And that there is why supply side economics doesn't work.Grizalltheway wrote:Well, what would be left of our economy if they stopped buying all these things?kalm wrote:
Me too. And it appears that they're spending on cell phones, two cars, and 300 channels of cable, versus saving up for retirement or their kids education, or a cataustrophic illness.
True. Most people in emerging economies have never had a land line, but went straight to cell phones once they became available.Skjellyfetti wrote:Cell phones are cheap. I saw guys riding mules in Mexico talking on their cell phones.
a lot of unemployed Chinese...Grizalltheway wrote:Well, what would be left of our economy if they stopped buying all these things?kalm wrote:
Me too. And it appears that they're spending on cell phones, two cars, and 300 channels of cable, versus saving up for retirement or their kids education, or a cataustrophic illness.
the long-term, historical decline you mentioned - is a result of LBJ's war on poverty... the regression we've seen in the last ten years, is due to the GOP's war on the working class.JoltinJoe wrote:Well, you can't have it both ways. Either poverty is actually decreasing or these programs have been ineffective.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
1. we haven't adjusted the "poverty line" properly in about 12 years... the poverty line in this county is less than $11,000 for one person... that's obscenely low - for a family of 4, it's 22k/yr - maybe that's enough to get by (barely) in Fargo, ND... but in any major metropolitan area - there are plenty of people not in "poverty" who are damned poor.
2. as for the long term trend... it's amazing what a New Deal and a War on Poverty will do to poverty rates
I have no problem with the 'War on Poverty" except that some have turned this "War" into a dependency program. It is fine and good to help lift someone out of poverty, but at some point, we have to let the free market sustain them.
Notice how the Clinton-era welfare reforms actually, as predicted, caused a steep drop in the then-existing poverty levels. Indeed, from that point until the brutal 2007 recession, our economy was trending near historical lows.
"Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again."TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the long-term, historical decline you mentioned - is a result of LBJ's war on poverty... the regression we've seen in the last ten years, is due to the GOP's war on the working class.JoltinJoe wrote:
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either poverty is actually decreasing or these programs have been ineffective.
I have no problem with the 'War on Poverty" except that some have turned this "War" into a dependency program. It is fine and good to help lift someone out of poverty, but at some point, we have to let the free market sustain them.
Notice how the Clinton-era welfare reforms actually, as predicted, caused a steep drop in the then-existing poverty levels. Indeed, from that point until the brutal 2007 recession, our economy was trending near historical lows.
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the long-term, historical decline you mentioned - is a result of LBJ's war on poverty... the regression we've seen in the last ten years, is due to the GOP's war on the working class.JoltinJoe wrote:
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either poverty is actually decreasing or these programs have been ineffective.
I have no problem with the 'War on Poverty" except that some have turned this "War" into a dependency program. It is fine and good to help lift someone out of poverty, but at some point, we have to let the free market sustain them.
Notice how the Clinton-era welfare reforms actually, as predicted, caused a steep drop in the then-existing poverty levels. Indeed, from that point until the brutal 2007 recession, our economy was trending near historical lows.
Appaholic wrote:what's an a$$ bearing? something that occurs after the altar boy is invited to the rectory?JoltinJoe wrote:
It's hard to keep track of the the a$$ bearings KY takes. Pretty much every time he posts something ...
