Krugman opinion: "Yes, he could"

[Dad2three]

This stupid argument has been posted at least 10,000 times. Every attempt at pure socialism has resulted in mass starvation and the death of millions. On the other hand, history shows that the closer a nation gets to a free market, that faster the material well-being of its inhabitants increases.

BTW, Chile is hardly a "total failure. It's the wealthiest country in Latin America. Every citizen of Chile should give thanks to Pinochet and Milton Friedman for saving their country from liberalism gone wild.

Weird how conservative economic policy does that.

Got it, false premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY thing right wingers have.

Western Europe is a real hellhole right?

Chile? Oh NOW, AFTER the Gov't took back Uncle Milties failed policies, lol


CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story.


Chile: the laboratory test



Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan (AGAIN) rescued by Big Gov't, weird right? lol


January 27, 2005


Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.

Under the Chilean program - which President Bush has cited as a model for his plans to overhaul Social Security - the promise was that such investments, by helping to spur economic growth and generating higher returns, would deliver monthly pension benefits larger than what the traditional system could offer.

But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month. Many others - because they earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally - remain outside the system altogether. Combined, those groups constitute roughly half the Chilean labor force. Only half of workers are captured by the system.

Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.



lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html

What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:

Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering

How well has the system performed? John Tierney, a writer for the New York Times, went to visit Pablo Serra, a former classmate and friend in Santiago a few years ago, and they compared notes on how well their respective retirement programs were doing. Tierney brought along his latest statement from Social Security, while his friend brought up his retirement plan on his computer. It turned out that they both had been contributing about the same amount of money, so the comparison was apt, and startling, said Tierney:

Pablo could retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would almost triple the $25,000 pension promised [to me] by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and [in addition receive] a one-time cash payment of $223,000.

Tierney wrote that Pablo said “I’m very happy with my account.” Tierney suggested that, upon retirement, Pablo could not only retire nicely, but be able to buy himself a vacation home at the shore or in the country. Pablo laughed it off, and Tierney wrote: “I’m trying to look on the bright side. Maybe my Social Security check will cover the airfare to visit him.”

According to Investors Business Daily, the average annual rate of return for Chilean workers over the last 30 years has exceeded 9% annually, after inflation, whereas “U. S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) rate of return, and even less for new workers.”

As expected, the capital accumulated in these privatized accounts have generated substantial growth in Chile’s economy. As noted by Wikipedia, “Chile is one of South America’s most stable and prosperous nations, leading Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.” [Emphases added.]

High domestic savings and investment rates helped propel Chile’s economy to average growth rates of 8% during the 1990s. The privatized national pension plan (AFP) has encouraged domestic investment and contributed to an estimated total domestic savings rate of approximately 21% of GDP.

Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.

Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.

Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.

Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head*

lol


New American? THE BIRCHERS? LOL

SO UNCLE MILTIE HAD SUCCESS HUH?



According to Ricardo Ffrench-Davis the unnecessary radicalism of the shock therapy in the 1970s caused mass unemployment, purchasing power losses, extreme inequalities in the distribution of income and severe socio-economic damage.

http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_4084-544-1-30.pdf?040415182627

According to United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean data the percentage of Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985.

THAT'S 'SUCCESS''? LOL


Tinker Bell, Pinochet and The Fairy Tale Miracle of Chile


But Cinderella's pumpkin did not really turn into a coach. The Miracle of Chile, too, was just another fairy tale. The claim that General Pinochet begat an economic powerhouse was one of those utterances whose truth rested entirely on its repetition.

Chile could boast some economic success. But that was the work of Salvador Allende - who saved his nation, miraculously, a decade after his death.

In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile's unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.

In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year "President" Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%. Quite a miracle.

Pinochet did not destroy Chile's economy all alone. It took nine years of hard work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman's trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatized the pension system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public employment, privatized 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.

Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a giant leap forward ... into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile's industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped 19%. The free-market experiment was kaput, the test tubes shattered. Blood and glass littered the laboratory floor. Yet, with remarkable chutzpah, the mad scientists of Chicago declared success. In the US, President Ronald Reagan's State Department issued a report concluding, "Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management." Milton Friedman himself coined the phrase, "The Miracle of Chile." Friedman's sidekick, economist Art Laffer, preened that Pinochet's Chile was, "a showcase of what supply-side economics can do."

It certainly was. More exactly, Chile was a showcase of de-regulation gone berserk.

By 1982, the pyramid finance game was up. The Vial and Cruzat "Grupos" defaulted. Industry shut down, private pensions were worthless, the currency swooned. Riots and strikes by a population too hungry and desperate to fear bullets forced Pinochet to reverse course. He booted his beloved Chicago experimentalists. Reluctantly, the General restored the minimum wage and unions' collective bargaining rights. Pinochet, who had previously decimated government ranks, authorized a program to create 500,000 jobs.
In other words, Chile was pulled from depression by dull old Keynesian remedies, all Franklin Roosevelt, zero Reagan/Thatcher. New Deal tactics rescued Chile from the Panic of 1983, but the nation's long-term recovery and growth since then is the result of - cover the children's ears - a large dose of socialism.

To save the nation's pension system, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Socialist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation. While most of these businesses were eventually re-privatized, the state retained ownership of one industry: copper.

LOL

So there we have it. Keynes and Marx, not Friedman, saved Chile.

But the myth of the free-market Miracle persists because it serves a quasi-religious function. Within the faith of the Reaganauts and Thatcherites, Chile provides the necessary genesis fable, the ersatz Eden from which laissez-faire dogma sprang successful and shining.

Greg Palast | Investigative Reporter


SO YOU SOCIALIZE AFTER YOU PRIVATIZE TO SAVE IT, AND CALL THAT A 'SUCCESS' FOR THE 'FREE MARKETS'? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Chile was an absolute economic success story under Pinochet, a South American rarity. He averted the invariable economic catastrophe of the populist and far left Allende.

Sure, once they went Keynesian and that socialism

 

[Dad2three]

Yep. That's why the commies, fellow travelers and useful idiots hate him so much.

Pinochet was a monster.

Wrong. He was a patriot fighting traitors to save his country from communism. Allende and those who supported him were the monsters.

THE DEPTHS OF DECEPTION YOU MORONS GO TO TO DEFEND A MURDERER!



The Myth of the Chilean Miracle

The Myth of the Chilean Miracle



The other side of Chile's 'economic miracle'


The gap between Chile's richest ten percent and its poorest ten percent is wider than any other country in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 34 countries with developed economies. Over the last three decades, salaries have risen by an average of 15 percent for 90 percent of Chileans, compared to 150 percent for the richest one percent, according to Stiglitz.



..The rights to Chile's water are privatised, causing its cost to spike despite its abundance. Because it is privately owned, people cannot use or drink water even if it flows through their own property.


The other side of Chile's 'economic miracle' - Features - Al Jazeera English



In fact, no. The “economic miracle” Milton Friedman ascribed to Pinochet is one of the great false narratives of modern economic history. The miracle he oversaw was really just a series of boom-bust cycles: two periods of rapid growth bookended by two deep recessions: the first precipitated by a “shock treatment” of monetary contraction, privatization and deregulation authored by his University of Chicago-trained cabinet ministers in 1975; the second, a catastrophic debt crisis in 1982. In the immediate aftermath of the free market reforms in the mid 70s, Chile had the second lowest growth rate in Latin America: Bankruptcies were rampant, national output fell 15%, unemployment surpassed 20%, and salaries fell 35% below 1970 levels1. Not to mention the corruption, from the fire sale of state properties to politically connected investors, to Pinochet’s personal embezzlement of millions later found in secret bank accounts in Washington, Miami and elsewhere.

Average per capita GDP growth over the entire course of the dictatorship was less than 2%, significantly lower than the four Christian Democrat and Socialist governments that succeeded him. The poverty rate, hovering at 40% by the time Pinochet left office, was cut in half within a decade with an upsurge in social welfare spending, and stands at 14% today. The numbers are clear: the true Chilean economic miracle occurred after Pinochet, under democratic, leftist governments.


Egypt Does Not Need a Pinochet | New Republic

 

[Dad2three]

The Chicago boys
and the Chilean 'economic miracle'

SUMMARY: So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle."

LOL

The Rbinson Rojas Archive.- Steve Kangas: The Chicago boys and the Chilean 'economic miracle' .- RRojas Databank: Analysis and Information on economics, development, research methods, globalization, poverty, sustainability, environment, human rights,

 

[bripat9643]

Chile was an absolute economic success story under Pinochet, a South American rarity. He averted the invariable economic catastrophe of the populist and far left Allende.

Sure, once they went Keynesian and that socialism

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

 

[The Rabbi]

Chile was an absolute economic success story under Pinochet, a South American rarity. He averted the invariable economic catastrophe of the populist and far left Allende.

Sure, once they went Keynesian and that socialism

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

 

[Political Junky]

the 1973 Chilean coup d'état that overthrew Salvador Allende's left-wing government and instituted a 16-year-long right-wing military dictatorship that left more than 3,000 people dead or missing.[10] The dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet ended in 1990 after it lost a referendum in 1988 and was succeeded by a centre-left coalition which ruled through four presidencies until 2010.

Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[10] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[11] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[12] Chile is a founding member of the United Nations, the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Chile was an absolute economic success story under Pinochet, a South American rarity. He averted the invariable economic catastrophe of the populist and far left Allende.

Sure, once they went Keynesian and that socialism

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

What world do you live in again? Must not get any air and has warped your brain



Yeah, that guy Reagan kinda used PART of Keynes, you know when he tripled the debt because his tax cuts for the rich (at 50%, lol) starved US of revenues

 

[Dad2three]

the 1973 Chilean coup d'état that overthrew Salvador Allende's left-wing government and instituted a 16-year-long right-wing military dictatorship that left more than 3,000 people dead or missing.[10] The dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet ended in 1990 after it lost a referendum in 1988 and was succeeded by a centre-left coalition which ruled through four presidencies until 2010.

Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[10] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[11] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[12] Chile is a founding member of the United Nations, the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chile prospers today BECAUSE they rolled back the right wings 'miracle'...

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, once they went Keynesian and that socialism

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

 

[Meathead]

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist

Charles Manson was famous.

In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."

Government meddling in economies is the antithesis of capitalism.

Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol

What austerity?

How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

The banksters are operating in economies that are centrally controlled. That is no free market.

Not terribly bright, are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

They never went "Keynesian." Keynes was a quack and a con artist. All his theories have been discredited.

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Marx was influential too. Doesnt mean his theory didnt suck.
Whenever anyone uses a juvenile term like "bankster" I know I'm dealing with the hard core moronic. As mentioned, banking was highly regulated, with bankers playing with Uncle Sam's money.
In the old days banks were unregulated but the law was the directors were personally responsible for their depositors' money. If they lost money, they were on the hook. Bring that back and watch how cautious banks become.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Marx was influential too. Doesnt mean his theory didnt suck.
Whenever anyone uses a juvenile term like "bankster" I know I'm dealing with the hard core moronic. As mentioned, banking was highly regulated, with bankers playing with Uncle Sam's money.
In the old days banks were unregulated but the law was the directors were personally responsible for their depositors' money. If they lost money, they were on the hook. Bring that back and watch how cautious banks become.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Keynesianism is the most discredited economic theory since Marx. That anyone believes it works is testament to stupidity.

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

Misinformation is ignoring the miserable economies under Nixon, Ford and both Bush's. Misinformation is ignoring the booming economy under Clinton. Misinformation is blaming those who inherited failing economies.

 

[Statistikhengst]

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist




In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."


Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

Misinformation is ignoring the miserable economies under Nixon, Ford and both Bush's. Misinformation is ignoring the booming economy under Clinton. Misinformation is blaming those who inherited failing economies.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's see--if we kill coal, which is only used for electric generation, we drive up the demand for natural gas and petroleum which drives up their prices which drive up the cost of everything which drives up the cost of living. Seems to be of great consequence since electric is at all-time highs. No wonder Obama also wants us to have electric cars--it is a huge boom to Big Oil.

The Chained Consumer Price Index and cost of electricity have hit all time highs under Obama. What a coincidence.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brains....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let's see--if we kill coal, which is only used for electric generation, we drive up the demand for natural gas and petroleum which drives up their prices which drive up the cost of everything which drives up the cost of living. Seems to be of great consequence since electric is at all-time highs. No wonder Obama also wants us to have electric cars--it is a huge boom to Big Oil.

The Chained Consumer Price Index and cost of electricity have hit all time highs under Obama. What a coincidence.

What is killing coal is....wait for it you bunch of right wing pea brain....


The FREE MARKET...

Here in the United States, coal is in decline. It's producing the smallest percentage of our electricity since the 1970s, we're burning less of it overall, and prices have dropped drastically.

One reason is that America is in the midst of a natural gas boom that's provided utilities with a cheap, efficient, and (comparatively) clean source of power. But some, including the Economist, have also pointed to Obama administration environmental regulations as hastening the switch. So what's really killing coal: the market or our current president?

The market, says this graph from the Energy Information Administration. The chart breaks down America's electricity supply by source and the year it started operating. And here's the basic take-away: natural gas was trouncing coal all through the Bush administration. What we've seen under Obama has been the continuation of a trend.

And once again, numbers triumph over propaganda.

 

[Indeependent]

"In the old days banks were unregulated but the law was the directors were personally responsible for their depositors' money. If they lost money, they were on the hook. Bring that back and watch how cautious banks become."

I guess TheRabbi never heard of Sarbanes/Oxley.

 

[Listening]

Got it, you'll hang onto failed conservative policy that has NEVER worked, ANYWHERE EVER



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.



Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Got what ? Brainlock ? Oh wait, you'd need a brain.

You didn't even address the points of his post.

Did you really just need to ejaculate your little sermon that badly ?

Feel better ?

Carter just cleaned up and the economy tanked under Reagan. Wait....

Address what, the Coolidge/Harding depression HH inherited?

Reagan? Oh right the guy who had a top tax rate of 50% for 6 years and once the top rate was cut to that, the unemployment soared, the opposite of what was supposed to happen?

Yes, those '70's policies set in motion by Nixon/Ford wage and price controls and OPEC really hurt Carter, the guy who had 9+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 million in 8


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's right...you didn't address those points.

But, now that you've been called on it....you are basically BSing your way.

It's to bad you have to try and appear to be smart.

That you correlate things like this with no evidence is hysterical.

Carter created X jobs in 4 years......he only got four years for a reason. Remember...he got his ass kicked in 1980.

Reagan gets to eat the recession Carter handed him.

Reagan got whomped in 1984....wait...that was Mondale. Because nobody else would run against Reagan. Reagan barely campaigned.

But you know something the rest of America doesn't.

No need to dispute the job numbers, they are correct. They simply don't tell the entire story.

I hope there isn't a number 4 for his/her sake.