How do we fix the economy???

That article has issues. Early on, it posits a connection between minimum wage laws (specifically, increases in minimum wage) and unemployment rates for young black males. This is presented as an unassailable fact, and not supported by anything in the article.

There are several more assertions strewn throughout that posit that the right is Right and the left is Wrong, without any facts to support those arguments. There's even an appeal to good old Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt when the author asserts that increasing taxes on "the rich" would inevitably cause those rich to pick up their toys and go elsewhere.

Has the author not learned that "trickle down" doesn't actually work?

The E wrote:There's even an appeal to good old Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt when the author asserts that increasing taxes on "the rich" would inevitably cause those rich to pick up their toys and go elsewhere.

That actually happened in the UK during the 70's. With a top tax band in excess of 80% (95% in one or two cases), the rich were actively losing money simply by living in the UK (despite their incomes) and promptly departed to less-taxed shores. The removal of their assets made the already-bad economic situation far worse and helped to cement the ongoing reputation that the Labour Party has at being totally pants with regard to the economy.
Of course, their "There's no money left, sorry" treasury note at the end of their last spell in governance really didn't help.

Michael Everett wrote:

The E wrote:There's even an appeal to good old Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt when the author asserts that increasing taxes on "the rich" would inevitably cause those rich to pick up their toys and go elsewhere.

That actually happened in the UK during the 70's. With a top tax band in excess of 80% (95% in one or two cases), the rich were actively losing money simply by living in the UK (despite their incomes) and promptly departed to less-taxed shores. The removal of their assets made the already-bad economic situation far worse and helped to cement the ongoing reputation that the Labour Party has at being totally pants with regard to the economy.

Sure, but that seems like an obviously stupid decision that noone except the actual lunatics is actually contemplating. The nominal maximum income tax rate in the US is at 39.6%; tell me, how many of the people who are supposed to pay that much actually do?

I believe the world is full of opportunity, none of which I’m entitled to, all of which I can pursue.

A quote from Robert Kayosawi's article on the difference between a unionist and a capitalist.

Of course, he is assuming an honest capitalist, one who tries to succeed by providing a good at a fair price. Sorry to say, there are many who are only capitalists until they are in trouble, at which point they think they are entitled to get the taxpayers to bail them out.

Michael Everett wrote:That actually happened in the UK during the 70's. With a top tax band in excess of 80% (95% in one or two cases), the rich were actively losing money simply by living in the UK (despite their incomes) and promptly departed to less-taxed shores. The removal of their assets made the already-bad economic situation far worse and helped to cement the ongoing reputation that the Labour Party has at being totally pants with regard to the economy.

The question should be: do we want them spending their time and effort figuring out how to escape the results of an extractive economy, or to spend time and work figuring out how to do well in an inclusive economy. An extractive economy can give the few at the top great riches, while an inclusive one gives the many great opportunities, if they will use them.

The E wrote:That article has issues. Early on, it posits a connection between minimum wage laws (specifically, increases in minimum wage) and unemployment rates for young black males. This is presented as an unassailable fact, and not supported by anything in the article.

There are several more assertions strewn throughout that posit that the right is Right and the left is Wrong, without any facts to support those arguments. There's even an appeal to good old Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt when the author asserts that increasing taxes on "the rich" would inevitably cause those rich to pick up their toys and go elsewhere.

Has the author not learned that "trickle down" doesn't actually work?

The question should be: How do we test this One way would be a solid statistical analysis of various polities, comparing some with minimum wages low relative to those more experienced people earn and those with minimum wages high compared to those with more experience.

Does anyone know of any such study, or must we rely on anecdotal evidence, which is what the article presents?

I for one do not think we can under the existing conditions. Until basic changes are made in how or who we elect to office, things will continue to go downhill. It is almost like it all is planned to do so.

We need to break the vicious cycle of events. Elect good patriots and statesman rather than politicians. People who are willing to work for low pay doing what is right for the nation and many and not for themselves.

Again, too many people vote for their own pocket books and not for the general welfare of the nation. Frankly, too many people vote. Democracy is mob rule. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic.

We can start by putting the right folks in office and pass harsh laws that reduce all government spending by 5% yearly for 20 years. That would be a good start. Cut off the funding. Let the monster slowly die.

The next thing would be to return to a nation of law instead of a nation of man. Follow the US Constitution in its original form and intent. Reduce government. Toss out lots of bad non voted upon agency rules.

Make the right to vote expensive and hard to obtain. Educate people to their duties of citizenship. Return tax money to the tax payers pocket. Greatly cut government rules and regulations. Respectfully.

On voter eligibility I think Starship troopers had it right.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

HB of CJ wrote:Make the right to vote expensive and hard to obtain. Educate people to their duties of citizenship. Return tax money to the tax payers pocket. Greatly cut government rules and regulations. Respectfully.

Explain to me how you ensure that the people who do not have a vote get treated fairly by the system.
Explain to me how you can guarantee that the people who have the vote will not vote to increase their welfare at the cost of those who cannot vote.
Explain to me, in short, how such a system can avoid creating a class of permanently disenfrachised slaves.

biochem wrote:Nothing but the usual from the politicians (The Republicans want to cut taxes. The Democrats want to spend money we don't have.)

Cutting taxes equates to spending money you don´t have, except worse, because if a government spends money(directly from the printing press or from loans), then at least part of it gets back in the form of taxes, as well as increasing the size of the total economy, which at least to some degree can/will help an economy that is in trouble.

biochem wrote:- Half expect the lives of the next generation to be worse

Fairly likely.

biochem wrote:- Eight in 10 voters worry about the direction of the economy in the next year.

Considering how China is in the middle of a potential financial crisis that at worst could make 2008 look like a little speedbump, yeah...