• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The economic recovery turns 2: Feel better yet?

Its not "stupid politicians" that's the problem. Its the system. Case in point, both parties voted for the bail out. Even tea party repubs tacitly support the measure as an extreme case. The system is broken, the system is what is corrupt. Putting the "right people in office" will not solve the problem, it will simply corrupt those people. This is a truth that Friedman and Hayke knew quite well. Its why the left is displeased with Obama.
Stupid voters electing and reelecting stupid politicians is the problem. If the USA voters are not going to hold the politician accountable they will keep giving crooks taxpayer money.

What kind of system would you prefer?

.
 
Stupid voters electing and reelecting stupid politicians is the problem. If the USA voters are not going to hold the politician accountable they will keep giving crooks taxpayer money.

What kind of system would you prefer?

.

One where stupid voter aren't produced. Of course, this may require not strictly adhering to the constitution so we can't have that.
 
If you are not a stockholder, its none of your damn business. If you think they are not looking out for stockholders and you own the stock, you are just stupid. I will stipulate there are a lot of stupid people in the USA. ;)

.

I own a wide variety of stocks through mutual funds. But as a stockholder through mutual funds being able to vote for or against boards is not possible
 
Nothing you said contradicts what I stated with the exception that stupid politicans elected by stupid voters decided to give crooks some taxparyer money.

Are you advocating the government control compensation or what is your point?

Not at all, i am simply pointing out that you have no idea what wall street bases its compensation packages on and therefore you are posting to be heard as opposed to bringing forth something of any relevance.

You may have your last word rant.
 
The middle class are. The rich typically do not invest large percentages of their money. They sit on it.

given that this is vastly incorrect (the wide majority of the wealthy invest their money in their businesses), i would like to see some evidence of this?
 
One where stupid voter aren't produced. Of course, this may require not strictly adhering to the constitution so we can't have that.

If we had an ID system in place, we might be able to cull some of those stupid voters.
 
Where I live a super-rich guy had a mansion built on the lake. Many of my friends got employment there building this mansion. It was like a 3 year job. Local building supply stores and landscaping outfits prospered too. Employees of these places stayed employed and took family’s out to local restaurants, bought furniture new cars etc. Trickledown economics, it works. We need rich people, they create jobs
 
Where I live a super-rich guy had a mansion built on the lake. Many of my friends got employment there building this mansion. It was like a 3 year job. Local building supply stores and landscaping outfits prospered too. Employees of these places stayed employed and took family’s out to local restaurants, bought furniture new cars etc. Trickledown economics, it works. We need rich people, they create jobs



The rich do not spend enough for trickle down to work properly.

During the housing bubble, vastly more people were employeed building homes for the middle class, the people making those homes also went to restaurants, bought cars, bought new furniture. By god the middle class creates jobs as well. As the middle class tends to spend more of their money, they create more jobs as a % of their income then do the rich. Wow, consumption creating jobs who would have guessed.

If the rich spent more, then trickle down would work, but they dont, and as such trickle down does not work
 
The rich do not spend enough for trickle down to work properly.

During the housing bubble, vastly more people were employeed building homes for the middle class, the people making those homes also went to restaurants, bought cars, bought new furniture. By god the middle class creates jobs as well. As the middle class tends to spend more of their money, they create more jobs as a % of their income then do the rich. Wow, consumption creating jobs who would have guessed.

If the rich spent more, then trickle down would work, but they dont, and as such trickle down does not work

Trickle down economics isn't just about rich people spending money.
 
Trickle down economics isn't just about rich people spending money.

Trickle down theory starts at the top, and as the money trickles down to the middle class, the middle class also spends it and it trickles down to the poor.

Trickle down does not work, as not enough money is trickling down. The middle class has been borrowing money to support consumption over the last 30 years, now they are tapped out. Not as much money is trickling down from the middle class and the rich are not spending enough to make up the difference, hence the economic slowdown and the lack of jobs
 
Voodoo economics only works if you place the pins in just the right place, and say your incantations properly.
 
Deragatory terms like voodoo economics and trickle-down theory miss the economic theory behind the idea. What characterizes the rich versus the poor? It's more than income, it's that typically the rich know how to make their money grow while the poor live beyond their means. How do the rich make their money grow? They invest in companies which allows them to expand and furnish new jobs. The poor do not know how to do that. So if you had to choose between giving $1000 to a rich man or a poor man, we're all better off giving it to a rich man. Why? The rich man will invest and provide new jobs. This means more, better paying jobs for the poor and lower prices for everyone.
 
Deragatory terms like voodoo economics and trickle-down theory miss the economic theory behind the idea. What characterizes the rich versus the poor? It's more than income, it's that typically the rich know how to make their money grow while the poor live beyond their means. How do the rich make their money grow? They invest in companies which allows them to expand and furnish new jobs. The poor do not know how to do that. So if you had to choose between giving $1000 to a rich man or a poor man, we're all better off giving it to a rich man. Why? The rich man will invest and provide new jobs. This means more, better paying jobs for the poor and lower prices for everyone.

Sorry, but that isn't the right incantation.

Poor people don't know how to handle money, they just go out and blow it on rent and food, after all, so we're much better off when the wealthy have plenty of it to invest in private jets and yachts. Sure, that's the ticket, sure.

No, 10,000 people with a hundred grand each invested in mutual funds is a whole lot more investment than one person with ten million, right? Do the math and see. It is not the rich that is the backbone of the economy, nor the poor. It is the shrinking middle class.
 
Trickle down theory starts at the top, and as the money trickles down to the middle class, the middle class also spends it and it trickles down to the poor.

Trickle down does not work, as not enough money is trickling down. The middle class has been borrowing money to support consumption over the last 30 years, now they are tapped out. Not as much money is trickling down from the middle class and the rich are not spending enough to make up the difference, hence the economic slowdown and the lack of jobs

Lord T, I think we should modify that. Corporate trickledown does work as corporations ramp up hiring and materials purchases to deal with increased demand. What does not work is rich individual trickle down.
 
Sorry, but that isn't the right incantation.

Poor people don't know how to handle money, they just go out and blow it on rent and food

Doesn't that suggest that the poor have a good grasp on their money? Prioritizing it to meet basic needs? Well, some of them at least. :)
 
Doesn't that suggest that the poor have a good grasp on their money? Prioritizing it to meet basic needs? Well, some of them at least. :)

True. The ones who take what little they have to a casino hoping for instant riches don't have such a good grasp on finances.
 
Doesn't that suggest that the poor have a good grasp on their money? Prioritizing it to meet basic needs? Well, some of them at least. :)

But according to studies, the poor typically don't have a good handle on their money, which is the source of their poverty.
 
Lord T, I think we should modify that. Corporate trickledown does work as corporations ramp up hiring and materials purchases to deal with increased demand. What does not work is rich individual trickle down.

Quite true

Companies dont tend to hold on to extra wealth (capital) and either use it to expand or put it back in owners pockets (dividends or share buybacks)
 
Sorry, but that isn't the right incantation.

Poor people don't know how to handle money, they just go out and blow it on rent and food, after all, so we're much better off when the wealthy have plenty of it to invest in private jets and yachts. Sure, that's the ticket, sure.

No, 10,000 people with a hundred grand each invested in mutual funds is a whole lot more investment than one person with ten million, right? Do the math and see. It is not the rich that is the backbone of the economy, nor the poor. It is the shrinking middle class.

 
Lord T, I think we should modify that. Corporate trickledown does work as corporations ramp up hiring and materials purchases to deal with increased demand. What does not work is rich individual trickle down.

It does the same thing. They invest more with that extra money, which as you say, "ramp up hiring and materials purchases."
 
It does the same thing. They invest more with that extra money, which as you say, "ramp up hiring and materials purchases."


No it does not

The rich will not invest, if they do not feel they will get a reasonable return on their investment, neither will companies, but that is where returning capital to shareholders comes in either through sharebuybacks or dividends, companies do allow for trickle down generally as most do not sit on excess capital. The rich will sit on excess capital, as they may not have anything better to do with it. Investing in a widgets company when widgets already excess capacity is not something a good investor will do. Instead they can sit on the money and wait untill a good investment comes along
 
No it does not

The rich will not invest, if they do not feel they will get a reasonable return on their investment, neither will companies, but that is where returning capital to shareholders comes in either through sharebuybacks or dividends, companies do allow for trickle down generally as most do not sit on excess capital. The rich will sit on excess capital, as they may not have anything better to do with it. Investing in a widgets company when widgets already excess capacity is not something a good investor will do. Instead they can sit on the money and wait untill a good investment comes along

Then you have to ask yourself why expansion isn't going on, because profit margins are great. Look at commodity price volatility, wild swings in monetary policy, threats of new taxes and regulations, etc.
 
Then you have to ask yourself why expansion isn't going on, because profit margins are great. Look at commodity price volatility, wild swings in monetary policy, threats of new taxes and regulations, etc.

where would expansion come from? Housing still has a huge overhang that will not be worked off for years. Finance, well do don't want that to grow in the U.S. anymore. Tech, the skill set of most unemployed do not fit. Government, that will continue to show a decline as deficits can't continue to rise.
 
where would expansion come from? Housing still has a huge overhang that will not be worked off for years. Finance, well do don't want that to grow in the U.S. anymore. Tech, the skill set of most unemployed do not fit. Government, that will continue to show a decline as deficits can't continue to rise.

Seems that there are many companies that are profiting. I would invest in them if there was not all this uncertainty about future costs of production that government is creating.

Corporate earnings surging — but investors not in the mood - InvestmentNews
 
Back
Top Bottom