Quote of the Day - Sunday, July 13, 2003

[Novelty]

"This is the most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since socialism a century ago. Like socialism, it corrupts the very nature of our democracy and our free enterprise tradition. It is not a plan to grow the American economy. It is a plan to corrupt the American economy."

- John Edwards, on the Bush Administration's Economic Policies

For full speech, which is surprisingly good for Edwards, go here: http://www.johnedwards.com/page.asp?id=125

For commentary by Wild Bill Saletan: http://slate.msn.com/id/2084686/

For lovin: www.yodaknowssex.com

[Herod]

When you die can I have your air mattress?

[Novelty]

When you die can I have your air mattress?

Only if you promise to treat it right, and to explain to it at least once a month why trickle down economics are ill-conceived.

[Herod]

I couldn't possibly lie to that mattress, it's like a child to me.
The only people who really get screwed through trickle-down economics are the unemployed, and they're collecting money from the government anyways.

[Novelty]

I couldn't possibly lie to that mattress, it's like a child to me.
The only people who really get screwed through trickle-down economics are the unemployed, and they're collecting money from the government anyways.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on that - there's never been one reliable piece of economic evidence that suggests that money disperses through the economy - at least in times of recession - in the way trickle down theories assume it does.

[HarryCaul]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on that - there's never been one reliable piece of economic evidence that suggests that money disperses through the economy - at least in times of recession - in the way trickle down theories assume it does.

Kerry/Edwards. That's the ticket!

[Novelty]

Kerry/Edwards. That's the ticket!

Edwards/Dean. Boy howdy.

[NimChimpsky]

Dean/Clark. Dig it.

[Verybigbuns]

Martin/Lewis. I prefer gridlock.

[Yoda]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on that - there's never been one reliable piece of economic evidence that suggests that money disperses through the economy - at least in times of recession - in the way trickle down theories assume it does.
If pursued, this'll lead us right back to your repeated claim that the money of the wealthy "sits" in times of recession.

[Novelty]

If pursued, this'll lead us right back to your repeated claim that the money of the wealthy "sits" in times of recession.

Money to the wealthy sits, yes. That's not my claim, that's every scrap of economic evidence we've received since the misguided policy of trickle down economics was first introduced.

You are, of course, as welcome as you have been for months to prove me wrong.

[Yoda]

Money to the wealthy sits, yes. That's not my claim, that's every scrap of economic evidence we've received since the misguided policy of trickle down economics was first introduced.

You are, of course, as welcome as you have been for months to prove me wrong.
And you are welcome now (as you were months ago) to demonstrate just why you believe it sits in the first place. Maybe your bank differs from mine, but out here they don't pay you interest on your balance so they can stuff it in an empty pool and swim around in it like Bugs Bunny.

[Verybigbuns]

If pursued, this'll lead us right back to your repeated claim that the money of the wealthy "sits" in times of recession.Huh? Perhaps I shouldn't interject, but banks are only required to maintain roughly 10% cash reserves at all times, recession or boom. Otherwise, it's circulating, either at home or abroad.

[Yoda]

Huh? Perhaps I shouldn't interject, but banks are only required to maintain roughly 10% cash reserves at all times, recession or boom. Otherwise, it's circulating, either at home or abroad.
Exactly. We receive interest on our balance not because the bank merely likes having piles of money laying around, but because they can lend it out. It'd be pointless for them to pay us interest to have our money sit around. As you stated: it's circulating, either home or abroad.

[Novelty]

And you are welcome now (as you were months ago) to demonstrate just why you believe it sits in the first place. Maybe your bank differs from mine, but out here they don't pay you interest on your balance so they can stuff it in an empty pool and swim around in it like Bugs Bunny.

Ad absurdiam will get you nowhere, you spry little minx.

I've told you this before - my contention is that giving money to the rich at a time - for example, a recession - in which they are not spending money fattens their wallet but doesn't make them any more likely to spend money on market-friendly endeavors like capital growth or new hires.

Take, for example, the bail out of the airlines that occurred after September 11th. While that move was a great relief to company execs, it did nothing to change market weakness - there were no new flights because of the bailouts, no new pilot hires, and in fact just as many fires as there would have been pre-bailout.

[Novelty]

Exactly. We receive interest on our balance not because the bank merely likes having piles of money laying around, but because they can lend it out. It'd be pointless for them to pay us interest to have our money sit around. As you stated: it's circulating, either home or abroad.

You assume, then that all circulation is equal. This is a mistake, and empirically disproven to boot.

[Novelty]

You assume, then that all circulation is equal. This is a mistake, and empirically disproven to boot.

Good point.

Let's move on - I think Edwards has a point. Merits of trickle down economics aside, the maneuvers undertaken by the Bush administration to excuse and facilitate corporate fraud and the demolition of working class prosperity can be argued as an assault on capitalism. Far from promoting free enterprise, these policies inhibit the very growth and rule-abiding that characterize healthy capitalist economies.

Any takers?

[Yoda]

You assume, then that all circulation is equal. This is a mistake, and empirically disproven to boot.One thing at a time. I asked you a question, and just as as you did months ago, you responded to it by merely repeating your assertion. That won't cut it.

The money doesn't sit. Your claim to the contrary doesn't even pass a basic logic test. If you're of the mind that this particular point of contention doesn't matter, just say so, but don't tap dance around the fact that, at worst, you're wrong, and at best, you're wording things sloppily.

[Novelty]

One thing at a time. I asked you a question, and just as as you did months ago, you responded to it by merely repeating your assertion. That won't cut it.

The money doesn't sit. Your claim to the contrary doesn't even pass a basic logic test. If you're of the mind that this particular point of contention doesn't matter, just say so, but don't tap dance around the fact that, at worst, you're wrong, and at best, you're wording things sloppily.

You seem to be under the impression that your assertions are backed up by a higher authority, while mine are shots in the dark. This is not the case - I've gone to lengths before to explain the rationale behind my position, and put up a short hand of that rationale in my previous posts.

You're glossing over the airlines example, which I think is a pretty good one. I may be wording things sloppily - if so, my apologies - but you're jumping over the substance of my post and then accusing me of lack of substance, an argumentative tact that a) is below your obvious class and intelligence b) didn't work before, and won't work now.

[r3port3r66]

My knowledge of economics shows exactly how much I paid attention in the study of such topics in college. But, I do know one thing : Rich people do spend more money.

Be honest have any of you here been, or been around those that are very wealthy? I have experience in that realm, and let me tell you, large amounts of money does get spent. Vacations, cars, furniture.

But I'd also like to say that "poor" people also spend alot of money. Why do people that are "poor" spend so much money? I mean if "poor" people saved their money--invested it wisely perhaps, they could live comfortably, maybe beyond what they realize.

However, my main concern is health care. Rich people can afford private practitioners, those that are the best at what they do. Poor people must stand in line at the local HMO office and wait for a physician that is so stressed that he has little time to do research, or diagnose a patient to the full extent of whats available only to the rich.

I say give more money to the rich--they will spend it. Educate those with limited income on how to save, invest and be patient. Provide equal health care to everyone. I have a feeling that rich people like being rich, therefore they need poor people to keep them feeling that way. And that's what I find unfair.

[Novelty]

My knowledge of economics shows exactly how much I paid attention in the study of such topics in college. But, I do know one thing : Rich people do spend more money.

Be honest have any of you here been, or been around those that are very wealthy? I have experience in that realm, and let me tell you, large amounts of money does get spent. Vacations, cars, furniture.



This is a good point - let me clarify. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Expenditures on luxury items is categorically different from investment in new capital ventures, in that the former form of spending travels in relatively small economic circles than the latter.

The assumption of trickle down seems to be that this isn't the case - that money to the rich will eventually get to the poor, so grants to wealthy income brackets substitute for grants to the working class. This doesn't wind up happening - the wealthy buy, for example, vacations, but they don't create new jobs, etc.

edit: I'm in complete agreement with you on health care - the American system is absurd.

[Verybigbuns]

This is a good point - let me clarify. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Expenditures on luxury items is categorically different from investment in new capital ventures, in that the former form of spending travels in relatively small economic circles than the latter.Who manufacturers luxury items, like yachts, for example - perhaps, other rich people? Who provides the yacht maker with the inboard motor - rich, skilled assembly line workers? When a rich person invests in a hedge fund (only the rich qualify), and that fund specializes in financing venture firms in Silicon Valley, and said firms need office space, do other rich people build the offices? How about the janitors hired to clean them? And the fast food joints that get built to feed the white collar technicians hired by the aforementioned start-up firm - all employ rich people? Are these the small circles to which you refer? I could go on; your vacation example is also odd (i.e., an increase in vacations leads to an increase in the demand for waitresses, bellboys, etc.). Like it or not, the money trickles - however, I call it the "multiplier" effect. Perhaps we are talking apples and oranges?

NOTE: I see no explicit difference, from an economic impact perspective, between venture investments and the purchase of, say, a luxury item (or a new technology that is, for now, out of reach from lower income classes). Both could potentially fuel economic growth.

I'm trying hard to understand your point. Money circulates in good and bad times. The cost of borrowing drives investment; generally, interest rates drop during slumps to revitalize all types of investment (housing, capital intensive, etc.). Rich people (are more specifically, the rich corporations they work for, like Oracle) generally do not hoard for the sake of hoarding - they are the KEY to stimulating innovation and invention, and ultimately growth. How else do you think we get out of recession? Handouts to the poor and unskilled?

[Verybigbuns]

You assume, then that all circulation is equal. This is a mistake, and empirically disproven to boot.Banks will lend to domestic and foreign interests, including other governments, at any point in the domestic business cycle. It is a risk management decision.

Or are you suggesting, again, that, say, money spent investing in an IPO is different from that spent on a new custom-built winter chalet? In my opinion, at the end of the day, all forms of spending/investment gets multiplied. Give me an example of the small circle to which you referred earlier, and I'll see if I can widen it by way of a "value-added production process" explanation.

[Novelty]

Banks will lend to domestic and foreign interests, including other governments, at any point in the domestic business cycle. It is a risk management decision.

Or are you suggesting, again, that, say, money spent investing in an IPO is different from that spent on a new custom-built winter chalet? In my opinion, at the end of the day, all forms of spending/investment gets multiplied. Give me an example of the small circle to which you referred earlier, and I'll see if I can widen it by way of a "value-added production process" explanation.

There's a really good Outland comic to this effect - let me look for it when I get home.

[Verybigbuns]

There's a really good Outland comic to this effect - let me look for it when I get home.You live in a home? Fascist!

Anyway, you know what I'm up to.

[Novelty]

You live in a home? Fascist!

Anyway, you know what I'm up to.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I disagree centrally at a few junctures 1) I don't believe all money winds up going around the same way. 2) I don't think Bush's tax breaks go to corporations directly, and doubt that money into the personal pockets of CEO's winds up sparking the kind of innovations you speak of. 3) The Fundy Reversing tides are the most boring ******* things I've ever had to read about.

More detail later.

[Herod]

...and doubt that money into the personal pockets of CEO's winds up sparking the kind of innovations you speak of.
But it does!
Unless these CEO's are hiding the m,oney in their basements or wallpapering their houses with it, the money is in circulation and trickling down to those in lower economic brackets. As has been said before, banks can afford to pay interest on savings accounts because they invest the money, and give it out in loans to clientelle. Regardless of what someone takes a loan out for, they take out loans to spend the money.

Thus the circle of economics is initated.

[Yoda]

You seem to be under the impression that your assertions are backed up by a higher authority, while mine are shots in the dark. This is not the case - I've gone to lengths before to explain the rationale behind my position, and put up a short hand of that rationale in my previous posts.

You're glossing over the airlines example, which I think is a pretty good one. I may be wording things sloppily - if so, my apologies - but you're jumping over the substance of my post and then accusing me of lack of substance, an argumentative tact that a) is below your obvious class and intelligence b) didn't work before, and won't work now.No higher authority; just common sense. You can't stop money from eventually reaching the hands of someone in the lower or middle class without burying it, and banks have no reason for existing if the money they store "sits."

I'm not claiming that your claims have no substance...just that this one doesn't. Perhaps I'm placing a lot of focus on a small part of your case against Bush's economic policies, but given how confusing economics can be, I'm loathe to discuss it without being rather meticulous. That said, I'll wait to hear your contentions towards what VBB said, as he put it better than I.

[Novelty]

No higher authority; just common sense. You can't stop money from eventually reaching the hands of someone in the lower or middle class without burying it, and banks have no reason for existing if the money they store "sits."

I'm not claiming that your claims have no substance...just that this one doesn't. Perhaps I'm placing a lot of focus on a small part of your case against Bush's economic policies, but given how confusing economics can be, I'm loathe to discuss it without being rather meticulous. That said, I'll wait to hear your contentions towards what VBB said, as he put it better than I.

Admit it; you missed us.

More later.

[Django]

Some quotes from George Orwell:


"Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

"He who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past."

"One defeats a fanatic precisely by not being a fanatic oneself, but on the contrary by using one's intelligence."

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

[sunfrog]

I don't know where to post so I'll post here. Looks like no one's been in this thread for a while.

There were the usual odd breakdowns in brain-mouth co-ordination. "I will never assume the restraint and goodwill of dangerous enemies when lives of our citizens are at work," he proclaimed during a chest-beating passage about pursuing the war against terrorism.

That's Bushlite.

[Yoda]

Admit it; you missed us.

More later.Somewhere, deep within my soul, I knew this wasn't true. But I smiled and nodded my head anyway, pretending I expected you to return and address the argument. An argument which was destined to go forever unanswered...forever abandoned...like my heart.

[nebbit]

ANGER MAY SEEM TO OFFER AN ENERGETIC WAY OF GETTING THINGS DONE, BUT SUCH A PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD IS MISGUIDED. THE ONLY CERTAINTY ABOUT ANGER AND HATRED IS THAT THEY ARE DESTRUCTIVE. The Dalai Lama. :D

[allthatglitters]

I cannot tell a lie, but I will not tell the truth.

(my friend made that up- but is most likely not the first person to do so)