Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Arthur Laffer is an evil, evil man. Not that any of you actually know who Laffer is or what the Laffer curve is, but I'm sure you can Google him to learn more. Allow me to quote some excerpts from a speech he made.

Not all of us here are 17, and yes, the diarrhea trickle-down theory is faulty. It relies on corporations not being greedy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not all of us here are 17, and yes, the diarrhea trickle-down theory is faulty. It relies on corporations not being greedy.

And the trickle-up theory is just as faulty. It relies on the government not being political (stupid).

Tax breaks on the middle class: trickle-either-way economics.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Tax breaks on the middle class: trickle-either-way economics.

But then the politicians start redefining the term "middle class" to be whatever they want.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And the trickle-up theory is just as faulty. It relies on the government not being political (stupid).

We should just eliminate the economy all together.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We should just eliminate the economy all together.

We are on the way to that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But then the politicians start redefining the term "middle class" to be whatever they want.

Nah, "middle-class" is reasonbly defined in political science. Sure, it's more of an intangible defintion than a literal number...because $20,000 50 years ago is not $20,000 in 2010.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And the trickle-up theory is just as faulty. It relies on the government not being political (stupid).
"Trickle-up" being the effect where when the poor start living well, the money starts being taken by the rich? That's not faulty, but it is terrible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"Trickle-up" being the effect where when the poor start living well, the money starts being taken by the rich? That's not faulty, but it is terrible.

I was referring to socialism in a tough in cheek way. I don't really know what in the world "Trickle-up" would really be.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was referring to socialism in a tough in cheek way. I don't really know what in the world "Trickle-up" would really be.
I don't really see why you think socialism can't work when most prosperous countries with functional economies use it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see why you think socialism can't work when most prosperous countries with functional economies use it.

It is all a matter of degree. If socialism is conducted on the local level, or the state level, then there is a greater chance of susses. However, socialism on a federal level is a disaster. However, I feel the same way about capitalism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is all a matter of degree. If socialism is conducted on the local level, or the state level, then there is a greater chance of susses. However, socialism on a federal level is a disaster. However, I feel the same way about capitalism.
But all socialist countries conduct it nationwide (IE, federally). So any success we've seen is indicative that federal socialism works.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But all socialist countries conduct it nationwide (IE, federally). So any success we've seen is indicative that federal socialism works.

And most of those countries are smaller then the state I live in. Their fed, is not comparable to the fed of the USA.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And most of those countries are smaller then the state I live in.
The EU isn't, and it's analogous to a socialist USA.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The EU isn't, and it's analogous to a socialist USA.

And it is becoming a disaster. It may not survive.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And it is becoming a disaster. It may not survive.
It's a disaster because of the same problems that are affecting every country on Earth right now (cept Norway... guess Socialism really failed them there). You think they would have done better if they were more capitalist?

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's a disaster because of the same problems that are affecting every country on Earth right now (cept Norway... guess Socialism really failed them there). You think they would have done better if they were more capitalist?

I don't know. I think capitalist when applied to a large fed is as much of a disaster as socialism. They are both failed systems, on the large scale.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was referring to socialism in a tough in cheek way. I don't really know what in the world "Trickle-up" would really be.

Giving mass tax breaks to the lower and middle classes, on the notion that they'll use that extra money to buy even more junk they don't need from the upper class, thereby enriching the upper class (corporations) and stimulating the economy.

Or to put a comedic spin on it, something like this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=reparations-2003&videoId=24406

Originally posted by Robtard
Giving mass tax breaks to the lower and middle classes, on the notion that they'll use that extra money to buy even more junk they don't need from the upper class, thereby enriching the upper class (corporations) and stimulating the economy.

Or to put a comedic spin on it, something like this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=reparations-2003&videoId=24406

Are you telling me what a "Trickle-up" would really be?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know. I think capitalist when applied to a large fed is as much of a disaster as socialism. They are both failed systems, on the large scale.

I'm pretty sure those are the only options.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you telling me what a "Trickle-up" would really be?

No, what it is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm pretty sure those are the only options.

Libertarianism?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, what it is.

I just made it up. What were you talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Libertarianism?
Can you explain how that's any different from capitalism?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you explain how that's any different from capitalism?

Local.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Local.
I don't think there's anything in the definition of capitalism saying it needs to be national.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just made it up. What were you talking about?

While Trickle-up economics might be new to you, you did not make it up, sir.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think there's anything in the definition of capitalism saying it needs to be national.

The problem is not with socialism vs capitalism, but with local vs Fed.

Originally posted by Robtard
While Trickle-up economics might be new to you, you did not make it up, sir.

Not that kind of made up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not that kind of made up.

Which kind then?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see why you think socialism can't work when most prosperous countries with functional economies use it.

Socialism is never used, purely, in any modern G20 nation.

I know that's not what you said, but some newbs might think that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's a disaster because of the same problems that are affecting every country on Earth right now (cept Norway... guess Socialism really failed them there). You think they would have done better if they were more capitalist?

LOL,

Anytime I get the anti-socialism banter from the right-wing freaks that abound aplenty in Oklahoma, I just give them an emotionless face and say: "Norway. "

Originally posted by Robtard
Which kind then?

Are you serious? Just because I turned a phrase to make a point, and accidentally hit on a word that matches something that is real, does not mean I am claiming to be the inverter of that real thing. Who do you think I am, Al Gore?

Easy, guy, I initially responded to your question to let you know what Trickle-up economics is, as you said you didn't know. Could have just said "thank you"; left it at that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you serious? Just because I turned a phrase to make a point, and accidentally hit on a word that matches something that is real, does not mean I am claiming to be the inverter of that real thing. Who do you think I am, Al Gore?

You did invert a real thing. What you didn't do is invent a real thing.

Well, more on topic, the US, for a long time, has been experiencing a trickle-up effect.

Execs and board members are getting richer and low-level employees are not keeping pace with their increase. That's a fact.

I don't know about the wealthy, as a whole, though, because every wealthy person is NOT an exec or board member.

But I'd assume that that would cascade to most of the "wealthy" types.

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy, guy, I initially responded to your question to let you know what Trickle-up economics is, as you said you didn't know. Could have just said "thank you"; left it at that.

But my joke about Al Gore was worth it all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem is not with socialism vs capitalism, but with local vs Fed.

So far, Shak leads with 18 Re:'s

Originally posted by Mindship
So far, Shak leads with 18 Re:'s

Who made you ref?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who made you ref?
Just passin' thru.

i don't even recall reagonomics or the star wars program

Socialism is for children and those who cannot into economics. The very idea that you can "plan" an economy is laughable.

Yeah the idea that the market regenerates and regulates itself is so much better...

oh wait...

so where do you see strong command economies then, mr parmaniac?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The EU isn't, and it's analogous to a socialist USA.

That's not true. I suppose it is somewhat more leaning towards some ideals of socialism, especially newer social democracy ideals, but it's definitely not a socialist USA.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Anytime I get the anti-socialism banter from the right-wing freaks that abound aplenty in Oklahoma, I just give them an emotionless face and say: "Norway. "

Do you then follow it up with "...who luckily have huge supplies of oil, which cancel out some of the negative effects their policy has which would not equally apply to other countries"?




As for this thread, I don't understand the point of the guy you quote. Is he for or against it, also how does it relate to your thread title.

Originally posted by inimalist
so where do you see strong command economies then, mr parmaniac? It's not about option A or B, socialism isn't even a clearly defined term, the modern "communism" in china is more a national capitalism lead by a communistic party so in time pretty much all forms are flowing into each other and there is no pure form of anything anymore, my point is that people that are bitching about that the gouvernment shouldn't interfere with economic in any way most of the time are the first ones when their so hard wanked system fails in it's fundamentals. I still remember my economy teacher preaching the "invisible hand" shit about the free markets and that it's so complex that noone understands how it regulates the markets but it works and 3 years later we had a world wide financial crisis and 2 years later we're still sitting in it...

To more or less simply answer your question if anything is really strong command economic then it's china but I already said that china isn't really communistic nor socialistic by old definitions. The irony is that the western world is now crying about the fact that all companies are moving to china and living the "capitalistic way of life" after they we're so proud of that form of economy their whole life. And china is well planning their economic growth and everything that could be included in it. For example china has stopped the export of "rare earths" these are the elements used for green technology like solar panels.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
It's not about option A or B, socialism isn't even a clearly defined term, the modern "communism" in china is more a national capitalism lead by a communistic party so in time pretty much all forms are flowing into each other and there is no pure form of anything anymore, my point is that people that are bitching about that the gouvernment shouldn't interfere with economic in any way most of the time are the first ones when their so hard wanked system fails in it's fundamentals. I still remember my economy teacher preaching the "invisible hand" shit about the free markets and that it's so complex that noone understands how it regulates the markets but it works and 3 years later we had a world wide financial crisis and 2 years later we're still sitting in it...

To more or less simply answer your question if anything is really strong command economic then it's china but I already said that china isn't really communistic nor socialistic by old definitions. The irony is that the western world is now crying about the fact that all companies are moving to china and living the "capitalistic way of life" after they we're so proud of that form of economy their whole life. And china is well planning their economic growth and everything that could be included in it. For example china has stopped the export of "rare earths" these are the elements used for green technology like solar panels.

ok, but, in reply to the statement that "economic control is impossible because it is impossible to predict the economy", you insinuated that the free market performs no better. I agree, a more limited and restricted free market is a beneficial third option, but you were the one who started this binary comparison.

historically, free market economies have been much more successful by most measures that command ones.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but, in reply to the statement that "economic control is impossible because it is impossible to predict the economy", you insinuated that the free market performs no better. I agree, a more limited and restricted free market is a beneficial third option, but you were the one who started this binary comparison.

A deregulated market without any restrictions etc. won't do better in the long run imo. But then again everything is doomed to fail in the long run, depends on how long you define long run. But the prob I see is that the devastating force that will occur when this form fails will be a thousand times worse than the fall down of the other systems.

Originally posted by inimalist
historically, free market economies have been much more successful by most measures that command ones.

I agree or better said I know cause there's nothing to agree it's a fact.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
A deregulated market without any restrictions etc. won't do better in the long run imo. But then again everything is doomed to fail in the long run, depends on how long you define long run. But the prob I see is that the devastating force that will occur when this form fails will be a thousand times worse than the fall down of other systems

which system's collapse do you see as being better than our current economic slowdown?

I mean, sure, I've changed jobs from a well paying research position to a minimum wage bookstore clerk, but I also just dropped over a grand in synthesizers. this "crash" of the free market is much more of a fender bender than the fall of communism or other regimes worldwide.

you might doomsay the future (and btw, I will reply to the hyperinflation thing eventually. you and digi are both feeling my neglect here) but if there is one thing I've seen in the past 50 years, it's that the market finds a way to make money.

Originally posted by inimalist
I mean, sure, I've changed jobs from a well paying research position to a minimum wage bookstore clerk, but I also just dropped over a grand in synthesizers. this "crash" of the free market is much more of a fender bender than the fall of communism or other regimes worldwide.

There is no Free Market in the modern western world. It's all a regulated market.

Originally posted by inimalist
one thing I've seen in the past 50 years, it's that the market finds a way to make money.

I don't think many people deny this. The whole history of civilization proves that even extreme changes in lifestyle, politics, economic theory and technology don't alter the ability of people to make money. But that is not, in and of itself, a good thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
which system's collapse do you see as being better than our current economic slowdown? The fall of communism in russia BUT I'm not saying let's do the same and repeat this over and over again. It's more like the lesser evil and the world wasn't as connected as it is nowadays (so it most likely wouldn't even work anymore). It's like I (and you) already said we have to find some kind of "symbiosis" of the systems just letting the market do it's "work" is suicidal imo.
Originally posted by inimalist
I mean, sure, I've changed jobs from a well paying research position to a minimum wage bookstore clerk, but I also just dropped over a grand in synthesizers. this "crash" of the free market is much more of a fender bender than the fall of communism or other regimes worldwide. And this is where we only can agree to disagree at the moment, I think we are on a way down, the EU will brake imo and after that something else (most likely even worse) will happen imo. But of course at this point it's all speculation and only time will tell.
Originally posted by inimalist
you might doomsay the future (and btw, I will reply to the hyperinflation thing eventually. you and digi are both feeling my neglect here) but if there is one thing I've seen in the past 50 years, it's that the market finds a way to make money. Making money is not even the prob imo it's the amount/relation of money/debt, but I'll wait for your reply that's something that really bugs me not only this the "does conspiracies exist?" thread is in a way connected to this.

On an unrelated note: did anyone else think it was "rage-a-nomics" as a kid?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is no Free Market in the modern western world. It's all a regulated market.

indeed, though, the American model is probably the best to use when theorizing about market consequences of deregulation.

obvious the ghost of Milton Friedman is screaming agreement with you into my ear.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think many people deny this. The whole history of civilization proves that even extreme changes in lifestyle, politics, economic theory and technology don't alter the ability of people to make money. But that is not, in and of itself, a good thing.

that is certainly arguable. we can point to abuses and profiteering, but would you argue that the ability of the market to survive independent of government would exacerbate the collapse of a system. sure, it might only serve a financial elite, but compared to Maoist china or feudal India, where people starved while food rotted in warehouses, it at least keeps products where the demand is, not where these exact same elite want them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for this thread, I don't understand the point of the guy you quote. Is he for or against it, also how does it relate to your thread title.

Petroleum accounts for about 26% of it's GDP. Nice try.

Edit - You forgot about their IT services, manufacturing, non-petro energy, and it's massive cash (banking).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Petroleum accounts for about 26% of it's GDP. Nice try.

Edit - You forgot about their IT services, manufacturing, non-petro energy, and it's massive cash (banking).

Oh sorry, only 1/4th or its GDP, that's negligible.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Yeah the idea that the market regenerates and regulates itself is so much better...

oh wait...
Ahahahah. You think that market regulation is the same thing as socialism. That's cute. Now go back to the OTF; the adults are talking.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ahahahah. You think that market regulation is the same thing as socialism. That's cute. Now go back to the OTF; the adults are talking. facepalm GTFO troll

Originally posted by Parmaniac
The fall of communism in russia BUT I'm not saying let's do the same and repeat this over and over again. It's more like the lesser evil and the world wasn't as connected as it is nowadays (so it most likely wouldn't even work anymore).

specifics of the fallout and connectedness of the world at the time of the fall of Russian communism aside, in what ways are the modern recession worse than that?

Originally posted by Parmaniac

It's like I (and you) already said we have to find some kind of "symbiosis" of the systems just letting the market do it's "work" is suicidal imo.

but historically much less so than in controlled economies. "-isms" that try to explain how the economy does or ought to work are useless, thus, so long as we base economic decisions on such things, we are doomed to failure. ideology needs to die a cold and lonely death.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
And this is where we only can agree to disagree at the moment, I think we are on a way down, the EU will brake imo and after that something else (most likely even worse) will happen imo. But of course at this point it's all speculation and only time will tell.

I can't say it is impossible, but I don't see the end of the eu through some catastrophie on the horizon. our political systems are much more stable than they were in the 60s/70s, let alone the last great depression.

Originally posted by Parmaniac

Making money is not even the prob imo it's the amount/relation of money/debt, but I'll wait for your reply that's something that really bugs me not only this the "does conspiracies exist?" thread is in a way connected to this.

you need to stick to the topic here. we were discussing whether a free or controlled market would be preferable in a time of national crisis, where yes, making money (indicating the presence of goods for people to buy) might be the difference between life and death.

the Mao example is probably the best here. during the great leap forward and the communal projects, warehouses full of grain rotted while millions starved to death. in a free market, sure, there would have been profiteering and exploitative prices, but that excess supply would have gotten to the demand.

sure, the profit motive is less benevolent than the humanitarian motive, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Socialism is for children and those who cannot into economics. The very idea that you can "plan" an economy is laughable.
Ah yes. Following the example of nations with the world's most functional government and economy is laughable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Socialism is never used, purely, in any modern G20 nation.

I know that's not what you said, but some newbs might think that.
Capitalism is never used purely in any G20 nation. The only "pure capitalism" I can think of is places like Somalia where there really isn't much of a government to intervene in the first place. And is definitely not a good place to be.

In this thread, we realize that there are a lot of people who don't understand what capitalism and socialism are.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
In this thread, we realize that there are a lot of people who don't understand what capitalism and socialism are.
In this thread, we realize Zeal Ex Nihilo is incapable of using actual arguments to support his points.

You mad, bro?

Don't forget to tune in for next weeks "In this thread...".

Good night...and good luck!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh sorry, only 1/4th or its GDP, that's negligible.


Sure is when there are several nations that have greater than 20% of their GDP related to oil, as well.


Let's see: Russia, Saudi Arabia (closer to 40%), Iran, aaaaand I'm out already.




Norway would still have a very information industry if all Petro related jobs ceased to exist. Not only that, but they are one of the best at making a government/private change (if not the best.) What's excellent about Norway is their foresight in development: developing policies that are supposed to foster other industries other than Petro. Ever hear of their "centers of expertise?" A hedge against too much reliance on Petro.


You may be asking yourself: why the **** does a stupid Yank know so much about Norway? It's cause I've considered living there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Capitalism is never used purely in any G20 nation. The only "pure capitalism" I can think of is places like Somalia where there really isn't much of a government to intervene in the first place. And is definitely not a good place to be.

I agree. Pure capitalism, unchecked and unregulated, is a very shitty economic system. Pure socialism is a shitty economic system, as well.

A well balanced mixed economy with foresight and adjustments (such as the things Norway is doing) applied, make for an absurdly good economy. Not only that, your people are happy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure is when there are several nations that have greater than 20% of their GDP related to oil, as well.


Let's see: Russia, Saudi Arabia (closer to 40%), Iran, aaaaand I'm out already.




Norway would still have a very information industry if all Petro related jobs ceased to exist. Not only that, but they are one of the best at making a government/private change (if not the best.) What's excellent about Norway is their foresight in development: developing policies that are supposed to foster other industries other than Petro. Ever hear of their "centers of expertise?" A hedge against too much reliance on Petro.


You may be asking yourself: why the **** does a stupid Yank know so much about Norway? It's cause I've considered living there.


The fact is that with 25% of the GDP, they couldn't afford the same amount of social welfare if that wasn't available, which is what I am saying. And yes, I know Norway is trying to build new sectors, however it doesn't seem like they could afford the same standard of living if their oil and gas was depleted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Norway would still have a very information industry if all Petro related jobs ceased to exist. Not only that, but they are one of the best at making a government/private change (if not the best.) What's excellent about Norway is their foresight in development: developing policies that are supposed to foster other industries other than Petro. Ever hear of their "centers of expertise?" A hedge against too much reliance on Petro.

any economy that, due to some cataclism, lost even 5% of any industry would face serious slow downs and reprecussions. a loss of 1/4 to 1/5 of their GROSS domestic activity puts them in a situation like Greece.

now, factor in that this industry is the domestic energy industry...

Norway has lots going for it, but that would be such a devestating hit. It would recover, surely, but the political and economic landscape of the nation would be entirely different.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ahahahah. You think that market regulation is the same thing as socialism. That's cute. Now go back to the OTF; the adults are talking. And yet you believe central economic planning is the same thing as socialism.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
In this thread, we realize that there are a lot of people who don't understand what capitalism and socialism are. By all means, define them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The fact is that with 25% of the GDP, they couldn't afford the same amount of social welfare if that wasn't available, which is what I am saying. And yes, I know Norway is trying to build new sectors, however it doesn't seem like they could afford the same standard of living if their oil and gas was depleted.

You are correct. They would not be able to afford the same standard of living, at first. But they would rebound since Petroleum is not their fastest growing economic sector. (It was in the 70s, however.)

Also considering their domestic polices of "economic" focus, it makes for a far better environment for the upcoming energy crisis that we are doomed to face.

Originally posted by inimalist
any economy that, due to some cataclism, lost even 5% of any industry would face serious slow downs and reprecussions. a loss of 1/4 to 1/5 of their GROSS domestic activity puts them in a situation like Greece.

now, factor in that this industry is the domestic energy industry...

Norway has lots going for it, but that would be such a devestating hit. It would recover, surely, but the political and economic landscape of the nation would be entirely different.

"ntirely different" is inaccurate. In fact, they would largely be the same. And my post does not indicate "instantly cease to exist." I think both of you are taking it out of context. I actually believe that most of their Petro jobs will cease to exist in the next 2-3 decades...and apparently, they do to.

The US not only loss all of their annual growth, they actually went into the negative...and didn't grow at all. I could do the math to see how much growth changed, but it would amount to something between 5-10%. You saw how much of an impact it had. But how much did the US change, so far? Did we see any paradigm shifts in the jobs market? Not really...cept for housing. Everything else remained largely the same. (Meaning, after we completely rebound, all jobs will remain within two standard deviations of each other, year over year, to pre-crisis levels.)

Norway WILL experience a large loss of Petroleum related revenue over the next 2 to 3 decades. Depends on how fast alternative energy sources are explored and adopted and how much Petro. fossil fuels will be left.