Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't the crash of 2007 and rising inequality and poverty in America prove well enough that the "dream of the 80s" is no longer alive? I hear libertarian and conservative types and even some liberals still sing the praise of deregulation and flat taxes.
Deregulation is great for big companies, though it'll probably surprise people that those big companies turn around and want regulation to keep competition away.
Flat taxes is just stupid. Tired of explaining that one.
Didn't the crash of 2007 and rising inequality and poverty in America prove well enough that the "dream of the 80s" is no longer alive? I hear libertarian and conservative types and even some liberals still sing the praise of deregulation and flat taxes.
The United States was found on Libertarian principles of small government and our Constitution drafted accordingly. By mostly sticking to those ideals for a couple hundred years, the U.S. became the greatest superpower in the history of civilization.
It doesn't take a PHD in Economics to realize that government intervention is the greatest propellant in the growing wealth divide. People who have substantial investments in equity markets are partying like its 1999, while the median family income and net worth have decreased over the same period of time. Why? The Federal Reserve continues to suppress interest rates, causing the people who have a lot of money to put it in equity markets rather than other places, driving up stock prices. The system works... for them. They all make more money. The average family/wage earner does not.
I think the ideological divide is best represented with the current controversy over corporate inversions. The corporate tax rate in the US is 35%. Ireland's is 12.5%, the UK's is 23% and so on. Companies want to be taxed on most of their earnings at a lower rate so they can make more money. That's not evil corporations at work, but human nature. Good luck changing that.
The "anti-Reaganomics" crowd is looking for a way to punish companies that try to legally spend less of THEIR money on taxes. The Reaganomics crowd is trying to make it so that the tax rate is competitive enough that business WANT to be based here. Pretty simple.
It doesn't matter how much legislation you pass, the big companies will find a way to work the system. The small companies will not. They will pay the 35% tax rate and hire fewer people, make smaller capital investments and fail more often. They will have to pay their employees less and offer fewer benefits. Every dollar only contains 100 cents. If you have to give away the first 35 instead of the first 12.5, you won't be able to spend as much on other things.
If you like the European nanny state model, go live there. When those countries run out of money, the US will probably bail them out as usual. Of course that's assuming that we don't become one of them.
To answer the OP's question, it's because they understand economics and human nature instead of relying on naive idealism, anecdote and unproven theory.
The United States was found on Libertarian principles of small government and our Constitution drafted accordingly. By mostly sticking to those ideals for a couple hundred years, the U.S. became the greatest superpower in the history of civilization.
If you like the European nanny state model, go live there. When those countries run out of money, the US will probably bail them out as usual. Of course that's assuming that we don't become one of them.
To answer the OP's question, it's because they understand economics and human nature instead of relying on naive idealism, anecdote and unproven theory.
1) No. If you consider indentured servitude, slavery, disenfranchisement, etc... to be "libertarian" then you are off your rocker. The founding fathers were also men of their time, for good and bad. Of course the reality is that the greatest growth in American power came from the Progressive Era through the end of the New Deal coalition in the 1970s. Capitalism left to its own devices is like a long-armed child running with scissors through a narrow hallway strewn with marbles.
2) European nations have, on average, lower debt than the U.S. Moreover, the European nations with the largest social welfare states tend to have lower debt than the ones with smaller welfare states. They pay taxes and receive functional society in return. We bend over backwards to defend inequality and end up with an incarceration rate as high as the USSR at the peak of the Gulags.
3) The idea that libertarianism accounts for human nature is insane. Any person who studies behavioral psychology can't help but guffaw at the notions that libertarianism holds dear (praxeology for instance is one of the most incredibly illogical and unsupportable notions, yet it is unfalsifiable by its own definition!). People acting in their apparent self interest may and do grossly misallocate capital because of hyperbolic discounting, because of chasms between exchange value (the vaunted "preferences" that libertarianism holds so dear) and use value that arise from misinformed consumers, because marketing purposefully exacerbates and exploits these cognitive deficiencies, because contracts of adhesion rob employees and consumers of meaningful choice, and because even rational self-interest creates nearly infinite numbers of prisoner's dilemmas.
Reagonomics gave G. Bush and Clinton an exceptional economy, so much so that Clinton increased tax rates significantly ("It may surprise you, but I think I raised your taxes too much, too" - Bill Clinton) and increased social spending (the welfare reform didn't decrease spending). This was followed by GW Bush with a new entitlement (drug treatments), an attack on the US economy, two wars, and increased social spending, all with no meaningful tax reform, tax cuts, or federal social spending adjustments.
The Dems controlled both houses for the last two years of GW Bush's presidency, and did everything they could to weaken the economy to improve democrat presidential prospects.
The crash of 2007 was engineered by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, abley abetted by the incompetence of those in power positions with oversight responsibility like Barney Frank and others, and from an economic perspective, there was not actually a recesion until after Obama took office (negative growth in 4th qtr 2007, 1st qtr 2008 - two qtrs are the economic definition of a recession).
Reagonomics works so well it survived almost 20 years of socialist tinkering and all out war against it - that's why people still believe in it.
No. If you consider indentured servitude, slavery, disenfranchisement, etc... to be "libertarian" then you are off your rocker. The founding fathers were also men of their time, for good and bad. Of course the reality is that the greatest growth in American power came from the Progressive Era through the end of the New Deal coalition in the 1970s. Capitalism left to its own devices is like a long-armed child running with scissors through a narrow hallway strewn with marbles.
I don't even know where to being here. The growth that took place after the second world war did not happen because we built a dam in the dessert. It happened because the rest of the developed world had been damaged or destroyed, leaving the US as the only relevant economic power for a generation. This is why in the 1950's a man could support his family on a single factory worker's income. Supply and demand. We had almost all of the supply and the whole world had demand.
2) European nations have, on average, lower debt than the U.S. Moreover, the European nations with the largest social welfare states tend to have lower debt than the ones with smaller welfare states. They pay taxes and receive functional society in return. We bend over backwards to defend inequality and end up with an incarceration rate as high as the USSR at the peak of the Gulags.
Yes and homeless people have, on average, less debt than millionaires. US debt to GDP as of 2013- 71.8% (I think this has gone up a little since 2009...)
Japan - 243.2%, Germany 78.1%, U.K. - 90.1%, France - 93.5%, Italy - 132.6%. China - 22.4%. Any questions?
The one area that we probably do agree is that the US has way too much debt. That's overspending, not-overtaxation.
I think you're saying you believe in Reaganomics through the government. All that tax money "trickles down" right?
3) The idea that libertarianism accounts for human nature is insane. Any person who studies behavioral psychology can't help but guffaw at the notions that libertarianism holds dear (praxeology for instance is one of the most incredibly illogical and unsupportable notions, yet it is unfalsifiable by its own definition!). People acting in their apparent self interest may and do grossly misallocate capital because of hyperbolic discounting, because of chasms between exchange value (the vaunted "preferences" that libertarianism holds so dear) and use value that arise from misinformed consumers, because marketing purposefully exacerbates and exploits these cognitive deficiencies, because contracts of adhesion rob employees and consumers of meaningful choice, and because even rational self-interest creates nearly infinite numbers of prisoner's dilemmas.
1) No. If you consider indentured servitude, slavery, disenfranchisement, etc... to be "libertarian" then you are off your rocker. The founding fathers were also men of their time, for good and bad. Of course the reality is that the greatest growth in American power came from the Progressive Era through the end of the New Deal coalition in the 1970s. Capitalism left to its own devices is like a long-armed child running with scissors through a narrow hallway strewn with marbles.
2) European nations have, on average, lower debt than the U.S. Moreover, the European nations with the largest social welfare states tend to have lower debt than the ones with smaller welfare states. They pay taxes and receive functional society in return. We bend over backwards to defend inequality and end up with an incarceration rate as high as the USSR at the peak of the Gulags.
3) The idea that libertarianism accounts for human nature is insane. Any person who studies behavioral psychology can't help but guffaw at the notions that libertarianism holds dear (praxeology for instance is one of the most incredibly illogical and unsupportable notions, yet it is unfalsifiable by its own definition!). People acting in their apparent self interest may and do grossly misallocate capital because of hyperbolic discounting, because of chasms between exchange value (the vaunted "preferences" that libertarianism holds so dear) and use value that arise from misinformed consumers, because marketing purposefully exacerbates and exploits these cognitive deficiencies, because contracts of adhesion rob employees and consumers of meaningful choice, and because even rational self-interest creates nearly infinite numbers of prisoner's dilemmas.
Prisoners dilemmas is part of human nature. It cannot be changed.
He was no economist and neither is obama.
beware of self professed economists that say they are loyal followers of keynes.
keynes was not a compulsive debtor.
12 step debtors anon is needed for our leaders and some counseling for the 13 years of unmerited violence and war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
