The first 2 or 3 Big Lies that he covers, as well as the last one, ought to be billboards.
I am grossly underqualified to talk about economics, given that I largely ignore them, but I just don't see the "other side" refuting the arguments Reich lays out here. I do see them shouting them down, but screaming "Nuh-Uh do it my way or else" isn't a sound economic policy.
I do see this as class warfare to a certain extent. We see it in terms of an entire political wing insisting that business owners and corporate leaders are to be called "job creators." I see the economic crisis, caused in part by dangerous and callous economic decisions made by these very same people, being used by this same group and their political stooges as a weapon. "If you don't do as we say, by golly we'll make it worse and blame it on you!!"
But hey, maybe I am biased to see things that way. But again, what evidence of the truth and value of these 7 economic theories shines against their being exposed as lies? What evidence is offered that they do work? Am I not looking in the right places? Because all I see is what I said above: NUH-UH.
"I am grossly underqualified to talk about economics..."
That is said regularly by those who post here and elsewhere on blogs. I disagree.
You ARE qualified to discuss economics. Most economic thories and rules can be explained as simple as Reich has. Most of it is simple common sense. It is conservative theoies that make seem confusing becuase they lack common sense.
Such as: Whenever I hear some TeaParty fool talking about how government spending slows the economy I want to beat some common sense into them. Economic activity = economic activity. It does not matter who is spending the money.
or
Cutting taxes = increased gov't revenue. There is no mathematical formula that can prove that one. It does not pass the laugh test, let alone common sense.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT FROM HERE FORTH, EVERYONE AT ATK IS COMPLETELY QUALIFIED TO TALK ECONOMICS!
You can go ahead and lump me in with those who do not know much about economics. 60 minutes did a piece on corporate taxes that talked about how a "too high" rate encourages companies to build in countries with a lower rate. Therefore, lowering the tax rate could have the effect of increasing revenue.
That being said, I agree that government spending sure does increase economic activity.
I can tell you about how the poor pay so much more of their income than even the middle class in taxes, fees, transportation and housing.
I know a recently former homeless couple whose home (rent), and utilities is almost as much as my nice, three bedroom in the suburbs. In fact during the winter it can be more. They barely can make it and eat.
So ya, it's class warfare alright, and the poor lost.
4 comments:
Damn. You beat me to it.
The first 2 or 3 Big Lies that he covers, as well as the last one, ought to be billboards.
I am grossly underqualified to talk about economics, given that I largely ignore them, but I just don't see the "other side" refuting the arguments Reich lays out here. I do see them shouting them down, but screaming "Nuh-Uh do it my way or else" isn't a sound economic policy.
I do see this as class warfare to a certain extent. We see it in terms of an entire political wing insisting that business owners and corporate leaders are to be called "job creators." I see the economic crisis, caused in part by dangerous and callous economic decisions made by these very same people, being used by this same group and their political stooges as a weapon. "If you don't do as we say, by golly we'll make it worse and blame it on you!!"
But hey, maybe I am biased to see things that way. But again, what evidence of the truth and value of these 7 economic theories shines against their being exposed as lies? What evidence is offered that they do work? Am I not looking in the right places? Because all I see is what I said above: NUH-UH.
"I am grossly underqualified to talk about economics..."
That is said regularly by those who post here and elsewhere on blogs. I disagree.
You ARE qualified to discuss economics. Most economic thories and rules can be explained as simple as Reich has. Most of it is simple common sense. It is conservative theoies that make seem confusing becuase they lack common sense.
Such as:
Whenever I hear some TeaParty fool talking about how government spending slows the economy I want to beat some common sense into them. Economic activity = economic activity. It does not matter who is spending the money.
or
Cutting taxes = increased gov't revenue. There is no mathematical formula that can prove that one. It does not pass the laugh test, let alone common sense.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT FROM HERE FORTH, EVERYONE AT ATK IS COMPLETELY QUALIFIED TO TALK ECONOMICS!
You can go ahead and lump me in with those who do not know much about economics. 60 minutes did a piece on corporate taxes that talked about how a "too high" rate encourages companies to build in countries with a lower rate. Therefore, lowering the tax rate could have the effect of increasing revenue.
That being said, I agree that government spending sure does increase economic activity.
I can tell you about how the poor pay so much more of their income than even the middle class in taxes, fees, transportation and housing.
I know a recently former homeless couple whose home (rent), and utilities is almost as much as my nice, three bedroom in the suburbs. In fact during the winter it can be more. They barely can make it and eat.
So ya, it's class warfare alright, and the poor lost.
Post a Comment