I think liberals and conservatives are divided on how to create economic growth.
It seems like Conservatives embrace supply-side economics (trickle down economics or voodoo economics). This theory proposes that economic growth comes when you give corporations incentives to produce goods and services. The incentives usually come in the form of tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy. The idea is that these businesses will then create more jobs, increase wages and lower their prices. Everyone would benefit.
Liberals embrace a sort of bottom up theory. Decrease taxes for the consumer and worker. Increase their wages. This will put more money in their pockets. They will buy more things. This will increase demand and therefore increase production. Increased production will prompt companies to hire more people...yada yada yada.
Now, liberals would say that supply side economics actually increases the income gap. When companies see big profits, those profits actually go to the shareholders and the executives of that company. Not to the blue collar workers. And consumers actually don't see any real relief in prices. When the wealthy get more income, they save it. They usually invest it but those investments don't necessarily benefit the workers and consumers of the products they invest in.
Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth". Apparently, he would revoke the Bush tax cuts given to the wealthy and give more tax breaks to the middle class. It is said that he wants to enact policies that would decrease the wealth gap.
Conservatives believe this would cause businesses to cut jobs and raise prices.
Now, some reject Obama's policies because they believe it's not the government's job to redistribute wealth. It's not fair to take someone's hard earned income and give it to people who haven't earned it.
Others believe that Bush was already redistributing wealth when he enacted his tax cuts for the wealthy. Hell, they can even take it back to Reagan. That supply side economics is a redistribution of wealth... in favor of the wealthy.
What do you think about the differences between conservative and liberal economic theories?
I don't see how either theory really works.
They both seem to lead to the same point. The corporation's cash flow. Neither system really encourages the corporations to spread the wealth to their workers, hire more workers, or give better deals to the consumer.
There really is no way to encourage corporations to do any of these things. We could discourage them from hiring overseas by making it more costly. But they may end up taking their business overseas.
But, I'm a little biased because I advocate for abolishing income tax. (yeah, I know... in a pig's eye. Whatever)
I am a bit conservative because I don't think government is really the solution to our economy. Both sides have shown that they are not able to regulate our economy.
Government spending doesn't redistribute wealth, it just creates debt because the corporations have found ways to avoid taxation.
I still think the bailout was a horrible idea. Corporations own the government.(i.e. plutocracy) The government is the middle man between the wealthy elitist and the working class citizens. Govt. makes sure we get just enough so we don't revolt.
This is capitalism right? And capitalism is supposed to strive in a competitive environment? But people forget that in all competitions someone has to win. That usually looks like corporate take overs. And less competition along the way. Higher prices for consumers.
If we want a share of the wealthy's profits, We have to compete for them on the market.
Redistribute wealth by taking away their profits. This means taking their customers.
So what can our nation do to promote competition? My idea is to create incentives for people to open more small businesses. Put the 'mom and pops' back in charge of the economy. Our emphasis should be on more local economies.
We need more worker owned businesses.
If workers want to see their wages increase, they have to fight for it themselves. Workers must set their own wages. We can't expect government to effectively fight for us.
Redistribution of wealth is not about getting something handed to you.
It's not about taking from someone who earned their money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.
It's about actually being paid what you're worth.
It's addressing the issue of productivity increasing (that means the Workers work harder),
profits increasing because of that extra work,
CEOs get higher salaries and bonuses because of that work,
Yet, the workers who created that profit see an increase in workload, a stagnant wage, and dwindling benefits.
And they're lucky if they don't get laid off.
CEOs used to get around 40 times that of their average worker. Now they bank 300 times more.
Redistribution of wealth means giving a worker a living wage
Making sure they can afford housing, healthy food, health care, education, transportation.
and making sure someone who works hard doesn't get exploited.
Making sure someone who works hard doesn't have to worry about losing their house or worry about their medical bills.
Govt. policies and lack of oversight have almost destroyed economic competition in this nation.
I think globalization is our problem. It's just another name for corporate imperialism.
We need to take the conglomerates down a notch or two. I think these big bloated nationwide (now worldwide) corporations are what's killing our economy.
*original post Nov 2009
It seems like Conservatives embrace supply-side economics (trickle down economics or voodoo economics). This theory proposes that economic growth comes when you give corporations incentives to produce goods and services. The incentives usually come in the form of tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy. The idea is that these businesses will then create more jobs, increase wages and lower their prices. Everyone would benefit.
Liberals embrace a sort of bottom up theory. Decrease taxes for the consumer and worker. Increase their wages. This will put more money in their pockets. They will buy more things. This will increase demand and therefore increase production. Increased production will prompt companies to hire more people...yada yada yada.
Now, liberals would say that supply side economics actually increases the income gap. When companies see big profits, those profits actually go to the shareholders and the executives of that company. Not to the blue collar workers. And consumers actually don't see any real relief in prices. When the wealthy get more income, they save it. They usually invest it but those investments don't necessarily benefit the workers and consumers of the products they invest in.
Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth". Apparently, he would revoke the Bush tax cuts given to the wealthy and give more tax breaks to the middle class. It is said that he wants to enact policies that would decrease the wealth gap.
Conservatives believe this would cause businesses to cut jobs and raise prices.
Now, some reject Obama's policies because they believe it's not the government's job to redistribute wealth. It's not fair to take someone's hard earned income and give it to people who haven't earned it.
Others believe that Bush was already redistributing wealth when he enacted his tax cuts for the wealthy. Hell, they can even take it back to Reagan. That supply side economics is a redistribution of wealth... in favor of the wealthy.
What do you think about the differences between conservative and liberal economic theories?
I don't see how either theory really works.
They both seem to lead to the same point. The corporation's cash flow. Neither system really encourages the corporations to spread the wealth to their workers, hire more workers, or give better deals to the consumer.
There really is no way to encourage corporations to do any of these things. We could discourage them from hiring overseas by making it more costly. But they may end up taking their business overseas.
But, I'm a little biased because I advocate for abolishing income tax. (yeah, I know... in a pig's eye. Whatever)
I am a bit conservative because I don't think government is really the solution to our economy. Both sides have shown that they are not able to regulate our economy.
Government spending doesn't redistribute wealth, it just creates debt because the corporations have found ways to avoid taxation.
I still think the bailout was a horrible idea. Corporations own the government.(i.e. plutocracy) The government is the middle man between the wealthy elitist and the working class citizens. Govt. makes sure we get just enough so we don't revolt.
This is capitalism right? And capitalism is supposed to strive in a competitive environment? But people forget that in all competitions someone has to win. That usually looks like corporate take overs. And less competition along the way. Higher prices for consumers.
If we want a share of the wealthy's profits, We have to compete for them on the market.
Redistribute wealth by taking away their profits. This means taking their customers.
So what can our nation do to promote competition? My idea is to create incentives for people to open more small businesses. Put the 'mom and pops' back in charge of the economy. Our emphasis should be on more local economies.
We need more worker owned businesses.
If workers want to see their wages increase, they have to fight for it themselves. Workers must set their own wages. We can't expect government to effectively fight for us.
Redistribution of wealth is not about getting something handed to you.
It's not about taking from someone who earned their money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.
It's about actually being paid what you're worth.
It's addressing the issue of productivity increasing (that means the Workers work harder),
profits increasing because of that extra work,
CEOs get higher salaries and bonuses because of that work,
Yet, the workers who created that profit see an increase in workload, a stagnant wage, and dwindling benefits.
And they're lucky if they don't get laid off.
CEOs used to get around 40 times that of their average worker. Now they bank 300 times more.
Redistribution of wealth means giving a worker a living wage
Making sure they can afford housing, healthy food, health care, education, transportation.
and making sure someone who works hard doesn't get exploited.
Making sure someone who works hard doesn't have to worry about losing their house or worry about their medical bills.
Govt. policies and lack of oversight have almost destroyed economic competition in this nation.
I think globalization is our problem. It's just another name for corporate imperialism.
We need to take the conglomerates down a notch or two. I think these big bloated nationwide (now worldwide) corporations are what's killing our economy.
*original post Nov 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment