games choked free Market, and now we, the people who pay interest, are really paying for it. The law suites were not about consumer needs, or fair business, but about sucking money out of the free market into the pockets of trial lawyers. Trial lawyers who supported Clinton and his methods. Make the rich guys pay us money. Think about it, did any of the law suites do anything for you? Did you get any money from the Tabacco settlement? No you did not, but do you know who did? Yes, the trial lawyers. They made billions. They did that at our expense, and at the expense of our economy. Clinton provided the atmosphere for them to do it, and he allowed it too happen.

Bush’s economic plans may scare a few, but only those who believe Kainism is the way too go.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Will]

I would just like to point out one thing first: The President doesn't pass laws. That's right, the President does NOT pass laws. To blame everything that happens to the economy on the President sitting at the time is a huge exageration. Congress passes laws, the President signs them. True, this gives him (or, perhaps sometime in the future, her) some control over what gets turned into law, but it doesn't go very far. A veto blocks every part of a bill, which is why it is not often used; it brings everything to a halt, sometimes delaying things for years. So, economic policy is directed to some extent by the President, but Congress has most of the authority.

Next, just as a recession is not good for people in an economy, growth that is too rapid is also a bad thing. Most of the policies implemented while Clinton was in office were to prevent the economy from "overheating". Had actions not been taken to control growth, the recession could have come much, much earlier. Think of it this way: when there is lots of growth, businesses start to build an inventory of goods. There comes a point where there is so much excess inventory, that production is cut back, meaning workers are cut back. Businesses still have their supply to sell, yet suddenly the workers/consumers can't buy them. This is basically what happened in the Depression. You can curse these policies all you like in hindsight, but in reality, they were what was needed at the time.

In response to Mudshark, Isolationism isn't the answer. Been there, done that. But back then, the world economy wasn't nearly as interconnected as it is now. The United States buys things from everyone, and everyone buys from us. To simply say "to hell with the rest of the world" is economic suicide. It could also turn out to be the suicide of our entire civilization. Sure, we're a superpower, the only one left. But, to use a SEIV analogy, we're also right on the edge of MEE, and the only thing keeping us from MEE is the fact that it is more profitable to be our friend. Cut off the rest of the world, then we no longer become profitable, and I don't care how advanced the military is, we might not survive.

That's all I have to say about that (for now

[tesco samoa]

One thing I do not like. Is how Western culture tries to impose its morals on other culters.

I highly recommend the book Can Asians Think ?

by by Kishore Mahbubani.
Published by Key Porter.


As for American Economic's. 1 word.

homogenize

And the same thing has happened in Canada.

I hope this is just a fad.

Because there is something wrong with the idea that I can shop and eat at the same places as with every one else on this forum. I hope it is just a fad and it has only 20 to 30 years left....

[Atrocities]

quote:

---

The President doesn't pass laws. That's right, the President does NOT pass laws. To blame everything that happens to the economy on the President sitting at the time is a huge exageration.

---

True, however, the President sets policy, and economic policy has nothing to do with laws passed by congress. Tax increases and breaks have to be approved by congress, and they are often passed because the President, whomever he is, wants it passed.

What happened in the 90's was what happened in the 20's. I agree that Free Market with out checks and balances often implodes. When our economy was running hot, Clinton lifted sanctions that opened the flood gates. Asia dumbed their semi-conductor market on into the US, and under cut Japan. They took the meaning of Free Market too far. Clinton should have realized this, and introduced restriction on importations. He did not because he was reaseving money from China. That is a proven fact.

NAFTA is anther example of a good idea for the rich to get richer. Do you know about Chapter 11 in NAFTA? Basically is allows any company out side of the USA to sue the USA government if the US hampers or otherwise prevents the sale of their product. Just ask California about it.

You see, if a Canadian company tries to sell Depleted urianium candy bars in the use to get rid of their nucler waste, and our government says NO, they can sue our government for lost revenue, and more often than not, they win.

Its all about money. It has always been about money. People who have it want more of it, and those of us who needed and have little of it get pinched for more of it.

Take this for example, Washington State does not have an income tax but Oregon does. Washington State has a huge sales tax, nearing 10%, and Oregon does not.

Now a person living in Washington who works in Oregon has to pay Oregon income tax while a Oregonian who buys stuff in washington does not have to pay sales tax.

The reason Oregonians do not have to pay sales tax is because you can not tax without repersentation. However, taxation without repersentation does not apply to washingtonians who work in Oregon. We have to pay Oregonian income tax. We have no repersentation in Oregon, and therefore the taxing of our citizians is illegal. But since Oregon gets money for it, Oregon will not budge, and often refuse to return money to Washingtonians at tax return time. They claim it is all theirs because we do not live in state and therefore are not justified in having any excess tax payments repaid. And since Washington want too keep the people from Oregon coming over here to buy things, they too won't do a god damned thing about it.

Both states are Democratic lead.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[dumbluck]

Since you all like one liners, here's one to sum up your arguments, Atrocities:

It's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Or here's another one:

Everything and everyone has it's price.

And a personal favorite of mine:

Physics doesn't make the world go 'round, money does.

And of course:

Money is the root of all evil. However, I don't agree with this one. A more accurate statement is The desire for money is the root of all evil.

There is no democracy. There is no government. There are only policy makers who's opinions and votes are up for sale to the highest bidder. The reason human rights violations are hardly ever opposed is because it is hardly ever finacially beneficial for those currently in power to oppose them. The reason Big Business is very seldom opposed by Big Brother is because Big Business's money is very seldom less important than the individual constituant's opinions (and thus, continued support). Only when the individual constituants' voices are raised as one; only when the disparate individuals join together into a mob, is Big Brother forced to heed their words. And rare indeed is there an issue that can rally all the people under one banner. And even then, it is sometimes not enough; Big Business's sirens song of campaign contributions can occasionally drowned out even the loudest outcries of the mob mentality; especially if it is not an election year.

[dogscoff]

I don't want to upset the Americans here (Well, maybe a little ), but personally I hate the American economic model and the way it is gradually taking over the entire world.

Actually, it's not so much the economics of it (capitalism has it's advantages) but the culture of rampant consumerism that comes with it: The unquestioned belief that economic growth is good and that any price is worth paying for it - The idea that it is better to produce, market and sell crap that no-one wants or needs simply to keep money moving around within the economy than it is to produce nothing at all. It strikes me as a lazy and morally empty philosophy to live by - it's certainly highly inefficient and environmentally unsustainable.

People talk about "economic growth" as if it is necessarily a good thing. Why is it? Is ecomic growth actually benefitting mankind? The world economy has been growing and growing for decades but the gap between rich and poor just gets bigger: The sum of misery on this planet increases exponentially. The economy that we have been growing (Like the flesh eating plant in "Little shop of Horrors" )is a hungry monster that just demands to be fed more and of the world's resources- not to mention the human cost: The increased stress and pressure in workplaces and job markets; The meaningless redundancies just to keep share prices up; The third world sweat shops, The marginalisation of those people who are unprofitable (ie the elderly; those too disabled to work); The social stigma for those who can't afford the latest bit of advertised uselessness; The fore-mentioned human rights abuses ignored for the sake of profit... the list goes on. This is the price that consumerism and economic growth demand. Is it really worth it? What do we get in return? All the very best for the ultra-rich. Diminishing free time, increasing stress levels and a placatory amassment of material goods for the working masses: Misery, exclusion and poverty for the rest. And that's just in the industrialied world - Don't get me started on the [BIG NUMBER]% of the world's population without clean water or a hope of an education.

People talk about progress, but who can actually say what we are progressing toward? I can't say for sure but it's certainly not the altruistic, utopian future I read about in sci-fi novels.

I realise that I am posting questions and not answers - I'm not clever enough for answers - but I think that the world needs to stop for a minute, decide just what it wants to achieve, and then look at whether or not what we are doing is actually taking us toward that goal.

Of course, it ain't gonna happen...

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Askan Nightbringer]

Well put Dogscoff.

On the question about the benifit of economic growth here's what the CIA web site says at the what's happening in the USA. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)

Quote from under the heading of Economy - Overview

"The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."


Now as an interesting side note the CIA website also describes the United Kingdom as a cold little island somewhere east of New York, known mainly for its breeding of lousy cricket players and that angry woman who sank the Argentinian boat.

Unfortunately it labelled my country as being reknown for claiming New Zealand born superstars as their own. Bugger.

Askan