Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: EVIDENCE: Seven Graphs That Show Supply-Side ECONOMICS Doesn't Work

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 19, 2012, 12:28 p.m. EST by ComeTogetherNOW (650)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Clearly supply side economics doesn't work. IT IS PROVEN. This is the Truth and it is backed by indisputable EVIDENCE. There those who ignore truth entirely. Pay no homage to it, and show no respect to try to discern it.

Our economy runs on demand. When demand slows companies lay-off. If demand increases, they hire more workers. This how it works and this is the truth backed by the abundance of facts and EVIDENCE.

If care to determine the truth take this link and become educated:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/08/infographic_supply_side.html

WAKE UP, smell the roses, and have some Java.

Come Together NOW

59 Comments

59 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ex-cellent info.

Thanks

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

supply side meaning what

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Trickle Down Economics - this is the supply side idea that wealth trickles down. FACT: We now have more POOR people since this economic policy has been tried. Instead of trickle down, we had trickle OUT. Out to China.

Reagan implemented this approach in 1980. Bush double downed on the plicy, gave HUGE tax cuts to the rich, and then, starting invading and occupying whole countries. We're still stuck in one, called the FORGOTTEN WAR. We have allowed Clowns and IDIOTS run our country. Then it ALL crashed into a WALL, that is WALL STREET!

That's what supply side means.......................

Now.............................

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

ill give you that there is some truth to that

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Thanks Daniel!


[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

These graphs are very misleading. To take three decades and proclaim that certain decades (such as the 90's) miraculously reverted back to completely supply side economics and vice versa for 2000's throws the theory on very shaky ground to begin with.. You're also taking 3 "samples"....that would be like me taking a coin and flipping tales three times in a row and concluding from this experiment that when you flip a coin you'll land on tales 100% of the time....the sample size isnt big enough..second i think you could provide strong arguments that the assumptions on decades with supply side don't exactly meet supply side economics that many would consider reasonable who argue for supply side. This is trash research that people who don't look a little under the surface eat it up.

This is nowhere near "proven" by these graphs.....junk stats is what i'd call it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do YOU support tinkle down economics??

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Depends what you consider tinkle down economics. Do i support low taxes on everyone? Absolutely.

I'm halfway through the shock doctrine....the occupy bible.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Great documentary. Of course it details the right wing philosophy, not progressive OWS.

And no tinkle down is not tax cuts for all.! It is the fallacy that if we do more for the wealthy, the wealth will trickle down to the 99% because they are job creators.

Do you support that policy that was implemented 30 years ago by Reagan and created the greatest economic downturn since the great depression in 2007?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I think Reagan was a disaster....is economic policies are not something that i would agree with at all. I don't believe in the concept of trickle down...i think you create the right conditions in an economy money doesn't have to trickle down...people earn it.

I'm reading the book....Naomi Klein...not the documentary. But yes...details the supposed fallacies of the right.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aiight then!

Solidarity!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Reagonomics, supply side, trickle/tinkle down economics only helps the 1%! It doesn't work for the 99%!

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

Of course economies run on demand. Supply is only a factor in constraint on price. I keep seeing articles like this here and it's confusing. I don't think anyone is arguing that point at all.

The point I do hear argued especially by those in power is the neo-keynesian aggregate demand BS.

Start with Adam Smith, read the monetarists (though don't believe it all), read the Austrians, and Keynes (but it's shoved down your throat already, so you might be able to skip Keynes.

and watch these: http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/ http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do you support tinkle down economics?

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Well yes, good point, when demand outstrips supply, prices go up, and some businessman will see this as a great opportunity to supply that demand at a wonderful profit.

But "build it and they will come", is risky at best. Not saying it won't work. If you got something really good but no one is asking for it, they may ask for it when they realize that something new that haven't thought of is suddenly available it could be a hit. Market surveys are used for this to minimize the risk. But, eventually it's DEMAND that rules. In business, when demand slows, the business saves it's carcass by handing out pink slips. When business picks up, demand, they slowly bring on new employees.

But somewhere in the middle of all this supply and demand, and big money making, there are real people. Money is not everything. Our country is NOT a Business. It has more to do with a social contract. You know, the one where we give a damn, care about about what we're doing, about how each of us is doing.

In short, compassion. This trumps the money, forever and a day. We should never worship money or put money before people. Pure Capitalism is a HORROR. A REAL living nightmare. A world that none of us want. Well, that is, the 99%. Of course those who have no skin in the game have nothing lose. The rest of us have everything to lose up to and including our very lives.

Does this make sense???

Thanks kaiserw for chiming in here. I appreciate your thinking and opinion on this matter.

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

Compassion works in terms of individual action, family, and private social circles, and stretched further, in a non profit or NGO. Compassion works extremely well in non-profit organizations with a clear charter, and donor accountability (the organization is truly accountable to the donors. This model works extremely well in the Red Cross, non profit hospitals, NGOs, the development of open source software - Linux, TOR, etc.

The danger is when you put those responsibilities in the hands of those that only use force - government (the guys with guns). It fails... usually bloodily. "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." However well intentioned, compassion put in national legislative terms always fails eventually, and dramatically. It comes down to individual freedom vs oppression:

 "I don’t want to do nothing, there’s plenty to do
 The question I ponder is who plans for whom?
 Do I plan for myself or leave it to you?
 I want plans by the many, not by the few."

Hayek raps to Keynes in “Fight of the Century“ from the second video above.

Plans in private markets are decentralized; government plans are centralized. Private-market planners risk their own money; government planners risk other-people’s money. Plans in private markets face constant competition from rival private plans; government plans are monopolies which face no such competition. This competition prevents plans in private markets from growing in scope to outstrip the knowledge and capacities of persons who make and carry them out. No such competitive check constrains the scope of government plans. Finally, plans in private markets – unlike government-made plans – often cross-pollinate with each other to inspire the creation and discovery of entirely new possibilities that would remain unknown without such decentralized planning within competitive markets. Government ‘plans’ almost inevitably suppress such possibilities of cross-pollination, creation, and discovery.

 "People aren't chess men you move on a board on a whim,
  their dreams and desires ignored.  With political
  incentives, discretion's a joke, those dials they're 
  twisting, just mirrors and smoke..."

  "Give us a chance so we can discover the most valuable ways to serve one another!"
[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

I know I'm responding to an old post, but what would lead you to believe that aggregate demand, or any other facet of Keynesian theory is BS. I hope you realize his recommendations have not been followed and his theories have been perverted and distorted by neoliberals. Austrians have been discredited over and over and we have a current demonstration of it's ineffectiveness right now. Ever heard of Greece?

[-] 1 points by Shule (1554) 1 year ago

Actually our economy runs on scam. The largest sector of our economy today is the finance sector, and that has nothing to do with either supply or demand.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Wealth has to be tied to real value. I understand the perception game and how that affects values. Essentially if people will pay x amount of dollars for whatever thing/service that's the real value. If they will only pay less then it's devalued.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Can you define "real value"? Who then decides value according to your definition?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do you support tinkle down economics?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

(humor?) In my opinion, using tax breaks or incentives for small / medium business is a good idea. The effect of tax cuts on the wealthy does not generally give much of a return as a tax cut to the middle class. A better approach would be to simplify the regulatory mess that we have in this country. Small, medium and large companies are impacted terribly by the myriad of rules. The small gets the worst of it as it overburdens resources they do not have. If business can concentrate on what they do best (make, sell or service a product) the effect would be to generate better revenue which leads to many good things ( more employment for example). Curious, Why do you ask about trickle down economics when discussing "real, nominal and actual" value definition?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I was just trying to get back to the post subject of supply side.

I agree that tax cuts for the middle/working (the real job creators) class are the best tactic to improve the economy/lives of the 99%. I would add that we should somehow cut the massive debt the middle/working class struggle under.

Regs can be reviewed and I suppose some can be cut, but I would be careful to maintain public safety of course.

The value definition thing I'm not really sure about.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

To really understand economic terminology and theory, one should take a course in it. The large debt effects everyone, and it will take some pain to really start reducing it, but it must be done. We just have way too many programs and give always. But it needs to start with employment increase to help the inflows and outflows at the federal level. The current tax code really needs an immediate bi-partisan working group to go at it 24/7.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well my financial education is mainly just life, but if you'de allow a layman to contribute I would agree that the large debt affects everyone, and that it will take some pain to really start reducing it. That it must be done! That employment increase is an important priority in paying the debt down.

Now in so far as cutting programs and giveaways. NOT for the middle/working class! We've already sacrificed and had pain. Time for the wealthy (who created the debt) to take a little pain! they can bear it (like Bill Crystal said). We can cut the military budget! I'd say 50% is a good start!

You forgot to mention that low revenue (low taxes on the wealthy) has contributed to the debt. Oops!

Well let's raise the wealthy taxes to 90%, eliminate all wealthy deductions, loopholes, taxshelters, giveaways, corp welfare. increase cap gains tax, passive income tax, tax each fin transaction. "That'll do pig!"

We should always remember that the conservative plan for 30 years has been to increase the debt/deficit so much that we would be forced to gut all the programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, education) that serve the democratic constituents (99%'rs).

So we mustn't fall into that trap right? We can't be fooled into cuts/austerity on the middle/working class when they are the real job creators. Right?

In fact economic growth is the only way to pay down the republican 1% plutocrat created debt. So let's hit up those wealthy plutocrats who ain't sacrificed at all! and cut the taxes/debt for the middle/working class, which create real economic growth/activity, demand, and also pressure to create jobs! Oh! Also incentives to hire US citizens, Penalize outsourcing.

But definitely not cut anything for the middle/working class who have already sacrificed, & struggled during the republican created "great recession".

"It's the only way to be sure"

Any of that in your economics 101 class?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

One needs to look at the long view of this mess. I disagree with a 90% tax rate. Going after the few penalizes the rest. The debt was not created by the 1%. It was created over time by the government overspending (both parties have equal blame) Too many political promises, too many military excursions, etc. And we have some of that blame by re-electing them. I am not saying to gut all programs, but what we have can not continue as is. As I said, the tax code needs to be redone. Outsourcing is something that will always be with us in a global economy. Penalizing it won't work. It is better to create incentives to do business here rather than complicate it with over regulation. All Business needs "certainty" to plan, otherwise, they wait. Labor here will always need to compete with labor else where. In the current world, unfortunately the rules are not all the same, so we must get inventive to compete. Just look around. We buy on price, we look for bargains and usually it comes from overseas. Tariffs would just invite similar response. We might try to buy American made products more. That in itself can really make things go here but each of us needs to do our part. Now about Debt, it can not be just eliminated. You have to remember that there is a large amount of the 99% invested in that debt. Would you be willing to just cancel every teachers pension (as an example) just to cancel debt? Those of us with personal debt are responsible for repayment of that debt. As for economics 101, I am saying it helps to understand how the systems work and relate. And to understand the terminology when reading about it. Hope that helps.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We disagree! Wealthy republican 1% plutocrats created this mess, They have skated by without sacrifice!

Raising wealthy taxes penalizes the rest? Nah! that's like the bullshit tinkle down economics lie. Don't worry about it!

Outsourcing will always be with us? maybe. But we can insist every corp who wants to sell to the biggest/best middle class market to hire Americans. And stop the tax incentives to outsource! And definitely a program to buy American, and incentives to buy American can help!

Business needs certainty? Please your points are republican talking points. They need money! Demand! That's it. They already got the best market, & best environment for doing business. Certainty is non sense. Entrepreneurs take risks or take a hike.

The debt? So noe you saywe can't pay thedebt because it will hurt 99%'r pensions? Whaaaat? More non sensical republican talking points. We must, & will pay down the debt And the pensions will be fine.

Hope THAT helps.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

First, all "plutocrats" are not republican. We can sit and cast blame all day, but never move forward on solutions. Your answer is why I suggested a course on economics to better understand. I have no talking points. I am trying to give you some knowledge. I mentioned the tax code re-write. This would help correct the the loop holes, etc. that the super rich get to use. It is not just tax rates, but many change to items of the tax code itself that would improve the actual amounts owed. I think we agree there, just in how we say it. The only way you insist on hire American is to buy American, or boycott the others. Legislation would not be correct method, and would be impossible. Do you understand what the word "certainty" means? By your response it seems that you do not, or have not been involved in forecasting or planning in a business or corporation. Certainty is not a talking point or but real business outlook / confidence. You are aware of the consumer confidence index? There are many other indices that are out there also that are used by the business world to help plan or forecast what to do such as hire, make more product, cut inventory, increase inventory, adjust price, etc, etc. As for debt, I am saying it just can not be erased, not that it can not be paid or should not be paid. Individuals are responsible for thier individual debts and should repay accordingly. There is a lot of debt tied to the 99% in many related areas of finance. If you do not understand that, then you need to read more. The teacher pension was but a single example. Every union pension and health fund is tied up in debt financing and related markets. Every business and corporate pension and health fund is tied into the financial markets. You crash them and you crash the 99%. It won't hurt the 1% like it would the 99%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Condescending and arrogant. You have no idea who you are talkin to. I'm not here to give you info, or get info from you. I've learned some here been not a bit from arrogant republican stooges.

Cut the taxes/debt of the working class. Raise it on the wealthy, eliminate all deductions/loopholes of the wealthy.

"it's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

That is true. I do have no idea about who I am speaking with. Can only assume by your answers to what you know or do not. My intention is not to be condescending or arrogant (apologies if you saw it that way) just trying to see if you understand what I am discussing because based on your reply it seemed that you did not. If you are not here to exchange ideas or learn, why are you here at all? Do you believe I am a republican? So I ask again. Did you understand the points I was making or not? I am trying to understand your point of reference so I can speak plainly and that we have clear communication of thought. Is that not a good basis of discussion? Why do you not desire to learn, even if you do not agree? I live to learn, the older I get, the more I realize what I do not know and wish I did. So I will always ask and learn.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"You apologies if I saw"? Please.

I understand your points. I disagree! You points are just repub talking points.

Speak plainly, or not, don't matter. Speak how you are comfortable.

I said "I'm not here to get info FROM YOU" only an arrogant person would expand that to mean I don't want info from anyone, I did say I have learned here. But you disregard that because you want to twist my words to try and make me out to be unwilling to learn.

I've learned some here but not a bit from arrogant republicans.

"why do you not desire to learn" Are you 12 years old? "I live to learn" right, thats why you pretend you can't understand a clear sentence.

Give it up. Your republican rhetoric is unwelcomed. I support helping the 99%. I believe the 1% wealthy plutocrats are the ones with the money. Thats where we gotta get it.

"it's the only way to be sure"

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

It is difficult to discuss anything with an angry person. My points are not talking points, I am talking from the business view point. You seem to assume that I am taking sides. I was explaining some things to you since by your answers you were missing or not understanding the discusion point or explanation Your statement that says: " I learned some here but not a bit from arrogant republicans" says a lot about a closed mind. It's a shame. I have tried to discuss some viewpoints with you but you do not wish to engage in debate just because you seem to believe they are republican talking points. I will continue to engage you on this forum, and hopefully get into a more fruitful discussion on solutions. We may continue to disagree but that's ok. Since you did not answer my other questions, I leave you with just one: why do you continuosly have so much anger on this forum?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LoL. Sorry I was referring to the one where you said we agreed.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you say so boss.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

? Not sure which post your replying to. Above or below?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The common ground perhaps can be recognition that Repubs are working to end the aca (just as they have with SS & Medicare) and we are against it.

We can find common ground in our solidarity behind progressive solutions for the economic collapse that conservative policies have created.

Cut taxes/debt for working/middle class families and demand will create growth which in turn will create jobs. Lets find common ground in agitating for a living wage, incentives to hire Americans, & elimination of tax breaks for outsourcing.

Hows that? Common ground?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

See, that was not so hard. We agree on incentives to hire Americans, elimination of tax breaks for outsourcing. I believe we agree on rewrite of tax code but maybe differ on certain parts. I believe that the current ACA legislation will need modification due to the way it was so poorly written (more lawyers and courts) but would hope to improve the bad parts. Something will be required for the middle class, such as keeping the current tax cuts in place, but that can not go on forever either, as we must tackle the debt somehow. I have read many posts about a "living wage" but no one can ever define what it might actually be. Better would be providing good education and training and then access to opportunities. Some of the posts with the high wage minimums would create horrific inflation. And we would consume even more resources. (but I digress, sorry)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well let me speak plainly for YOU!

"Certainty" is a term adopted by republicans in the last few years to convince people that we must undo the ACA, and the Dodd Frank fin reform.

So to put it plainly, You and I disagree! You are saying that it is a business term, I am saying It is being used as a republican talking point to undo Dem progressive policies.

Plain enough!

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

You are getting too hung up on political rhetoric. We are clearly not talking about the same things. Both Political parties will always take words and use them for thier own agenda. Does that mean these words can not be used in normal discussion? I think we can do better than that. What happened to common ground?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"Certainty" is BS republican talking point, designed and pushed in a pathetic attempt to eliminate the pro 99% ACA regulations. The business rules of supply and demand have not been rescinded. If demand grows businesses WILL hire.

PERIOD.

Simply cut taxes/debt for working/middle class Americans (the real job creators) and demand will grow! Business WILL hire when that occurs.

If business sees money to be made, and they can do it better with more employees then they WILL hire.

Let's penalize outsourcing, incentivize insourcing. That's all.

My mind is open dude. We just disagree. You push republican talking point fallacies, I push progressive solutions to improve the lives of the 99%.

Peace

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Dude? ACA? Who is talking about the ACA? The more you write the more you prove my points. "if business sees money to be made, and they can do it better with more employees, then they will hire". That is just one of the elements of "certainty". It is fine to disagree, but let's disagree for the right reasons. Again, certainty is not a republican or democratic term. It is a business and economic term, nothing more, nothing less. Is that so difficult to understand? You mention speaking plainly and that doesnt matter? Communicating take two people, understanding the words and terms so that there is not any misunderstanding. There is no twisting of words. My effort here is to explain some things to you so we can better discuss, and you respond again with "talking points". When you were in school, did you respond to your professors or teachers that way? You might be surprised, but we probably agree on more things than we disagree, maybe on just how we get there.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't angry. That is you twisting things to change the subject!.

Like you twisted my words on learning. You can't teach me anything cause you parrot republican talking points. I support progressive approaches.

So give your opinion, I'll give mine. And we will have to move on.

Your personal attacks on my simplete betray your inability to duscuss the substance. "why do you not desire to learns"? huh? "why do you have so much anger" Whaaaat?

Distractions. If you can't stick to the issue then you've lost!

Peace

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

There were no personal attacks, only questions. I believe it was you who called me arrogant and condescending (which I already apologized if I was to you). I only made an observation that you seem to have a closed mind. Anyone observing our exchanges would agree based on your replies. For example: "cerainty" is nonsense? If you really mean that it is just a talking point, then you do need to educate yourself further on businees operations. Even a small business owner understands the concept. I am willing to discuss anything you want.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

in other words

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19025

The Global Economic Crisis. The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall (Editors)

Montreal, Global Research Publishers. Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), 2010.

ISBN 978-0-9737147-3-9 (416 pages)

PREFACE

In all major regions of the world, the economic recession is deep-seated, resulting in mass unemployment, the collapse of state social programs and the impoverishment of millions of people. The economic crisis is accompanied by a worldwide process of militarization, a "war without borders" led by the United States of America and its NATO allies. The conduct of the Pentagon’s "long war" is intimately related to the restructuring of the global economy.

We are not dealing with a narrowly defined economic crisis or recession. The global financial architecture sustains strategic and national security objectives. In turn, the U.S.-NATO military agenda serves to endorse a powerful business elite which relentlessly overshadows and undermines the functions of civilian government.

This book takes the reader through the corridors of the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations, behind closed doors at the Bank for International Settlements, into the plush corporate boardrooms on Wall Street where far-reaching financial transactions are routinely undertaken from computer terminals linked up to major stock markets, at the touch of a mouse button.

Each of the authors in this collection digs beneath the gilded surface to reveal a complex web of deceit and media distortion which serves to conceal the workings of the global economic system and its devastating impacts on people’s lives. Our analysis focuses on the role of powerful economic and political actors in an environment wrought by corruption, financial manipulation and fraud.

Despite the diversity of viewpoints and perspectives presented within this volume, all of the contributors ultimately come to the same conclusion: humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious economic and social crisis in modern history.

The meltdown of financial markets in 2008-2009 was the result of institutionalized fraud and financial manipulation. The "bank bailouts" were implemented on the instructions of Wall Street, leading to the largest transfer of money wealth in recorded history, while simultaneously creating an insurmountable public debt.

With the worldwide deterioration of living standards and plummeting consumer spending, the entire structure of international commodity trade is potentially in jeopardy. The payments system of money transactions is in disarray. Following the collapse of employment, the payment of wages is disrupted, which in turn triggers a downfall in expenditures on necessary consumer goods and services. This dramatic plunge in purchasing power backfires on the productive system, resulting in a string of layoffs, plant closures and bankruptcies. Exacerbated by the freeze on credit, the decline in consumer demand contributes to the demobilization of human and material resources.

This process of economic decline is cumulative. All categories of the labor force are affected. Payments of wages are no longer implemented, credit is disrupted and capital investments are at a standstill. Meanwhile, in Western countries, the "social safety net" inherited from the welfare state, which protects the unemployed during an economic downturn, is also in jeopardy.

The Myth of Economic Recovery

The existence of a "Great Depression" on the scale of the 1930s, while often acknowledged, is overshadowed by an unbending consensus: "The economy is on the road to recovery".

While there is talk of an economic renewal, Wall Street commentators have persistently and intentionally overlooked the fact that the financial meltdown is not simply composed of one bubble – the housing real estate bubble – which has already burst. In fact, the crisis has many bubbles, all of which dwarf the housing bubble burst of 2008.

Although there is no fundamental disagreement among mainstream analysts on the occurrence of an economic recovery, there is heated debate as to when it will occur, whether in the next quarter, or in the third quarter of next year, etc. Already in early 2010, the "recovery" of the U.S. economy had been predicted and confirmed through a carefully worded barrage of media disinformation. Meanwhile, the social plight of increased unemployment in America has been scrupulously camouflaged. Economists view bankruptcy as a microeconomic phenomenon.

The media reports on bankruptcies, while revealing local-level realities affecting one or more factories, fail to provide an overall picture of what is happening at the national and international levels. When all these simultaneous plant closures in towns and cities across the land are added together, a very different picture emerges: entire sectors of a national economy are closing down.

Public opinion continues to be misled as to the causes and consequences of the economic crisis, not to mention the policy solutions. People are led to believe that the economy has a logic of its own which depends on the free interplay of market forces, and that powerful financial actors, who pull the strings in the corporate boardrooms, could not, under any circumstances, have willfully influenced the course of economic events.

The relentless and fraudulent appropriation of wealth is upheld as an integral part of "the American dream", as a means to spreading the benefits of economic growth. As conveyed by Michael Hudson, the myth becomes entrenched that "without wealth at the top, there would be nothing to trickle down." Such flawed logic of the business cycle overshadows an understanding of the structural and historical origins of the global economic crisis.

Financial Fraud

Media disinformation largely serves the interests of a handful of global banks and institutional speculators which use their command over financial and commodity markets to amass vast amounts of money wealth. The corridors of the state are controlled by the corporate establishment including the speculators. Meanwhile, the "bank bailouts", presented to the public as a requisite for economic recovery, have facilitated and legitimized a further process of appropriation of wealth.

Vast amounts of money wealth are acquired through market manipulation. Often referred to as "deregulation", the financial apparatus has developed sophisticated instruments of outright manipulation and deceit. With inside information and foreknowledge, major financial actors, using the instruments of speculative trade, have the ability to fiddle and rig market movements to their advantage, precipitate the collapse of a competitor and wreck havoc in the economies of developing countries. These tools of manipulation have become an integral part of the financial architecture; they are embedded in the system.

The Failure of Mainstream Economics

The economics profession, particularly in the universities, rarely addresses the actual "real world" functioning of markets. Theoretical constructs centered on mathematical models serve to represent an abstract, fictional world in which individuals are equal. There is no theoretical distinction between workers, consumers or corporations, all of which are referred to as "individual traders". No single individual has the power or ability to influence the market, nor can there be any conflict between workers and capitalists within this abstract world.

By failing to examine the interplay of powerful economic actors in the "real life" economy, the processes of market rigging, financial manipulation and fraud are overlooked. The concentration and centralization of economic decision-making, the role of the financial elites, the economic thinks tanks, the corporate boardrooms: none of these issues are examined in the universities’ economics programs. The theoretical construct is dysfunctional; it cannot be used to provide an understanding of the economic crisis.....

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

here's just one example of special rights of corporations

http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-you-like-nafta-youll-love-tpp/

A leaked draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) investment chapter has been published online by Citizens Trade Campaign, the same coalition that first published TPP proposals from the United States on intellectual property, regulatory coherence and drug formularies in late 2011. Draft texts are said to exist for some 26 separate chapters, none of which have ever been officially released by trade negotiators for public review.

“Americans deserve the right to know what U.S. negotiators are proposing in our names,” said Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign. ”In the absence of transparency on the part of our government, we have a responsibility to share what information we receive about the TPP with the public.”

The new texts reveal that TPP negotiators are considering a dispute resolution process that would grant transnational corporations special authority to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions in international tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems.

“We are just beginning to analyze the new texts now, but they clearly contain proposals designed to give transnational corporations special rights that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens,” said Stamoulis. ”A proposal that could have such broad effects on environmental, consumer safety and other public interest regulations deserves public scrutiny and thorough public debate. It shouldn’t be crafted behind closed doors.”

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

What you're looking for is likely marginal utility:

In economics, the marginal utility of a good or service is the gain (or loss) from an increase (or decrease) in the consumption of that good or service. Economists sometimes speak of a law of diminishing marginal utility, meaning that the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units.[citation needed] The marginal decision rule states that a good or service should be consumed at a quantity at which the marginal utility is equal to the marginal cost.[1]

The concept of marginal utility played a crucial role in the marginal revolution of the late 19th century, and led to the replacement of the labor theory of value by neoclassical value theory in which the relative prices of goods and services are simultaneously determined by marginal rates of substitution in consumption and marginal rates of transformation in production, which are equal in economic equilibrium.[citation needed]

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Thanks, it's been about 25 years since I was in micro and macro 101 in night school. there are many economic terms that can be confusing to the average person who use these words in common conversation rather than in strict economic definition.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Sure. The Real value of something is the actual value where as the nominal value is the stated value. Real is tangible. No paper tigers, lion, or elephants.

Who decides, you do, seeing is believing.

Do you ever believe in things you don't see? (Leave faith out of it.)

I want proof. If I'm buying a car I want to see it.

Thanks for asking Mr. Engineer!

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Yes, I believe in things I can not see ( both in science and in faith). We all do, seeing is not necessary to believe ( i.e. air). Not sure if your definition is making sense. Are you replying in economic terminology or other? Your definition of "real" is something you touch, where mine is a value which is adjusted to get a comparison. You seem to be mixing the two together. Suppose I am selling the car you mentioned. I have a priced it at my perceived value. You will offer at your perceived value. There may or may not be a price point that intersects for us to complete the transaction but both of us are impacted by "real value" ideas. We both are considering how much value the car has changed from its original sale point, and we both consider the how much the dollar is buying that day as compared to the past. As for wealth, specifically personal wealth, it is mostly tangible: property, cars, house(s), stocks, etc. It's real value can only be calculated by comparing inflation and market impact to the basis costs vs today. I think you are saying above that wealth should not be "created" without some hard asset representing it?

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

So, your buying a car you haven't seen.

Yes, seeing is believing. The air we can see it, it blows in our face. It has particles in it, some which we do see. We have direct experience of it.

And, third, faith is devoid of reason. Faith without a lick of evidence is commonly called Blind Faith. Faith on it's own, is absurd. We believe that which we WISH for earnestly. Period. Be honest.

So your faith, do you have faith in things that you don't like or find abhorrent? Pray for bad things?

Look I enjoy fantasies as much as the next person, but put it into context. If you don't know, then you don't know admit it.

I'm an design engineer, I depend 100% on science. Zippo on faith. My circuits don't work because I pray about them and have faith in supernatural causes. It's 100% scientific. When I ignore the science my circuits let the magic smoke out.

So, go back to the touch stone. How do you if some thing 100% real?

I wasn't talking about perception which where I think you were leading to. I know in Business, that perception is REALITY. But in the real world, perception is usually NOT REALITY. In fact, it's pretty dang hard to explain it. We just haven't quite nailed that one yet.

I hope this helps you better to understand where I'm coming from. If you are an engineer you will have basis to grasp what I'm trying to say here. Engineers work with science extensively, faith in your ability to use science is welcome, but prove it! You could be wrong.

And, just a personal matter, I hate car salesman especially those who over sell stuff so they can pocket real money. mine.

Why don't you look up REAL VALUE (economics definition). And then look up NOMINAL value. One is real, the other is stated which means maybe it's real, and then maybe it's not.

I'm a realist so reality is very important to me in ALL things.

Good Luck!!!

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

First, you must be the only person on earth that can actually see air. But it was a simple example and I think you missed the point. I was not trying to go on about religious faith ( your the the one that asked me not to and I did not). But I believe that our terminology of real value as used here was different. I already know the economics version as that what I was explaining to you. Your explaination was mixed and likely somewhat confusing to any other readers. Perceived value is critical to any exchange pf goods and I am sure you can agree with that. Similar perceptions are difficult for everyone as each of us are different in our knowledge, emotion, understanding and opinion. As an engineer, yes, I can understand your reference to real things. As a side note, back in college, our team was nick-named MSC (maximum smoke crew) in our electronics lab. And we "prayed" the professor would not notice!

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

LoL, yes I understand that smoke problem. It's always the case that when the magic smoke left the circuit it was doomed. Either that or use a higher wattage resistor. :D

Actually, this conversation points up the problem of semantics and as we both realize in financial matters the science is much less critical and perception does creep in much more whether it's justified or not. It is more a matter of whether the perception of value is there and that doesn't depend so much upon real value as much. If we want it bad enough the price can go pretty high.

A good analogy would be the psychiatrist asking about not what happened but more importantly how did it make you feel. That matters more than the circumstance. I agree on the percieved value point you make. Absolutely I agree. So really this is good conversation and I think we both have learned something here.

As is true in much of life there's these balances. Extreme positions usually don't pass the "smell" test and even though we like to simplify these things, boiling them down, it won't lead to the realistic answer. no pun intended.

Anyway, I will catch up with you later with some more productive conversations. I'm always learning and, well, as you can also appreciate as an engineer, we're always careful to state what it is we do know, for sure, and separating out what we think may work but have to try tp prove it out. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. Admitting to personal mistakes is hard for many, but for me I readily do so once I convinced of it. My ego can still fit through doors fortunately.

So good and fruitful. I like the conversation. And by the way, I haven't seen you around before here, but, hey, welcome aboard. Sincerely. This is where this forum can really shine when we just have honest good natured respectful discussions. I wish you the best here and I will be the first to apologize for some of the "nut jobs" you'll find here and run into. It's largely an immaturity thing and some come to that from rage and anger. It lowers the bar a bit for what this forum really could be but it is how these things go sometimes. Not perfect by any means. A mimic of the real world outside. It's reality creeping in and the freedom to say it as the poster seems fit. But attacks are always counter productive and tend to point out that the poster disregards facts and rather attack the character, A usual sign that they have no good argument to inject, so they resort to bullying tactics.

This is why it's refreshing to just have a honest give and take. We really can learn in this environment and it improves our lot as we sort out chaos that seems all too prevalent at times.

Again, Good Luck, and speaking for me, I will always be willing discuss these issues and any others with you. Honestly I have gained respect for what you have to say and I promise to listen. You have class and it shows. I know many others here who will appreciate that as well.

We can and do make a difference. And I have always found it worth while to clarify and think through all the implications of our positions. And sometimes we may find we were wrong. This is how we learn.

Good night my friend. And Good Luck!

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Thanks for your response. And, yes, if we do not admit and correct mistakes, things fall down. That is our mindset. My wife thinks I am too pessimistic sometimes, but engineers typically look for things wrong in order to improve or be sure. I view myself as an optimist, that it will always get sorted out in the end if you are willing to do the front end work. I have been on this forum since last year but stopped commenting over the winter. But have always been reading. I am sure we will disagree on things but that is better to learn and understand another view from another reference point.

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

I couldn't agree more. It's always nice to know that there's others who like minded. It's inspiration that not only are we on the right track but it makes these discussions so worthwhile. Funny about the wife, mine too, same way, but as we both realize I'm sure, there's a thing called healthy skepticism. Personally I'm always accessing what it is I really know, what I think I know, and what I really don;t have a clue about. This is the absolute best foundation to work from.

In previous discussions I was known as Puzzlin but I needed a change and little more positive outlook, so there you go. Another little tidbit for whatever it's worth.

I'm sure we can have many more fruitful conversations. I find it invigorating to see an angle I haven't considered before.

Good Luck!!! I look forward to seeing you around.

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by Shule (1554) 1 year ago

Problem starts when people start measuring their wealth by paper printed on a press; they end up chasing after the wrong thing.

[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

The Repugs just can not help themselves. It's the LOVE of POWER.

ANd definitely NOT the POWER of LOVE.

Come Together NOW

[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

I agree completely. That's where those deceptive shell games and ponzi schemes come into play. Money should represent real value when the con artists and money grubbers get their palms off it.

Come together NOW

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 1 year ago

A command economy is what is needed.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Never heard that one before, please indulge me.

Come Together NOW

I'll keep a light shining forth............. :D