Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 9th, 2017, 10:48 AM   #21
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Agraphur
Posts: 717

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Feinman View Post
We've gone with the totally absurd "trickle down" theory of looting, and it has concentrated the wealth at the top, in America. Everyone goes ape-poop when anyone mentions Socialism, even though some of the happiest countries in the world are Socialist. What part of tax breaks for the middle class don't folks get?? For the love of Snoopy? Middle class has disposable income to increase sales for businesses so that they can expand, and also helps working class up the ladder. It is the engine that drives the country forward.
Scandinavian countries aren't socialist though. Neither the state nor the workers owns the means of production. The economy is virtually all private enterprise with low corporate taxes. What the Nordic model have is an extensive welfare state funded by heavily taxing income. But I agree that yes spreading the wealth around is important to maintain demand in a healthy economy.
Yezdigerd is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 9th, 2017, 01:34 PM   #22

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 4,432

I drove by an outdoor ad sign a hour or so ago. They were advertising for factory work in a glass making/assembly plant. The rate advertised was $13.62/hour to start and some kind of benefits after the probationary period. I don't how good the benefits are. That reminded me that one of the youth I with whom I work was employed there about a year ago for all of two months. They are desperate for employees, as they cannot fill all shifts with workers for the work they have. He showed up regularly and put his 40 hours in. But then he just quit. He said it was "too hard" to work 40 hours per week, every week. It may not help him that he needs to hit the weed every few hours. I have no problem with recreational usage but chronic marijuana usage is a problem for many of the youth with whom I work. This youth was 19 years old at the time. He still has no job a year later. Should you and I subsidize his lifestyle? If so, for how long? Until he grows up or desperate? We all know education and training is the best recipe for a good job. We know that many people struggle with personal demons that keep them from reaching their potential. I am for temporary assistance - including education, training, substance abuse and mental health treatment. But when do we go from assisting to enabling? Economic theory tell us we will never have full employment for a variety of reasons. Personally, I have more sympathy for the person who loses their job to new technological developments and changes in consumer demand. Re-training in you 40s, 50s and 60s is very difficult for many.

Last edited by Rodger; October 9th, 2017 at 01:37 PM.
Rodger is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 07:34 AM   #23
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: Texas
Posts: 21

For the US economy, I would say that it might have to do with the failure of Reaganomics.

-LegoMaster2149 (Written on October 10, 2017)
LegoMaster2149 is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 11:40 AM   #24

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,666
Blog Entries: 19

Who has broken economy?

Who has been so evil?

My economical studies bring me to be a bit hyper critical about similar absolute sentences.

Economy is a very complicated matter. Western economies are not running so fast? Economy is global ... the life style in large areas of Asia has improved a lot in the last decades and the GDP of those countries is running ...

This is market economy. We need to do more and better to regain competitiveness. Competitiveness is not a gift of G-d or of the State, we have to conquer it ... or we will be defeated. It's competition [or natural selection, if you want].

Last edited by AlpinLuke; October 10th, 2017 at 11:50 AM.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old October 10th, 2017, 11:47 AM   #25

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 4,432

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegoMaster2149 View Post
For the US economy, I would say that it might have to do with the failure of Reaganomics.

-LegoMaster2149 (Written on October 10, 2017)
30 years later? Haven't we had a savior or two to correct things? At least that is what I have been told.
Rodger is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 01:03 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Feinman View Post
We've gone with the totally absurd "trickle down" theory of looting, and it has concentrated the wealth at the top, in America. Everyone goes ape-poop when anyone mentions Socialism, even though some of the happiest countries in the world are Socialist. What part of tax breaks for the middle class don't folks get?? For the love of Snoopy? Middle class has disposable income to increase sales for businesses so that they can expand, and also helps working class up the ladder. It is the engine that drives the country forward.


From: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/20/norw...ts-sadder.html
  1. Norway (7.53)
  2. Denmark (7.52)
  3. Iceland (7.50)
  4. Switzerland (7.49)
  5. Finland (7.46)
  6. Netherlands (7.37)
  7. Canada (7.31)
  8. New Zealand (7.31)
  9. Australia (7.28)
  10. Sweden (7.28)
  11. Israel (7.21)
  12. Costa Rica (7.07)
  13. Austria (7.0)
  14. U.S. (6.99)
  15. Ireland (6.97)
Agreed. The central tenant of economic success is putting money into a consumers hands and keeping it there consistently. A tax system favorable to the wealthy and a minimum wage not adjusting to inflation makes recessions inevitable as people will struggle to buy products at some point, which triggers layoffs which as companies product margins decline which only feeds the cycle. If people consistently have disposable income regardless of employment status they can continue to buy stuff which puts more money in businesses hands to make more stuff and makes a recession recession proof at least recession's caused by the above stated reason.

Another central tenant of economic success is an economy based on things people will need over and over again, no matter what like Food, and entertainment(distractions from life) rather than consumer goods that people only buy once and don't need again for a set amount of time.The latter type of product further incentives business to make cheap stuff that will require the consumer to buy another one much sooner than would be needed if the company made high quality products. This might be besides carbon the biggest long term threat to sustainability on earth. The reason for this though is that while workers need money consistently in hand for a successful economy, the second rule is they need to be compelled to consistently spend it and on things that they won't ever get sick of buying/refuse to buy.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 01:11 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger View Post
30 years later? Haven't we had a savior or two to correct things? At least that is what I have been told.
No Reagan's victory on economics were absolute. Majorities of both parties adhere to his economic creed at least in substance regardless of whatever they say.

Let me put it this way before Reagan was elected, the top marginal tax bracket was 70% and the wealthier but not uber rich citizens had to pay various different lower amounts, Reagan lowered the top rate to 28%.

Now all the Presidents since of both parties have maintained the low amount of brackets Reagan put in place where everyone upper middle class and up pays one flat top rate. That top rate has never exceeded 39.6 percent since. Remember that tax debate from a few years back? That was over raising taxes from 35% to 39.6%. Basically Reagan's tax system of trickle down has been adopted by both political parties(even the most "extreme" people on the left have never advocated for a top rate above 53% and this is the fringe), if your enemy's "change" maintains most of the system you've created, that means you've won. So any "savior" that has supposedly been against trickle down, has been willing to accept an overwhelming majority of Reagan's fundamental changes to US economic policy and been only to make changes on the very fringes. Reagan's political party thinks that we should go even further in the trickle down direction. Whatever vision/proposal wins are just two different degrees of the same policy.

So the US is currently dominated by trickle down even though it is undeniable it doesn't work, no matter how many economists affirm that, doesn't matter.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; October 10th, 2017 at 01:14 PM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 01:22 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yezdigerd View Post
Scandinavian countries aren't socialist though. Neither the state nor the workers owns the means of production. The economy is virtually all private enterprise with low corporate taxes. What the Nordic model have is an extensive welfare state funded by heavily taxing income. But I agree that yes spreading the wealth around is important to maintain demand in a healthy economy.
It is Socialist, the definition of Socialism has changed greatly though. It is not the original meaning of Socialism, not even close and this is where the confusion lies.

Socialism was Marxist in the 19th century and they believed in a borderless workers state(eventually no state at all) that would rule the world. As these parties achieved dominance and power, they started moderating and in WWI, except in Italy all supported their various countries and most denounced Marxism. The Marxist minorities of these parties left just about everywhere and became Communists whereas before they had all been referred to as Socialists. The Socialist Parties continued moderating through the 20th century, so what you have in Scandinavia can indeed be called Socialism. Today Socialists advocate for wealth distribution within the systems and framework of their countries and have for nearly a century now to varying degrees.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 01:23 PM   #29

Rodger's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: US
Posts: 4,432

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
No Reagan's victory on economics were absolute. Majorities of both parties adhere to his economic creed at least in substance regardless of whatever they say.

Let me put it this way before Reagan was elected, the top marginal tax bracket was 70% and the wealthier but not uber rich citizens had to pay various different lower amounts, Reagan lowered the top rate to 28%.

Now all the Presidents since of both parties have maintained the low amount of brackets Reagan put in place where everyone upper middle class and up pays one flat top rate. That top rate has never exceeded 39.6 percent since. Remember that tax debate from a few years back? That was over raising taxes from 35% to 39.6%. Basically Reagan's tax system of trickle down has been adopted by both political parties(even the most "extreme" people on the left have never advocated for a top rate above 53% and this is the fringe), if your enemy's "change" maintains most of the system you've created, that means you've won. So any "savior" that has supposedly been against trickle down, has been willing to accept an overwhelming majority of Reagan's fundamental changes to US economic policy and been only to make changes on the very fringes. Reagan's political party thinks that we should go even further in the trickle down direction. Whatever vision/proposal wins are just two different degrees of the same policy.

So the US is currently dominated by trickle down even though it is undeniable it doesn't work, no matter how many economists affirm that, doesn't matter.
If the American economy is so bad why do people keep flocking here? By the way, personal federal income tax is only part of the overall taxation system. According to this site, the EU has one of the lowest and the U.S. is 3rd highest, behind Puerto Rico (how is their economy doing?) and the UAE:
https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-...nd-world-2016/
Wonder what Europe knows:
"By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent (26.22 percent, weighted by GDP). The G7 has the highest simple average, at 30.21 percent. Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries."

Last edited by Rodger; October 10th, 2017 at 01:32 PM.
Rodger is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 01:43 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger View Post
If the American economy is so bad why do people keep flocking here?
They aren't flocking to most of the country. US is a big place, and the wealth is largely concentrated in the coasts and big cities. Worker productivity has increased while wages have declined many areas of the US haven't felt this yet, other parts are wastelands as a result.

Getting poorer over time also doesn't equate with being poor especially seeing just how wealthy the US was several decades ago. Minimum wage adjusted for US inflation used to be about 19-25 dollars(and you can say this is just the poor, but lowering wages for the poor lowers salary expectations for mostly everyone who works for a wage).

For example today's minimum wage(7.25 an hour) would get Americans the following purchasing power in today's money in past eras adjusted for inflation. As time passes the minimum wage will go down further even if it just stays the same.

1950 73.86
1970 45.88
1990 13.62
2000 10.34
2010 8.16
2017 7.25

So what, yo might ask, won't they just raise the minimum wage from time to time to deal with this?Goods prices are raised adjusted for inflation, wages aren't and by the time they are raised, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is less than it was the previous time it was raised, meaning over time, Americans consistently make less regardless. Take 15 dollars which is seen as the gold standard goal for those wanting to raise the wage would get the following
1950 152.81
1970 94.92
1990 28.18
2000 21.39
2010 16.89
2017 15.00

So purchasing power is declining and this makes the US economy more unstable. This demonstrates the money that is going into profit margins and has made the wealthiest people in this country obscenely more wealthy over the past several decades.

Also low or high corporate taxes and their effect on commerce is not what I was disputing here, I was talking about income taxes and the way the smaller overall burden is currently distributed is destroying the US. I think high capital gains taxes are much more valuable because you are taxing actual wealth rather than hindering competition. However the US believes in lower taxes across the board in just about everything. Also you distorting the numbers with Europe a bit as that is the average rate, I'm assuming we've got some extreme outliers in there pulling that average rate down considerably.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; October 10th, 2017 at 01:53 PM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
broken, economy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debt based economy vs Equity based economy Menshevik Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 1 November 27th, 2013 08:50 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.