Re: The Magic Bullet
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>I don't think it is that easy of a case. The economic growth of the past decade > >(the 2000s) has been largely not a result of lower tax rates, but of increasing >debt. It has been growth pulled forward by borrowing from the future. Illusory > >wealth. As for the other periods, I think there are also other explanations, >especially with the 20's. The 80's growth was largely a result of gov't >deficits, and spending especially wrt defense.< Doesn't that assume that govt. spending, whether deficit spending or not, fuels economic growth? I'm not sure I buy that. Arguably the problem started in 1987 with the nomination Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman. His hypocrisy, (claiming to be an Randian Objectivist while continually priming/bailing out Wall Street with cheap and easy money), bordering on fraud, was exposed shortly after the "Crash of 87" when he said that the Fed : "affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system". He must have been a fan of the show In Living Color because his response to every sign of trouble on Wall Street was to print mo money, mo money, mo money and practically give it away to the grifter class. His monetary policies are largely responsible for turning this country's financial system into a snobbier and more rigged version of Vegas. If I can get billions from the Fed at ridiculously low rates regardless of my ability or willingness to repay those billions what incentive do I have to act responsibly with that money? Any street corner bookie knows you take the biggest gambles with easy money. If that's all it was it would be bad enough but I'd gamble like ten drunken sailors on shore leave after pay day if I knew I could count on my sugar daddy, (sorry, Greenspan doesn't merit well crafted metaphors), to cover my losses. Which is exactly what has continually happened. Lost your bank roll on that stupid ponzie scheme of a bet? Don't worry about it there's plenty more cheap money where that came from - we'll just feed 'em the line that your too big to fail. >>That said, I'm not opposed to lower taxes on the wealthy (or anyone for that matter). I think fairness in tax liability should be the order of the day. << Fairness in tax liability is an oxymoron. Mike F. -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot