u.s. econ models; which do you support?

over the last 60+ years, the u.s. has followed one of two econ models, about 30 years each. this gives us enough info to actually compare the two and see which one is better.

the first decreased the debt, decreased income inequality, and increased wages.

the second increased the debt, increased income inequality, and has stagnated wages.

based on these facts, which do you support?

if you say the first, you must be a know-nothing liberal trying to destroy the economy and supporter of communism. if you support the second, then you must be a patriotic, fiscally conservative republican.

at the bottom are articles with graphs for each of the topics above. as you will see from wwii till Reagan, under Keynesian economics, things were good. then Reagan and supply side took over and look how things went. debt increased (186% under Reagan alone). income inequality increased and wages for the worker stagnated.

so say what you like, the facts hold that supply side is a failure. for further proof, look at Kansas. it just became a bastion of supply side thought. business has 0% tax rate. the thought was that if business had less taxes then they hire people. nope, they just kept the money. also, due to the loss of corp tax revenue, Kansas went from 600 million surplus to 700 million in debt.

so which do you support and why?



www.artonissues.com...
jakehasablog.blogspot.com...
www.forbes.com...

Why do we have to choose either of these? Can't someone come up with a better system? Pay should be relevant to the physical hardness of the job along with the wear and tear on your health and also on the hours you actually work in the day. I know a lot of people who go to work and actually do not accomplish much at all yet are looking for pay raises. What you produce that is necessary is very important.

Given debt-ridden capitalism, peak oil, and global warming, the only way out is to lower borrowing, spending, and consumption.

a reply to: rickymouse

so fruit pickers should make the most money?

a reply to: monkeyluv

capitalism isnt the problem. i showed how capitalism made us great. its the application of capitalism that is the problem.

a reply to: stormson

I read the entire article and it does not support either option but more of a hybridization.

With the arguable exception of Stiglitz, the new macro-egalitarians are modest in their claims. Most acknowledge that much work needs to be done to tease out cause and effect. Most also reject remedies that rely on aggressive redistribution. Instead, they emphasize measures, such as better education and training, that attempt to raise the bottom and middle rather than to bring down the top. In comparison with many of the supply-siders, these guys are recklessly responsible.

a reply to: stormson

If a person is a good conscientious worker and produces in his work, something society really needs, then I believe he should get good pay for their work. If a person has a job where they sit around and BS half the day, I don't think they deserve good money. Sadly, just the opposite is happening today in half of the jobs in this country. People who slave on hard necessary jobs are getting less than people who are pushing a pencil and working on jobs that really aren't necessary.

Seems like deceit is running the country and has been for quite a long time.

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: monkeyluv

capitalism isnt the problem. i showed how capitalism made us great. its the application of capitalism that is the problem.

Capitalism is the problem because it requires continuous economic growth in a world with limited resources. It also eventually concentrates increasing money (which is essentially credit) to fewer people.