The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Ever since the Great Recession shook the foundations of the U.S. economy, President Obama has been promising recovery. Evidence of this recovery, we were told, was manifested in the massive post-bailout profits corporations made. Soon enough, the President assured us, these corporations would tire of hoarding mountains of cash and start a hiring bonanza, followed by raising wages and benefits. It was either wishful thinking or conscious deception. The recent stock market meltdown has squashed any hope of a corporate-led recovery.

The Democrats fought the recession by the same methods the Republicans used to create it: allowing the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts. This strategy, commonly referred to as Reaganomics or Trickle Down Economics, is now religion to both Democrats and Republicans; never mind the staged in-fighting for the gullible or complicit media.

When it becomes obvious to even the President that the economic recovery never existed beyond the bank accounts of the rich, questions will have to be answered. Why, for example, did nobody in either political party foresee the disastrous consequences of the bailouts? Not only did the U.S. deficit drastically increase but the same U.S. corporations that caused the recession were given reinforcement for their destructive actions, ensuring that it would continue unabated.

In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats. Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of "moral hazard" was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember? Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the "too big" banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.

Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession. Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).

This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole. This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery.

Another mainstream economist, Paul Krugman, also admits that the rich's death-grip on the U.S. political and economic system is causing pain for everybody else:

"Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending - destroying jobs in the process - with the only difference being one of degree...policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers [rich investors] - those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else's expense." (June 10, 2011)

Krugman explains that this process continues because the rich dominate the political system through campaign contributions, "access to policy makers,” promises of high paying corporate jobs after their congressional term is over, and good o'l fashion corruption. Because he's a true blue Democrat at heart, Krugman nevertheless focuses most of his rage on Republicans.

Krugman's repeated calls to Democrats and Republicans to create jobs have fallen on deaf ears. Both parties agree that the "private sector" [corporations] should create jobs; until they decide to hire, nothing will happen. This is not merely "bad policy,” as liberals like Krugman like to fret about, but the conscious agenda of the rich. Corporations and rich investors love high unemployment. The Kansas City Star explains why:

"Last year [2010], for the second year in a row, U.S. companies got more work out of their employees while spending less on overall labor costs." (February 3, 2011)

It really is that simple. High unemployment creates a downward pressure on wages, allowing employers to work the remaining employees harder and thus to increase profits. This dynamic, combined with the above commodity speculation, has been the entire basis for the corporate recovery, while working people have literally seen nothing beneficial.

This process is an extension of the bailouts, in the sense that more wealth is being transferred from working people to the corporations. Since consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, policies like these ensure that another crisis is inevitable.

Further complicating matters is the ending of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing program (printing money), which amounted to the Fed buying $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds since last fall, essentially funding the U.S. debt and driving down interest rates.

Since the Fed was buying 60 percent of the bonds, a new creditor will need to be found; and this lender will likely require higher interest rates before loaning to the U.S. government, to make sure the loan is profitable. And although different nations buy U.S. debt for different reasons, much of this debt is bought by rich U.S. citizens, who will put the squeeze on the rest of us that have to pay back this debt. The Washington Times explains:

"...Bill Gross, the head of America's own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco's holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren't yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending." (June 7, 2011)

When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to satisfy these rich investors, the economy will likely take a further nosedive. It appears, then, that the rich have a win-win situation: they got free bailout money, which increased the deficit; and because the deficit is too high, the rich want higher interest rates for investing in U.S. Treasury Bonds. In both instances working people pay the bills.

This insanity cannot be stopped by conventional measures, since politicians are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash. The jobs crisis continues as a result of the policy agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. The labor movement has a special role to play in reversing the above policies.

The corporate-led discussion around cutting social programs to fix the deficits -- on a state and national level -- can be challenged by a nationally coordinated campaign of unions and community allies demanding: Tax the Rich! This demand is significant because it can address both the deficits and the jobs crisis: a massive public works program can be funded by taxing the corporations and the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top. The rich have plenty of money to spare.

Organized labor needs to bring masses of people in the street all over the country in order to get attention and pressure the government to respond to these demands. And it can succeed, especially if it organizes a serious, protracted campaign and especially if this campaign does not get funneled into supporting Democratic candidates, the surest way to kill campaign momentum.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently spoke in favor of a strong, independent labor movement. This is the direction it must take, rather than relying on the Democrats. The labor movement must get its act together, unite to put up a fight and demand specific policies that can concretely address the crisis faced by millions of working people.

By Shamus Cooke
 
Lower taxation on the rich reduces the disincentive business owners have to spend money that could be better spent improving their business on themselves. The additional money doesn't really make people work harder, because already if they stopped working as hard due to the pay cut, others would be glad to take their share of the market. All low taxation on the rich accomplishes is to lower the overall efficiency of the market.
 
:lol:

According to the head shithead of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said on Wednesday

The economy, she said, “has turned around” since President Obama took office, with steady job growth evident even if the pace leaves something to be desired.
 
So Kenny has determined the problem is the RICH PEOPLE! Well okay Kenny, why don't we just round up all the rich people in America, and shoot them in the head? Let's steal all their wealth, and redistribute it to the poorest of the poor, so we all have the same amount of wealth across the board.... THEN we'll see the economy take off and jobs being created, right? RIGHT??? Ahhh...what's that, a little hesitation? Maybe you're not so sure about whether jobs would be created?

Look, doofus... Rich people don't give a shit how much you tax their income, they don't have to make an income anymore, they are RICH! So you can just jack it on up to 100% for all they care, they'll just stop earning incomes. You want to punish rich investors and speculators... okay, again... they don't have to do anything, they are RICH.... they will simply stop doing whatever it is you place a burden on. If you want to make it more difficult to hire people at a decent wage or to make a corporate profit, they will just do less of that... they don't NEED to earn incomes anymore, they are already RICH! You libtards seem to operate under the assumption that rich people are stupid, that they simply have no choice but to continue making whatever money they make, and will keep paying whatever tax rate you tell them to pay... well guess what... not a single RICH person in America, HAS to earn an income! They can sit there on their great big pile of money, and live quite comfortably for decades, and never earn a single dime for you to tax! This is what you and Obama are suddenly discovering, and it obviously wasn't covered in your pinhead philosophy debates.

In order to bring back economic prosperity, the government has to take measures to EASE restrictions and burdens on "The Rich" ...or the people who have the available capital to grow the economy! As much as you hate and despise "The Rich" the economy depends on them, job creation depends on them, and if you ever expect to have a pot to piss in, YOU depend on them. Stop foolishly trying to PUNISH people you can't punish!
 
Why not just ignore the post if you are unwilling to debunk it?

I see this as you "playing the expert" again.
 
Ever since the Great Recession shook the foundations of the U.S. economy, President Obama has been promising recovery. Evidence of this recovery, we were told, was manifested in the massive post-bailout profits corporations made. Soon enough, the President assured us, these corporations would tire of hoarding mountains of cash and start a hiring bonanza, followed by raising wages and benefits. It was either wishful thinking or conscious deception. The recent stock market meltdown has squashed any hope of a corporate-led recovery.

It was neither wishful thinking nor deceipt. It was a fundamental lack of understanding of what uncertainty of future tax levels and regulations will do to spending, both on the corporate as well as individual level.

The Democrats fought the recession by the same methods the Republicans used to create it: allowing the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts. This strategy, commonly referred to as Reaganomics or Trickle Down Economics, is now religion to both Democrats and Republicans; never mind the staged in-fighting for the gullible or complicit media.

The bailouts and stimulus were in no way an example of Reaganomics. Take a look at what transpired under Reagan vs. Bush/Obama. They are similar in no substantial way. Reagan cut the marginal tax rates while eliminating tax deductions and loopholes. Reagan (mainly via Volcker) opted for a strong dollar solution. Bush/Obama opted for a weak dollar strategy. I will agree with you that the two parties have followed the same course over the past decade, but that course has nothing to do with Reaganomics.

When it becomes obvious to even the President that the economic recovery never existed beyond the bank accounts of the rich, questions will have to be answered. Why, for example, did nobody in either political party foresee the disastrous consequences of the bailouts? Not only did the U.S. deficit drastically increase but the same U.S. corporations that caused the recession were given reinforcement for their destructive actions, ensuring that it would continue unabated.

The above points is valid to a degree. The obsession with attacking the 'rich' not withstanding. Glass Steagall should have been put back in place and the big banks broken up into their former retail vs. investment banking sides. The uptick rule should have been put back in place. The mortgage market should have been regulated with a very simple piece of legislation. None of these were done because both parties are in bed with Wall Street. On that we agree.

In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats. Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of "moral hazard" was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember? Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the "too big" banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.

It is not the place of the government to regulate wages/salaries/bonuses within the private sector. That said, see my above response as to what regulations the politicians should have put in place.

Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession. Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

1) 'rich investors' cannot borrow from the Fed
2) the big banks are/were not borrowing and then investing in commodities. They are/were buying treasuries as they can then lock in the rate difference at no risk.

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).

This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole. This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery.

That is simply absurd. The two largest factors in higher commodity prices are the weakening dollar (created by the insane spending spree of Congress) and the ever increasing demand for commodities. The weakening dollar being the largest factor right now.

Another mainstream economist, Paul Krugman, also admits that the rich's death-grip on the U.S. political and economic system is causing pain for everybody else:

"Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending - destroying jobs in the process - with the only difference being one of degree...policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers [rich investors] - those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else's expense." (June 10, 2011)

This is again nonsense. Your author complains about the corporations not putting their balance sheets to work. It is the stupidity of Krugman and other so-called Keynesian followers that is keeping that cash... in cash. If spending is done correctly as Keynes actually suggested (on infrastructure) then government spending can indeed help stimulate job growth. Unfortunately the idiots in DC wasted the stimulus package. The other option is for the idiots in DC to stop outspending revenue. That will shore up the dollar, which will in turn lead to lower commodity prices, which in turn leads to more money for consumers to spend elsewhere, which leads corporations to ramp up production and start hiring again. It also demonstrates fiscal constraint, which will help reduce the uncertainty of future tax rates.

Krugman explains that this process continues because the rich dominate the political system through campaign contributions, "access to policy makers,” promises of high paying corporate jobs after their congressional term is over, and good o'l fashion corruption. Because he's a true blue Democrat at heart, Krugman nevertheless focuses most of his rage on Republicans.

Krugman's repeated calls to Democrats and Republicans to create jobs have fallen on deaf ears. Both parties agree that the "private sector" [corporations] should create jobs; until they decide to hire, nothing will happen. This is not merely "bad policy,” as liberals like Krugman like to fret about, but the conscious agenda of the rich. Corporations and rich investors love high unemployment. The Kansas City Star explains why:

"Last year [2010], for the second year in a row, U.S. companies got more work out of their employees while spending less on overall labor costs." (February 3, 2011)

It really is that simple. High unemployment creates a downward pressure on wages, allowing employers to work the remaining employees harder and thus to increase profits. This dynamic, combined with the above commodity speculation, has been the entire basis for the corporate recovery, while working people have literally seen nothing beneficial.

This process is an extension of the bailouts, in the sense that more wealth is being transferred from working people to the corporations. Since consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, policies like these ensure that another crisis is inevitable.

Further complicating matters is the ending of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing program (printing money), which amounted to the Fed buying $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds since last fall, essentially funding the U.S. debt and driving down interest rates.

Since the Fed was buying 60 percent of the bonds, a new creditor will need to be found; and this lender will likely require higher interest rates before loaning to the U.S. government, to make sure the loan is profitable. And although different nations buy U.S. debt for different reasons, much of this debt is bought by rich U.S. citizens, who will put the squeeze on the rest of us that have to pay back this debt. The Washington Times explains:

"...Bill Gross, the head of America's own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco's holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren't yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending." (June 7, 2011)

When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to satisfy these rich investors, the economy will likely take a further nosedive. It appears, then, that the rich have a win-win situation: they got free bailout money, which increased the deficit; and because the deficit is too high, the rich want higher interest rates for investing in U.S. Treasury Bonds. In both instances working people pay the bills.

This insanity cannot be stopped by conventional measures, since politicians are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash. The jobs crisis continues as a result of the policy agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. The labor movement has a special role to play in reversing the above policies.

The corporate-led discussion around cutting social programs to fix the deficits -- on a state and national level -- can be challenged by a nationally coordinated campaign of unions and community allies demanding: Tax the Rich! This demand is significant because it can address both the deficits and the jobs crisis: a massive public works program can be funded by taxing the corporations and the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top. The rich have plenty of money to spare.

Organized labor needs to bring masses of people in the street all over the country in order to get attention and pressure the government to respond to these demands. And it can succeed, especially if it organizes a serious, protracted campaign and especially if this campaign does not get funneled into supporting Democratic candidates, the surest way to kill campaign momentum.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently spoke in favor of a strong, independent labor movement. This is the direction it must take, rather than relying on the Democrats. The labor movement must get its act together, unite to put up a fight and demand specific policies that can concretely address the crisis faced by millions of working people.

By Shamus Cooke

The remaining portion is predominantly nonsense, though it does bring up a couple of valid points. Corporations are indeed going to try and get the most productivity out of their employees. In uncertain times, they cannot afford to hire then fire employees should we indeed go into another recessionary time frame. As long as regulations and taxes are uncertain, they will continue to hoard the cash.

The ending of QE2 will indeed be interesting. We have artificially held rates too low for too long. The constant desire to push 'pain' into the future simply creates a greater crisis down the road. We have $60 Trillion in unfunded liabilities currently. That amounts to roughly 14 years worth of our annual spending. We MUST take some of the pain away from future generations or risk the demise of the long term economic viability of this country.

Organized labor (predominantly in the public sector) is a large part of the problem. They are not the solution.

As for the 'rich' buying treasuries.... you are incorrect. The vast majority instead by municipal bonds for the tax exempt income rather than buying treasuries. Pimco Total Return fund is largely held by small investors via 401k's/403bs and direct holdings. As are most treasury funds. Side note: raising interest rates would hammer current holders of bonds as bond prices would drop to provide equivalent yields to the new rate environment. So that piece of the article is absolute trash.
 
The bailouts and stimulus were in no way an example of Reaganomics. Take a look at what transpired under Reagan vs. Bush/Obama. They are similar in no substantial way. Reagan cut the marginal tax rates while eliminating tax deductions and loopholes. Reagan (mainly via Volcker) opted for a strong dollar solution. Bush/Obama opted for a weak dollar strategy. I will agree with you that the two parties have followed the same course over the past decade, but that course has nothing to do with Reaganomics.

The recession in the early 80's was a failure in effective supply. The current recession is a failure in effective demand, much like the great depression. There are going to be different monetary prescriptions for each kind of recession.
 
lol...SF scared the shit out of dune with post 14....he will likely never come back to post in this thread

dune - Why don't you go ahead and prove where SF is wrong

:)
 
It was neither wishful thinking nor deceipt. It was a fundamental lack of understanding of what uncertainty of future tax levels and regulations will do to spending, both on the corporate as well as individual level.

It was indeed wishfull thinking and deceit. A politician spoke.



The bailouts and stimulus were in no way an example of Reaganomics. Take a look at what transpired under Reagan vs. Bush/Obama. They are similar in no substantial way. Reagan cut the marginal tax rates while eliminating tax deductions and loopholes. Reagan (mainly via Volcker) opted for a strong dollar solution. Bush/Obama opted for a weak dollar strategy. I will agree with you that the two parties have followed the same course over the past decade, but that course has nothing to do with Reaganomics.

It was sold as "Trickle Down Economics" to retard conservatives, many of whom beleived it.


The above points is valid to a degree. The obsession with attacking the 'rich' not withstanding. Glass Steagall should have been put back in place and the big banks broken up into their former retail vs. investment banking sides. The uptick rule should have been put back in place. The mortgage market should have been regulated with a very simple piece of legislation. None of these were done because both parties are in bed with Wall Street. On that we agree.

Since the rich are the only benefitiaries of a prolonged economic retraction, is it that unjustified of a pursuit to obsess on attacking the rich with pen in hand?
Meaning of course that the rich are indeed responsible for this recession, which I believe is the thread topic.


It is not the place of the government to regulate wages/salaries/bonuses within the private sector. That said, see my above response as to what regulations the politicians should have put in place.

It most clearly and certainly is the place of government to regulate wages/saleries/bonuse within any sector to which it has just handed generations worth of national treasure due to the incompetence of company management.



1) 'rich investors' cannot borrow from the Fed
2) the big banks are/were not borrowing and then investing in commodities. They are/were buying treasuries as they can then lock in the rate difference at no risk.

Rich investers own big banks. Big banks borrow from the Fed
2. What? Banks arn't financing commodities transactions? QE2 helped no one of low income or fixed income in anyway, if anything, inposing an additional 30% tarrif on the poor.

That is simply absurd. The two largest factors in higher commodity prices are the weakening dollar (created by the insane spending spree of Congress) and the ever increasing demand for commodities. The weakening dollar being the largest factor right now.

This particular response is simply absurd. The largest factor in the weakening dollar is the surplus of them, printed by the Fed.
A tremendous amount of the ever increasing demand for commodities is the result of offshoring jobs and capital to Asia again to the detriment of the poor, middle and upper middle class, but at a gain to the ultra-wealthy.



This is again nonsense. Your author complains about the corporations not putting their balance sheets to work. It is the stupidity of Krugman and other so-called Keynesian followers that is keeping that cash... in cash. If spending is done correctly as Keynes actually suggested (on infrastructure) then government spending can indeed help stimulate job growth. Unfortunately the idiots in DC wasted the stimulus package. The other option is for the idiots in DC to stop outspending revenue. That will shore up the dollar, which will in turn lead to lower commodity prices, which in turn leads to more money for consumers to spend elsewhere, which leads corporations to ramp up production and start hiring again. It also demonstrates fiscal constraint, which will help reduce the uncertainty of future tax rates.

I tire of this. You get the idea, yes or no?



The remaining portion is predominantly nonsense, though it does bring up a couple of valid points. Corporations are indeed going to try and get the most productivity out of their employees. In uncertain times, they cannot afford to hire then fire employees should we indeed go into another recessionary time frame. As long as regulations and taxes are uncertain, they will continue to hoard the cash.

The ending of QE2 will indeed be interesting. We have artificially held rates too low for too long. The constant desire to push 'pain' into the future simply creates a greater crisis down the road. We have $60 Trillion in unfunded liabilities currently. That amounts to roughly 14 years worth of our annual spending. We MUST take some of the pain away from future generations or risk the demise of the long term economic viability of this country.

Organized labor (predominantly in the public sector) is a large part of the problem. They are not the solution.

Whole nother thread.
As for the 'rich' buying treasuries.... you are incorrect. The vast majority instead by municipal bonds for the tax exempt income rather than buying treasuries. Pimco Total Return fund is largely held by small investors via 401k's/403bs and direct holdings. As are most treasury funds. Side note: raising interest rates would hammer current holders of bonds as bond prices would drop to provide equivalent yields to the new rate environment. So that piece of the article is absolute trash.

And finaly, I guess the poor must be the only ones buying treasuries since the "rich" aren't
 
Wow, in just four posts we have yet again witnessed complete economic stupidity from both Ken and Ditzie.


How about 'splaining how I am "economically stupid" here? Is there something I said that isn't correct? Rich people don't need to earn incomes, they are rich... that means they have money, enough money to live on and buy whatever the fuck they want to, and not have to worry about it anymore. So why the hell do you retards assume they NEED an income, and you can tax it? IF rich people were dependent on an income, I could see the logic... they gotta make an income, so we can tax it 30%...40%...60%...80% whatever we want, because they gotta have it... gotta earn it... but that isn't the case. Rich people already made their fortunes, they don't NEED to earn ANY income, if they don't want to... and higher taxes simply makes them want to less.
 
Back
Top