So Kansas, how's the trickle tasting?

[Lady Dragonheart]

I don't understand how anyone could like Reagan. He's a president who actively harmed the people of this nation. When pressed into a bad situation with thousands of jobs lost to globalization the decision he made was those shift all the wealth to the top and greatly devalue the american worker.

It was mostly because he was a renegade in his appeal. At least, he was when he was running and became president. He had the appeal of being a badass that didn't really take people's bullshit and that's why people liked him. His politics don't work for the current era, though, I agree. However, I liked and voted for him when he was running/in-office.

[Masark]

I don't understand how anyone could like Reagan. He's a president who actively harmed the people of this nation. When pressed into a bad situation with thousands of jobs lost to globalization the decision he made was those shift all the wealth to the top and greatly devalue the american worker.

[Nadiru]

Sorry but this is utterly laughable. Japan in the 60-80's had one of the most equal income distributions on the planet. China was communist and functioned under a different economic model so household savings didn't fund investment as you suggest. SK I don't know enough about, and Brazil never had an economic miracle in the 60's-80's period.

As for the US the problem is not regulatory. But that -

a) there are simply not enough productive investment opportunities because too much income has been shifted to the wealthy meaning there is not enough consumption to create the necessary investment opportunities. Put simply people cannot afford to buy what all that investment would produce so the investment doesn't happen (instead we get share buy-backs and bubbles).

and b) the system has increasingly been re-orientated to be driven by short-termist decisions. Investment has a long term horizon which can span decades. If you only care about how well a company does for the next couple quarters be you the CEO, or a shareholder, then you are not going to want that company to make an investment decision that will pay off a decade from now.

Japan had one of the most equal income distributions on the planet...because households as a whole were made poorer than the government sector, with the excess being sloughed off to the manufacturing sector. China hadn't functioned under communist economics since 1978-79, and Brazil had an economic miracle, to the point where that's where we get the term.

You're mostly right about a), but b) is questionable at best. Investment has literally always been financed using short-term contracts; nobody outside of government contracts sets up a funding contract spanning in the decades.

- - - Updated - - -

The countries you mentioned weren't the apex economies of the world. They have external demand for their goods. Thinking economic policies that work there would work in the apex economy of the world is stupid. The US largely drove their demand. They also weren't developed countries in the 60s. So those countries' version of trickle down wasn't actually trickle down. As far as the global economy is concerned, they're still helping the poor which drives demand. Realize that our country's version of trickle down doesn't have some better off economy exporting jobs here that's also buying our goods.

That's totally something the US could fix with monetary policy adjustments, though. The rest of the world would be worse off for it and China might actually collapse into a neo-Warring States period, but the US could definitely make it so it makes net exports to the rest of the world instead of making net imports from the rest of the world.

[alexw]

Japan had one of the most equal income distributions on the planet...because households as a whole were made poorer than the government sector, with the excess being sloughed off to the manufacturing sector. China hadn't functioned under communist economics since 1978-79, and Brazil had an economic miracle, to the point where that's where we get the term.

You're mostly right about a), but b) is questionable at best. Investment has literally always been financed using short-term contracts; nobody outside of government contracts sets up a funding contract spanning in the decades.

- - - Updated - - -



That's totally something the US could fix with monetary policy adjustments, though. The rest of the world would be worse off for it and China might actually collapse into a neo-Warring States period, but the US could definitely make it so it makes net exports to the rest of the world instead of making net imports from the rest of the world.

You stated that between 1960 and 1980 inequality increased shifting income to wealthier households and this sparked an investment boom in china, japan, south korea, and brazil.

Japan during that period was one of the most equal nations on the planet meaning that for Japan your argument is fundamentally wrong.
China during that period was communist and functioned under a different economic model meaning that for China your argument is fundamentally wrong.
I've stated I don't know enough about the economic situation of South Korea to be able to comment.
For Brazil I'll admit I was wrong, but then, you are once again fundamentally wrong too. The link you provided shows it had nothing to do with inequality (and indeed it can't have because as has been proven rising inequality slows growth), but was due to state investment and urbanization.

[breadisfunny]

I don't understand how anyone could like Reagan. He's a president who actively harmed the people of this nation. When pressed into a bad situation with thousands of jobs lost to globalization the decision he made was those shift all the wealth to the top and greatly devalue the american worker.

because bygone it he made the big bad commies go away and sold arms to fight the good fight. i mean if we don't fight the scary reds who else will?

[abracmike]

wisconsin can totally outstupid louisiana governors. scott walker accepts your challenge.

Gov. Walker can outstupid just about anyone though... (failing to think of counter-examples at the moment)

On second thought, Sheriff Clark may be able to beat him in that competition.

[breadisfunny]

Gov. Walker can outstupid just about anyone though... (failing to think of counter-examples at the moment)

On second thought, Sheriff Clark may be able to beat him in that competition.

i don't know maine has some very stiff competition.

[Nadiru]

You stated that between 1960 and 1980 inequality increased shifting income to wealthier households and this sparked an investment boom in china, japan, south korea, and brazil.

Japan during that period was one of the most equal nations on the planet meaning that for Japan your argument is fundamentally wrong.
China during that period was communist and functioned under a different economic model meaning that for China your argument is fundamentally wrong.
I've stated I don't know enough about the economic situation of South Korea to be able to comment.
For Brazil I'll admit I was wrong, but then, you are once again fundamentally wrong too. The link you provided shows it had nothing to do with inequality (and indeed it can't have because as has been proven rising inequality slows growth), but was due to state investment and urbanization.

Inequality is not just between households, it's also the relative size of economic sectors as a whole. When the government or manufacturing sectors show a surplus, that surplus is funded universally by a counterbalancing household deficit. Every time a country exports goods, the reason a country exports goods is because it has insufficient consumption to use them domestically, because that's what a trade surplus is, by definition.

China was not Communist in the 1980s and the absolutely explosive boom China experienced in the 1980s provided more justification for what you would call "trickle-down" policies in the West. Household inequality is badwrong, but an unbalanced economy (aka inequality amongst sectors) is income inequality writ large.

[Machismo]

The problem wi th most Republicans, is that they want to cut taxes, but don't have a solid plan to cut government t spending. It's entirely possible to do, you just have to be willing to make sacrifices.

[KOMO1211]

Okay... considering no one listens to politicians and their promises I guess it's not surprising he won by a lot. Plus Brownback wasn't always a 'terrible' name in the state. No offense, but you sound like a typical has to bash Johnson County person. I do live in Johnson County and it's not all roses and rainbows. I live well below the poverty line for a single person. And here's the thing Johnson County brings in a lot of money (most of counties around KCK do) than the counties in western Kansas where it's all farm land. Sorry that seems to offend you.

i am not offended.i am on the other side of the state line just poking fun. but JC and about 2 other counties are blue out of the entire state. the liberalism is kind of isolated to you folk.

[breadisfunny]

The problem with most Republicans, is that they want to cut taxes, but don't have a solid plan to cut government t spending. It's entirely possible to do, you just have to be willing to make sacrifices.

the problem with libertarians is they seem to think small government works on a large scale. it doesn't. this isn't the 1800's anymore and you can't support a 300,000,000+ population by scaling back government.

[alexw]

Inequality is not just between households, it's also the relative size of economic sectors as a whole. When the government or manufacturing sectors show a surplus, that surplus is funded universally by a counterbalancing household deficit. Every time a country exports goods, the reason a country exports goods is because it has insufficient consumption to use them domestically, because that's what a trade surplus is, by definition.

China was not Communist in the 1980s and the absolutely explosive boom China experienced in the 1980s provided more justification for what you would call "trickle-down" policies in the West. Household inequality is badwrong, but an unbalanced economy (aka inequality amongst sectors) is income inequality writ large.

No. Income inequality is not the size of economic sectors. That is nonsense. You don't get to personally define the commonly understood term, income inequality, in the way that you feel it should be. Take Denmark for example. It is commonly accepted as one of the most equal nations on earth. Yet its government sector makes up 55-60% of GDP.

And yes I already understand that if one sector is in surplus then there must be a balancing deficit elsewhere in the system. Basically you are describing sectoral balances.

China certainly was communist in 1980, it had only marginally begun to deregulate then, and the 80's growth had absolutely zero to do with trickle down. It was as a result of the deregulation of the economy. In fact if you look at where the capital came from for China's growth it came from external sources. If a country runs large trade surpluses then by definition there must also be large inflows of capital and this totally makes sense since as there simply was not enough internal capital to fuel such explosive growth, it HAD to come from outside - poor nations don't have the internal capital stock to become first world in 30 years.

And yes the Chinese economy is severely unbalanced, way over-investment in industrial capacity, and way too high inequality meaning there is not enough internal consumption so it floods the world with goods and deflation. But that is not the same as inequality. Again you don't get to define what inequality is.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem wi th most Republicans, is that they want to cut taxes, but don't have a solid plan to cut government t spending. It's entirely possible to do, you just have to be willing to make sacrifices.

Yes like sacrificing school systems, roads, poverty relief, fire departments, social security, etc, etc. Just so the wealthy get more money to pump up asset prices with. We need higher taxes and more government spending not less.

[Tijuana]

an entire state v 1 city????... oh snap! I love the comparison though.

You do know there is only like one decent sized city in Kansas, and most of that one is in Missouri, right?

Michigan probably has several cities that are not Detroit, that have more people than all of Kansas.

[GennGreymane]

You do know there is only like one decent sized city in Kansas, and most of that one is in Missouri, right?

And Detroit isn't the only thing in Michigan.

[Tijuana]

And Detroit isn't the only thing in Michigan.

Yeah, that's what I said in the post you quoted. You just didn't quote it all.

[GennGreymane]

Yeah, that's what I said in the post you quoted. You just didn't quote it all.

You added it later.

[Nadiru]

And yes the Chinese economy is severely unbalanced, way over-investment in industrial capacity, and way too high inequality meaning there is not enough internal consumption so it floods the world with goods and deflation. But that is not the same as inequality. Again you don't get to define what inequality is.

and way too high inequality meaning there is not enough internal consumption so it floods the world with goods and deflation.

But that is not the same as inequality.

???

/10char

[Machismo]

the problem with libertarians is they seem to think small government works on a large scale. it doesn't. this isn't the 1800's anymore and you can't support a 300,000,000+ population by scaling back government.

You assume we should be supporting all those people.

[satimy]

Its not about generosity, its simply about spending.

The problem is the rich make way more money than they can spend. So when they don't spend, we get fucked.

Its supposed to work more for corporations and not individual rich people.

Example: Corporation gets a billion dollar tax break. The hope is that that corporation possibly builds another factory, so they can turn MORE profit. That factory stimulates the economy for contractors to build, utilities offered, creates jobs, creates more product for people to buy, people buy and the factory can turn out more... etc.

Individuals don't spend infinitely. Even if they have a private jet, 12 cars, 5 mansions etc. At some point you run out of things to spend it on.

Also rich people don't invest like us plebeians do. They don't invest in stocks, they invest in finite resources, fuel, water, land. But then they hoard it and wait for it to be worth blood. Tis the way of kings i'm afraid.

But you are assuming that this income not being spent is sitting in a checking account....it's not. It's held in other aspects of the economy like real estate,financial markets and so forth.

[Machismo]

No. Income inequality is not the size of economic sectors. That is nonsense. You don't get to personally define the commonly understood term, income inequality, in the way that you feel it should be. Take Denmark for example. It is commonly accepted as one of the most equal nations on earth. Yet its government sector makes up 55-60% of GDP.

And yes I already understand that if one sector is in surplus then there must be a balancing deficit elsewhere in the system. Basically you are describing sectoral balances.

China certainly was communist in 1980, it had only marginally begun to deregulate then, and the 80's growth had absolutely zero to do with trickle down. It was as a result of the deregulation of the economy. In fact if you look at where the capital came from for China's growth it came from external sources. If a country runs large trade surpluses then by definition there must also be large inflows of capital and this totally makes sense since as there simply was not enough internal capital to fuel such explosive growth, it HAD to come from outside - poor nations don't have the internal capital stock to become first world in 30 years.

And yes the Chinese economy is severely unbalanced, way over-investment in industrial capacity, and way too high inequality meaning there is not enough internal consumption so it floods the world with goods and deflation. But that is not the same as inequality. Again you don't get to define what inequality is.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes like sacrificing school systems, roads, poverty relief, fire departments, social security, etc, etc. Just so the wealthy get more money to pump up asset prices with. We need higher taxes and more government spending not less.

You wouldn't need bigger government and more taxes if you would be willing to provide for yourself. We make the false assumption that only government can provide all those things.