How little the MSM knows about economics

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by cassowary » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:38 pm

Neverfail, I agree with some of the things you said. But the possible insolvency in the US and many EU countries is caused by socialist policies. The welfare state has grown too large and I blame the one man one vote system of government.

It is popular to promise people free stuff. So all democracies end up with unsustainable welfare states. So taxes must go up which stifles economic growth. But tax rates have a optimum point beyond which tax revenue actually falls. So they must borrow.

Those democracies that have already gone bust are the more Socialist ones. Eg Greece and Venezuela.

Those countries that are furthest from bankruptcy are the most capitalist ones. Eg Singapore

Therefore to lower the risk of bankruptcy I recommend a massive rollback of the welfare state in the US and some EU countries.

neverfail
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:28 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:38 pm
Neverfail, I agree with some of the things you said. But the possible insolvency in the US and many EU countries is caused by socialist policies. The welfare state has grown too large and I blame the one man one vote system of government.

It is popular to promise people free stuff. So all democracies end up with unsustainable welfare states. So taxes must go up which stifles economic growth. But tax rates have a optimum point beyond which tax revenue actually falls. So they must borrow.

Those democracies that have already gone bust are the more Socialist ones. Eg Greece and Venezuela.

Those countries that are furthest from bankruptcy are the most capitalist ones. Eg Singapore

Therefore to lower the risk of bankruptcy I recommend a massive rollback of the welfare state in the US and some EU countries.
To bring that off you would need to undertake a rollback of democracy itself in favour of something much more authoritarian. These countries would lose the very element that makes them worth living in. Unacceptable!

By the way, as a rule I do not regard the supportive social welfare nets charistic of these lands as either "socialist policies" or "free stuff" - just as sensibly supportive.

Cassowary, whenever you write about the Western welfare state, I usually end up with the feeling that you do not bloody-well know what you are talking about!

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:44 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:15 pm

One danger is the budget deficit. With aging boomers drawing on Social Security and Medicare for medical treatments, something must be done to curb government spending. Otherwise, the US will go broke.
Solving budget deficits does not need curbing government spending. You may increase revenue by increasing taxation on the wealthier people. In Portugal we are on the way to solve our budget deficit - and containing our public debt - by higher taxes on the rich, while restoring the income of the poorer people. This was condemned by the European Commission, which has now been forced to recognize that it worked. So much so that the Portuguese Minister of Finance was elected the new president of the Eurogroup (the countries belonging to the euro area). And, by the way, the Portuguese economy is growing faster than at any time this century (2.5%).

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by cassowary » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:03 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:28 am

To bring that off you would need to undertake a rollback of democracy itself in favour of something much more authoritarian. These countries would lose the very element that makes them worth living in. Unacceptable!
Not necessarily. I think it can still be done with some reforms. Under the present one man one vote system, the wealth takers and more powerful than the wealth makers as what Aristotle said thousands of years ago. For a sustainable democracy, I believe both groups should be equally powerful so that neither takes advantage of the other.

The US has two chambers - the Senate and the House. Suppose we change the rules so that the voters for the members of the Senate have an unequal number of voters based on the amount of taxes they pay. The more taxes you pay, the more votes you have.

The idea is that those who pay taxes should decide how that money is to be spent. But the one man one vote rule in the lower House will remain. This Senate will be the place where the wealth makers are stronger than the wealth takers. In the Lower House of Representatives, the wealth takers will be more powerful than the wealthy makers.

So they neutralize each other. Neither can take advantage of the other.
By the way, as a rule I do not regard the supportive social welfare nets charistic of these lands as either "socialist policies" or "free stuff" - just as sensibly supportive.
That is Steve's view. The old definition of Socialism means the collective ownership of the assets of production eg farms, factories etc. But those who consider themselves Socialist nowadays mostly do not advocate this. For example, Bernie Sanders is an unabashed Socialist. But he does not call for nationalization as in the Socialists of old. Here was his election manifesto during the primaries.

Today's Socialists seem to be having the Nordic model in mind - a welfare state sitting on top of a large welfare state. I go by what modern Socialists say, not old out of date definitions. Their objective is to redistribute wealth.
Cassowary, whenever you write about the Western welfare state, I usually end up with the feeling that you do not bloody-well know what you are talking about!
And you are wrong. I think it is you who do not know what you are talking about.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by cassowary » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:19 am

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:44 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:15 pm

One danger is the budget deficit. With aging boomers drawing on Social Security and Medicare for medical treatments, something must be done to curb government spending. Otherwise, the US will go broke.
Solving budget deficits does not need curbing government spending. You may increase revenue by increasing taxation on the wealthier people. In Portugal we are on the way to solve our budget deficit - and containing our public debt - by higher taxes on the rich, while restoring the income of the poorer people. This was condemned by the European Commission, which has now been forced to recognize that it worked. So much so that the Portuguese Minister of Finance was elected the new president of the Eurogroup (the countries belonging to the euro area). And, by the way, the Portuguese economy is growing faster than at any time this century (2.5%).
The trouble with raising taxes is that you stifle GDP growth. A faster GDP growth will result in greater wealth for everybody at the price of inequality. You have a choice - equal poverty and unequal prosperity.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.... Churchill.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:33 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:19 am

The trouble with raising taxes is that you stifle GDP growth. A faster GDP growth will result in greater wealth for everybody at the price of inequality. You have a choice - equal poverty and unequal prosperity.
Taxes have no direct consequences for the GDP. Money is just shuffled from the private sector to the public sector, but whatever money the government spends will end in private hands - except on a soviet style economy -, either for consuming or for investment. So it makes no difference to the GDP.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1481
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:59 am

Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:46 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:23 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:40 am
The typical pattern for Republican administrations is to cut taxes, get some quick economic gains, and then everything crashes when the deficits cone home to roost.
Come on, you just made that up. I mean, one of the reasons that not even conservatives care about deficits anymore is that they've essentially never come home to roost.
Well some think so.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ton-policy
"The US’s slow recovery from the 2008 recession is due to Republican policies on the local, state and federal level, according to a new study published by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI)."

It doesn't take advanced training in media literacy to see why one should take that with a boulder of salt, right?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:14 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:19 am
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:44 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:15 pm

One danger is the budget deficit. With aging boomers drawing on Social Security and Medicare for medical treatments, something must be done to curb government spending. Otherwise, the US will go broke.
Solving budget deficits does not need curbing government spending. You may increase revenue by increasing taxation on the wealthier people. In Portugal we are on the way to solve our budget deficit - and containing our public debt - by higher taxes on the rich, while restoring the income of the poorer people. This was condemned by the European Commission, which has now been forced to recognize that it worked. So much so that the Portuguese Minister of Finance was elected the new president of the Eurogroup (the countries belonging to the euro area). And, by the way, the Portuguese economy is growing faster than at any time this century (2.5%).
The trouble with raising taxes is that you stifle GDP growth.
CASS; did you actually read sertorio's post? He stated unequivocally that the Portuguese economy is growing faster than at any time this century (2.5%). and you did not contradict that.

Clearly the higher taxes on the rich in Portugal have not stifled growth there.

By the way, Steve Foerster correctly points out, taxation money paid to the government is usually not horded. Instead, government spending is always a potent factor in keeping the money supply circulating thereby enabling further wealth to be generated.

Seems to me that you have already made up your mind and no amount of contrary evidence will change it. The sure sign of a blinkered ideology like the socialist ones you condemn..

neverfail
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:17 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:03 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:28 am


Cassowary, whenever you write about the Western welfare state, I usually end up with the feeling that you do not bloody-well know what you are talking about!
And you are wrong. I think it is you who do not know what you are talking about.

I have only had decades of experience living in one and you have not Cass. So doesn't first hand experience qualify me tp speak up?

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by Milo » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:23 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:59 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:46 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:23 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:40 am
The typical pattern for Republican administrations is to cut taxes, get some quick economic gains, and then everything crashes when the deficits cone home to roost.
Come on, you just made that up. I mean, one of the reasons that not even conservatives care about deficits anymore is that they've essentially never come home to roost.
Well some think so.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ton-policy
"The US’s slow recovery from the 2008 recession is due to Republican policies on the local, state and federal level, according to a new study published by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI)."

It doesn't take advanced training in media literacy to see why one should take that with a boulder of salt, right?
Economics is not physics, it pays to appreciate more than one perspective.

Post Reply