Economics

[mglenn]

I guess need you to address for me the evils of "Big Oil". From my limited understanding of how the this world works, oil makes the world go round. Without it the entire worlds economy goes in the dumper. So is it any mystery that one of the goals of our government is to make sure their is a stable supply of this resource.

Hey if a corporation doctors the books and such I'll be right there with ya demanding those responsible. But these issues you are raising are not holding water. If they were you would be seeing far more about it. Or is the BBC and CNN part of the Skull and Bones as well?

Now as for the Clinton prosperity here are some facts:

1) The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that in the year 2000 we were in the 18th year of one long wave of prosperity. It began in 1982 with the supply-side policies of Reagan - tax-rate cuts, sound money, deregulation, free trade, and victory in the cold war. Michael Cox of the Dallas Federal Reserve Board has found that over the past 200 months, since the Reagan prosperity began, the economy has been in recession just eight months, or just four percent of the time.

2) The bullish stock market began in 1982, not in 1992. Then, the Dow Jones was at 800. In 2000 it was at 11,000. ( mglenn note: today it's at 8402, the fall came from the internet bubble and was no fault of any president. )

3) It is also instructive to examine the stock market during the Clinton presidency. From 1993-95 the Dow rose from 3,200 to 3,800. But from 1995 to 2000 the Dow rose from 3,800 to 11,000. About 90 percent of the gain in asset values happened after the Republicans
took control of Congress and the markets were assured that Clintonomics would be curtailed.

4) Interest rates and inflation began their long-term tumble in the early 1980s. In 1980 mortgage interest rates hit 20 percent and the inflation rate hit eleven percent. Since the early 1980s inflation has fallen by roughly a half a percent per year. There were three people responsible for the lowering of inflation and interest rates: Reagan, Paul Volker, and Alan Greenspan.

5) Clinton boasts that his world record tax increase in 1993 caused interest rates to fall. Actually, from 1993 through November of 1994 (when Republicans won control of Congress), interest rates rose by 50 basis points.

6) When Bill Clinton entered office the economy was growing at a four percent rate (4th quarter of 1992). After Clinton's tax hike, the economy stalled to a 2.6 percent rate.

7) After two years of Clintonomics, the budget deficit was still well over $200 billion. In early 1995 the budget deficit was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to remain over $200 billion for as far as the eye could see. So much for the idea that Clinton's $500 billion tax hike balanced the budget. What changed this gloomy outlook on the budget? The GOP balanced budget plan in 1995. Who can forget 1995? In that year Bill Clinton closed down the government twice to avoid the Republican's balanced budget and the White House was forced to submit five budgets until he finally proposed one without a deficit.

To be sure, Bill Clinton does deserve some of the credit for this astonishingly resilient expansion. Where his policies have been most productive - for example, in promoting free-trade agreements, signing the Republican welfare reforms, cutting the capital-gains tax, and allowing Alan Greenspan to smother the last remnants of inflation in the financial system - he has sensibly followed the economically liberating path laid out by Reagan.

[JPP13]

mglenn, let me crystallize yuor position, so it may be addressed clearly:

Clinton was bad for the economy, Bush is good.

OK, do I really need to respond? Now that its all on the table the readers of this post (if any) can judge for themselves.

(I guess my 401k missed out on all those statistics you mentioned)

(PS - I told you all it drives the Far Right NUTS to point out 8 years of peace and prosperity).


Whats bad about Big Oil? On its face, nothing. Whats wrong with the Oil Industry having its boys run things? Cheney? Bush? Kenny Boy? It enables the government to operate to ensure the profitibality and sustainability of the corporation and the rich few who profit from it, at the expense of the rest. One easy example - the drilling in Alaska (to help Haliburton) while simultaneously gutting the Clean Air and Clean water Acts.

BTW, before you try and hang the socialist tag on me, a few thoughts. I have a degree in economics and I'm an attorney for a large corporation.

[mglenn]

Clinton was bad for the economy, Bush is good.

No thats not what I said. If you wish to boil it down to its base I believe that democrats attempt to demonstrate that the average american can not live without their social programs. But instead those programs do not solve the problem and instead make it worse. Welfare promotes lazyness!

I believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy by allowing americans to keep more of what they earn!

I have a degree in economics and I'm an attorney for a large corporation.

Good, I know I'm not having a discussion with an idiot!

So let me put forth an economic question to you. If the price of gas suddenly dropped to 90 cents a gallon tomorrow would it have a stimulating or stalling effect on the economy?

I'm going to make a hugh leap here ( hugh because your thoughts on the media still floor me ) and assume you'll agree that it would stimulate the economy by greatly reducing the cost of everything, because it now cost less to move product. It also increases the amount of money the average individual has, and as such they are more than likely going to buy more goods. And we can see where this goes in that circle that is Supply and Demand.

Now the average american pays far more in taxes than they do for gas, so why would giving them their money back, or not taking it in the first place, not have the same stimulating effect?

Whats bad about Big Oil? On its face, nothing. Whats wrong with the Oil Industry having its boys run things? Cheney? Bush? Kenny Boy? It enables the government to operate to ensure the profitibality and sustainability of the corporation and the rich few who profit from it, at the expense of the rest. One easy example - the drilling in Alaska (to help Haliburton) while simultaneously gutting the Clean Air and Clean water Acts.

You say you work for a big company, have you ever used your position in that company to help out a friend? I work for a cable company and I have bumped a friends cable modem speeds up, or gotten their PPV opened on a fight night. This stuff happens everywhere, your just pointing it out cause the rewards are bigger! The value I gave my friends was small because of the position I hold, If I were the owner I could give them free cable. A much bigger value. If the position of power is greater it only goes to figure that the value one can give is bigger as well.

But none of that is really the issue here. Do you have a good job and provide for yourself and your family? Being an attorney for a large corporation I would assume you are doing fairly well. But yet to me your comments smack of jeolousy towards those that have more than you.

What is stopping you from being rich?

I'm 28 years old. I started, operated the first ISP in Butler PA in 1995 at the age of 20. In less than 2 years I had over 1000 customers which equated to 20% penatration of the telephone customers in the area (That was unheard of back then) and I still ran the company with only one other person to help with the books. In April of 97' I sold the company and payed off the $30,000 loan received from a local back as will as my car and my parents for the addition that they added to the house for my office. And I still had a sizable amount left. I went to work for the local cable company whom I still work for today. I currently own my second house. The first I sold for a $30,000 dollar profit after two years and the apartment that came with the house payed the monthly payment while I was there. I am remodeling my current house and expect to see the same level of profits only with a bit more time invested. My credit rating is sky high and I have little outstanding debt.

I have a 401K too, but as you can see I'm not real worried about it cause its not what I'm planning my retirement on. I'm building my retirement myself. In the next 10 years I plan on purchasing a minimum of 3 more houses as rental properties. If all goes to plan by the time I am 55 I'll own over 2 million in real estate and be earning at least $100,000 a year in income from those properties.

So although I don't have the paper certificates that you do I have the experience to back up my claims of understanding how the economy works.

What I'm saying is stop buying into the class envy thats being sold to you. If Bush, Cheney, and Kenny lost all their money tomorrow would it change your life at all? ( Well actually it would because if that happened it means the oil markets is s**t and the price of gas goes up and you lose more money! )

[starbug]

If you wish to boil it down to its base I believe that democrats attempt to demonstrate that the average american can not live without their social programs. But instead those programs do not solve the problem and instead make it worse. Welfare promotes lazyness!

Oh no! Another debate!

I don't believe for one second that welfare programs promote laziness. I live in a country where we have an extensive welfare programme (we call it social security though not welfare). The schemes are revised constantly and are at times very unfair. Most of the time, actually.

I am glad I live in a country where the government has a system that at least tries to pick up those who are less fortunate in life and not let them completely fall through the net. For whatever reason.

They're disabled; not their fault.
They're sick for a long time; not their fault.
They are made redundant and can't find replacement work for a few months; not their fault.
They leave work to have kids and look after them; not their fault. In fact in this case, a positive bonus for society.
A relative gets chronically ill and they need to leave work to care for them full time at home; not their fault and a bonus to society (costs of care not charged to NHS).

Welfare is wider than just 'that lazy fat arse who won't get a job'.

Now of course there are some lazy individuals who sponge off the state. I want to see them gone as much as the next person; I work hard, I pay lots of tax and I don't appreciate it when some lazy person refuses to look for a job because they'd rather sit on their big fat one all day.

But there are a lot of people who have to deal with unfair crap life deals them. Some day, I might be one of them. I don't mind paying for a system that helps those people when they need it. So long as they genuinely need it and they aren't just being lazy.

The government has tried to ensure that being on welfare will never be more profitable than being at work. Unemployment rates are falling. People are going to work. Those who choose not to because they'd like to live on the welfare pittance are in a vast minority. I'd rather pay for that minority to be lazy than not have the welfare net in place.

I don't agree that welfare PROMOTES laziness. There are lazy people. there always will be. It shouldn't be impossible for the welfare system to weed these people out and deal with them. It's not the idea of welfare that's at fault, it's the people, and the way the system works. The idea of welfare is, in my opinion, to help those who need it when they need it. IMHO the bedrock of a civilised society.

Just some more of my rabid liberal left wing tendencies

[mglenn]

I'm not saying that taking care of a fellow human is a bad thing. I just don't think the government is the best organization to do the items you mention. There are thousands of private organizations out there that take care of those in need. If we weren't paying 25% to 50% of our income to the government we would be able to give more to those organizations and I would be able to make the choice of which of those organizations I give my money to so that I'm sure the money is being used well.

As for leaving work to watch the kids, why is it that both parents have to work? If they made 25% more a year do you think they would both need to work? 50% of all marriages end in divorse, and something like 75% of those are due to money issues.

Cut welfare so you can cut taxes and watch the country improve!

[starbug]

There are thousands of private organizations out there that take care of those in need.

do you mean charities, reliant on public donations? If so, do you think that cutting taxes would mean more donations to these charities? I don't think so. I think people would take their extra dosh and spend it on holidays etc.

or do you mean private companies designed to make a profit? I don't think people should be making a profit on a welfare system...

sorry, don't know what you mean here.

As for leaving work to watch the kids, why is it that both parents have to work? If they made 25% more a year do you think they would both need to work? 50% of all marriages end in divorse, and something like 75% of those are due to money issues.

Good point. Both parents should not have to work to have a decent quality of life. I agree. But I'm not sure the extra 25% would make enough of a difference. And look at the other public services that would have to lose out. I don't think that the USA spends half of its tax income on welfare for mothers who don't want to work... maybe 1%. So you're suggesting cutting the taxes by half? How would you fund the vital work governments do to keep the country running?

[lance]

Okay,

Time to debunk some myths.

Why is that the right wing think tanks in this country have such an interesting hypocritcal take on human nature?

On the one hand people on welfare are lazy, they want to be on assistance and they are lazy. They have to be constantly monitoried and watched so they don't fleece the hard working tax payers.

Do you actually know people on assistance? I do. Most of them have jobs, many of them don't want to be on assistance. But if the choice is going without medication, losing their heat during the winter or starving some people have to go on assistance. IMHO at its base the morale worth of a society is determined by how it cares for those most in need: the elderly, mentally ill, the poor and children. By this standard the US does well, but could do better.

On the other hand these same think tanks believe the best way to stimualte the economy is to let people who already make tons of money make more money with tax cuts. The theory here being that rich people are inheritantly better people than poor people and in their undeniable virture they will invest their money, provide for charity and move the economy along. This is bogus. Many people of means will simply save their money or they might build a second or third home or place it in an offshore account. There is simply no guarantee that providing more money to people who already have plenty will stimulate the economy.

To sum up: The poor have to be monitored closely lest they become even more lazy and shifty. The deserve their fate, pull themselves up by their boot straps, tough luck on your lot in life. The rich have been endowed with greate wealth and all the social goodness that that implies should be allowed to do what ever they feel like and get praised for it.

You can't have it both ways. If you want a fair society and you apply one aspect of social behavior to one strata of society, then you need to apply to the other stratas as well.

Best,

Lance Man

[mglenn]

On the one hand people on welfare are lazy

No its not that people on welfare are lazy its that welfare promotes lazyness. Its simple psychology, reward someone for something (in this case doing nothing) and they will do it again. The dems telling them that they deserve it makes even worse in my opinion. Being on welfare should be a stigma in my opinion because it forces people off the roles and into the work force. ( We're back to that whole ashamed thing again. You think its bad, I think it forces us to improve ourselves! )

Most of them have jobs, many of them don't want to be on assistance

Thats my point!

But if the choice is going without medication, losing their heat during the winter or starving some people have to go on assistance.

I'm not arguing should we have assistance or not. But I don't believe that the government is the best way to do it.

On the other hand these same think tanks believe the best way to stimualte the economy is to let people who already make tons of money make more money with tax cuts.

Come on we're in the "no spin zone" here! The taxed do not make more money when they are not taxed as much. They keep more of what they make. Its their money.

The theory here being that rich people are inheritantly better people than poor people and in their undeniable virture they will invest their money, provide for charity and move the economy along. This is bogus.

You're right it is bogus... and is not what anyone believes. The rich are not better than the poor.

Many people of means will simply save their money or they might build a second or third home or place it in an offshore account.

First off its not the governments business what people do with their money. If I save my money in a can under my bed does this make me a bad person?

Second if they build a house or two do you think they build it themselves and cut down their own trees for lumber and pack their own adobe bricks? Not hardly, they contract out to Joe average american to do the building and buy lumber from the local lumberyard and all that money trickles down to the "poor".

Third if the taxes are low then there is no need to put the money in offshore tax shelters.

There is simply no guarantee that providing more money to people who already have plenty will stimulate the economy.

Sure there is, everytime its been tried its worked. JFK did it, Reagan did it and the 94' congress did it! And everytime the economy has improved and unemployment fell.

To sum up: The poor have to be monitored closely lest they become even more lazy and shifty. The deserve their fate, pull themselves up by their boot straps, tough luck on your lot in life. The rich have been endowed with greate wealth and all the social goodness that that implies should be allowed to do what ever they feel like and get praised for it.

To sum up: Those on welfare should have pressure on them to become a productive member of society. Productive members of society have nothing to be ashamed of. The rich have been endowed with nothing that they did not earn! Their decision and work have lead to their wealth and should be be rewarded not punished. Wealth is created not distributed! Bill Gates has his fortune because he created it! If he stops investing that wealth back into creating more of his product he will stop creating more wealth. As well Bill is also one of the worlds largest charity contributers.

[lance]

But if the choice is going without medication, losing their heat during the winter or starving some people have to go on assistance.

I'm not arguing should we have assistance or not. But I don't believe that the government is the best way to do it.

But government is the only agency LARGE enough to guarantee that people in all 50 states will get the assistance you need. When was the last time that you personally paid to get a highway built? When was the last time that average Joe American personally payed for a stealth bomber? We all contribute our taxes to our elected representatives who in turn set policy. Private charities simply don't have the resources to it all on their own. I am all for a well funded military but I am also for social programs that help out people in their time of need.

On the other hand these same think tanks believe the best way to stimualte the economy is to let people who already make tons of money make more money with tax cuts.

Come on we're in the "no spin zone" here! The taxed do not make more money when they are not taxed as much. They keep more of what they make. Its their money.

Spin has nothing to do with it, its called a progressive tax system. Wealthier Americans pay more because they make more, that's called fairness.

The theory here being that rich people are inheritantly better people than poor people and in their undeniable virture they will invest their money, provide for charity and move the economy along. This is bogus.

You're right it is bogus... and is not what anyone believes. The rich are not better than the poor.

Not true many of the policy wonks in the current Administration are the same employed in Bush Senior and Reagan Administrations who have voiced this opinion.

Many people of means will simply save their money or they might build a second or third home or place it in an offshore account.

First off its not the governments business what people do with their money. If I save my money in a can under my bed does this make me a bad person?

Second if they build a house or two do you think they build it themselves and cut down their own trees for lumber and pack their own adobe bricks? Not hardly, they contract out to Joe average american to do the building and buy lumber from the local lumberyard and all that money trickles down to the "poor".

Third if the taxes are low then there is no need to put the money in offshore tax shelters.

Ahh but what is patriotism? Isn't it patriotic to pay one's share of taxes to insure that Goverment and the programs that it runs work? Isn't patriotic for a company that does business in the US to pay US taxes?

There is simply no guarantee that providing more money to people who already have plenty will stimulate the economy.

Sure there is, everytime its been tried its worked. JFK did it, Reagan did it and the 94' congress did it! And everytime the economy has improved and unemployment fell.

And the deficet exploded and the gap between rich and poor grew

To sum up: The poor have to be monitored closely lest they become even more lazy and shifty. The deserve their fate, pull themselves up by their boot straps, tough luck on your lot in life. The rich have been endowed with greate wealth and all the social goodness that that implies should be allowed to do what ever they feel like and get praised for it.

To sum up: Those on welfare should have pressure on them to become a productive member of society. Productive members of society have nothing to be ashamed of. The rich have been endowed with nothing that they did not earn! Their decision and work have lead to their wealth and should be be rewarded not punished. Wealth is created not distributed! Bill Gates has his fortune because he created it! If he stops investing that wealth back into creating more of his product he will stop creating more wealth. As well Bill is also one of the worlds largest charity contributers.

By the same token shouldn't wealthier members of society have pressure put upon them to help out more? If government is not the answer the money has to come from somewhere, where is that going to be?

Best,

Lance Man

[mglenn]

When was the last time that you personally paid to get a highway built? When was the last time that average Joe American personally payed for a stealth bomber?

Come on now... welfare is totally seperate discussion for highway and defense spending. I've never said that we the government does not have the right to tax.

Spin has nothing to do with it, its called a progressive tax system. Wealthier Americans pay more because they make more, that's called fairness.

Ah but under a flat percentage tax those who make more would still pay more. If you want fair then everyone giving the same percentage of their income is indeed fair.

Not true many of the policy wonks in the current Administration are the same employed in Bush Senior and Reagan Administrations who have voiced this opinion.

Reagan never made such statements. Bush senior never made such statements. The idea is not to dump the poor in the gutter. Its an understanding of human nature and our desire to impove ourselves. Your view punish those who make it and reward those who fail!

JFK said it best: "Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country!"

Ahh but what is patriotism? Isn't it patriotic to pay one's share of taxes to insure that Goverment and the programs that it runs work? Isn't patriotic for a company that does business in the US to pay US taxes?

I'm not sure what you are asking in reference to what I posted about the rich and what they do with their money. Please clairify.

And the deficet exploded and the gap between rich and poor grew

Lets look at Reagan's tax cut where this is most often the argument. First off Reagan wanted a 500 billion dollar tax cut, but the dems controlled the house, so do you know what he got? A 750 billion dollar tax cut!!! Huh?? Where did that come from? Well to get his plan passed Reagan needed to court votes from dems. To get those votes he was forced to give tax breaks to the constituens of these dems.

Now when Clinton took office the deficit stood at around 200 billion dollars. Hmmm 250 billion in extra tax cuts that were not needed and a 200 billion dollar deficit left... so whos fault is the deficit. Oh and who created the deficit that Reagan inherited? Wouldn't have been the 30 of dem control of congress?

By the same token shouldn't wealthier members of society have pressure put upon them to help out more? If government is not the answer the money has to come from somewhere, where is that going to be?

First you have to do away with your belief that the rich are evil and only want to help themselves. Charity is a very big deal among those you label as social elite. There is also churches and similar organizations that provide such services.

Second you have to toss the idea that wealth is a static quanity. if you allow people to conduct business they will create more wealth than you can imagine. The is exactly what lead to the US becoming a hyperpower in 200 years. Why do you think that the european countries economies are no match of ours?

[JPP13]

Ahhh mglenn, you are playing fast and loose with some words, and trying some revisionist history.

First - Bush did not propose tax cuts for AMERICANS. He pushed through a tax cut for HIS RICH BUDDIES. Like Kenny Boy. This does NOTHING for the economy. Your gasoline analogy is not appropriate. Here's a far better one. A CEO pays his himself 36 million dollars over 3 years. He then cuts payroll for the workers of the company he supposedly runs for them. Did HE get richer? Yes. Did his Lexus dealer make a few bucks? Yes. Did the workers for his company get screwed? You betcha. Just like the US public.

That is why the economy tanked. The markets know what GW is up to. Gore warned us this would happen. But while the right-wing media steered the discussion to his monotone voice, the majority of American voters understood and voted for Gore. (this fact, that Gore received more votes than Bush drives the right wing fanatics even crazier than 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton).

BTW, my example was a real one. Dick Cheney was paid 36 million dollars over 3 years by Haliburton, while the workers got the (oil) shaft. Look it up.

Reagan screwed the economy as well. George Bush called it Voodoo economics. Tell me mglenn, was Bush right or wrong?

I have another question. If the Right Wing Republicans care so much about the US citizen, why, in the face of an investigation into corporations who dodge taxes by moving over seas, did the Republican Congress ram through a bill 3 weeks ago giving protection for US companies avoiding taxes in Bermuda. Please tell me how that helps Joe Citizen, as opposed to the Dick Cheney's of the world. Because now, YOU and I have to pay taxes so Bush's CEO friends do not. Look it up.

Lastly, I'm not jealous of anyone. I just get offended at hypocrisy and theft.

[mglenn]

Wow... I just love how I'm grouped here. I've stated again and again that I don't agree with everything the repubs do. But before you declare victory allow me to address your points.

Bush did not propose tax cuts for AMERICANS.

You're right he didn't. And if you look back at what I said I stated JFK, Reagan, and the 94' congress. I don't defend Bush Sr. He's the reason we just fought a second war in the Gulf! So don't try to group him with those I mentioned.

Update: in rereading this thread I see where this started, so please allow me to clairify. It was stated that Reagan and Bush felt that the rich were a better class of people. This is not the case. Neither Reagan nor Bush said anything like that. If I'm wrong please show me the quote! But that does not mean that I think Bush Sr's economic plan was sound. I do not defend Bush Sr. But I also believe that the apple has fallen quite far from the tree when it comes to GWB.

That is why the economy tanked.

Oh Please! The market tanked because of a bunch of people proposed business plans that relied on the idea that if you multiplied zero by a sufficantly large number you would somehow turn a profit. It had nothing to do with any presidents economic policies.

(this fact, that Gore received more votes than Bush drives the right wing fanatics even crazier than 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton).

And it drives the left nuts that american elections don't work that way and for good reason because if it did, it drives them even more nuts that more people voted against Clinton than voted for him! We can play these games all day. Lets stick to the facts and discussions.

A CEO pays his himself 36 million dollars over 3 years. He then cuts payroll for the workers of the company he supposedly runs for them.

All CEO's are evil... uga booga booga! So what should we do about this? should we make government bigger by creating a new agency to monitor CEO's salaries? how do we decide whats "fair" ( a favorite word of the left ) compensation for the workers vs. the CEO?

How come I don't hear you bitching about the pay raises that congress (the CEO's of the government) keeps voting for themselves, while the tax payers ( the workers ) are clearly in need of help as you point out?

The only solution I here from you can be summed up as "from each acording to his ability, to each according to his need" I've heard that somewhere before.... hmmm