Letters to the Editor
-
Oh shit Keith...
you figured it out, Grover Norquist will be after your ass now. Better run. ;^)
-
Wow, study economics already, will you?
Actually the rich become rich by INVESTING their money, which is somewhat different from just socking it away someplace where it will do no good and ultimately lose value due to inflation. Incidentally investing doesn't just benefit the investor-- it also enables businesses to grow, which it turn produces jobs, and then suddenly a lot of people who never had a dime now have a dollar. See how it works?
If you tax the rich at higher levels, the rich will basically vote with their feet-- and they will take their money with them. Offshore. Take the money out of the US system and guess who loses their job the following year? The tax system is set up the way it is precisely to encourage those who have wealth to invest and put that money to work here, rather than go offshore with it. See how it works?
The rich are good to have around: they have more money, spend more money, invest that money and incidentally pay the most into the tax system which in turn directly pays for benefits that help the poor. If you open up a shop and there are no people with disposable income around to buy your wares, you are not going to stay in business for very long. Neither will your accountant. Or the guy who mops the floors or creates your window displays. See how it works?
Let's see some critical thinking skills. Please.
By the way, I am not rich. I am a poor economics student who will graduate with loans to pay-- loans which I was able to get because our economy is relatively healthy and the money was actually there in the coffers. (You on the other hand are able to be ignorant and take all of this for granted precisely because you are privileged-- if you were really poor, you would know better).
-
re: poor economics students
I agree that Brouhahaha is a poor economics student; not only in the sense of having no money, but also in the sense of not having fully grasped the basic concepts of his chosen field. What Keith Knight is illustrating here is the declining marginal utility of wealth. Putting this in layman's terms, (so Brouhahaha will understand it without having to look at his poor, neglected textbooks,) an additional $1 of income has less value to Bill Gates than it does to me, because it contributes less to his ability to buy the things he wants to buy. A basic consequence of the declining marginal utility of wealth is the inverse relationship between income and savings rates. This is microeconomics 101; if Brouhahaha really is an econ student -- and not, say, a business school student posing as an econ student -- he has no excuse for not knowing this.
-
New Deal 101
Keith Knight has it right, and this is classic New Deal economics, with an anti-tax twist. To stimulate the economy, use fiscal policy to make money flow to those most likely to spend it; the poorest. FDR used subsidies; Keith Knight suggests that the same effect can be achieved by tax cuts.
In retrospect, we now can see that Reaganomics is designed to reverse-stimulate the economy; that is, depress it.
I like Keith Knight's ingenious combination of 80's tactics for 30's ends. I hope Obama, Hillary, Edwards and the rest are listening, 'cause they'll need ideas like these to clean up Bush's mess.
-
Your grade? = P, for Poor Sucker
"By the way, I am not rich. I am a poor economics student who will graduate with loans to pay."
Well, then you will graduate a poor sucker. You're so divorced from reality and imagination that you can't even suggest a viable solution to the mess which is our current economic situation?
How about this for a economics lesson: Ever heard of a thing called GREED?
Our country could use:
- A wealth cap to regulate greed. Nobody NEEDS more than 10,000,000.00 to be happy. Anything in excess of 10 mill would go directly back into infrastructure, health care and schools. If you disagree, you should take a long look in the mirror. Arguments of economic motivation within capitalism fall flat here: People will always want to pin their wealth of 10 mill to the wall. Excessive greed is the fatal flaw of capitalism.
- Being able to decide exactly where Federal and State taxes are spent when you file each year. (spending power back to the people, really)
- The stripping of corporations of having the right as individual people under the constitution.
- Outlawing corporate/lobbyist contributions to any political candidate or govt. employee.
- Zero federal funding to churches and their lunatic beliefs (purely a evolutionary decision here)
To explain things further:
If there was a 10 million dollar wealth cap implemented today, do you think the American people would take to the streets in protest? No, because such a small amount of them have any money to begin with. In fact, almost all of them have debt. Yet even individuals can't declare bankruptcy like a corporation can. Even more so, almost everyone's standard of living would improve if the excess earnings were properly funding education, health care and infrastructure.
As far as religion: How much federal money gets donated to Evangelical Christian groups compared to Buddhists ? There's your discrimination. The Govt. should have nothing to do with the church.
Corporations: We could still set them up fairly protected without granting them the full rights of a individual person.
The American people do not have spending power, those who are voted in posses this. There is a huge difference. Who would you say Congress is voting for? The people, or the corporate special interests? What is so threatening about people on a individual level deciding how their income taxes are spent?
Voting in our country is an illusion. (so is our economy for that matter) Unless maybe you think George Bush actually won in 2000? Our current dynamic is a catch-22. The kind of reform I would like to have pass would never be passed by those who benefit from it being corrupt now. You can't expect a corrupt institution to regulate itself.
Above all, I'm not here to argue about the specifics of our Constitution. I'm here to argue about what is right and what is undeniably wrong and what I believe would be best for our society as a whole...not what's best for a over-privileged few.