|
MrRodgers -> RE: Why do we fear taxes? (7/20/2012 10:26:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
Not to hijack but I do believe along with many bloggers and students, what is taught in college is often designed to fit into an agenda...political and therefore, private business.
For example, there is nothing at all in econo 101 that would explain a single govt. insurance program for retail bank deposits (FDIC) and in fact would in itself represent a bastardization of the balance of economic research and economic forces as we've added govt. force or influence. The same goes for other contributions and subtractions involving the govt.'s effect on economy.
For another example, I've heard and read that the definition of m2-m5 are only there to justify the so-called science behind the 4 new doctoral thesis of decades ago and actually has little or no effect on either M1 (cash) or econ 101.
If one goes to the classes, it involves at least according to the ones I've found...almost every decision made involving money. I completely disagree. For example, college courses have may still teach that 6% UNemployment is FULL employment.
Let's wrap our heads around that one. At 8% now it is bad, but putting a couple more million to work would be it kinkroids...FULL employment. Now does that fit your political or economic agenda ? No ? Then what, did you get an F in econ 101` ? Econ 101...6% Unemployed IS full employment.
Well your first problem is that you aren't at all dealing with facts or reality, but with your beliefs and fantasies about what happens in an Econ 101 class.
You then jump to discussion of agenda driven points not at all in Econ 101. FDIC is a reality of finance, not economics. Your war on the Ms is unnecessary -- Econ 101 is going to cover M1 and M2. You are entirely making up the 8% full employment number. It's a debatable number, but generally 5% is accepted.
What IS covered in Econ 101 are the basics of supply and demand, aggregate supply and aggregate demand, markets, and understanding of what the Fed does (not whether it should), how the money multiplier works, what the GDP and GNP numbers mean and where we get them, generic stuff like that.
What we should DO about any of that is in Political Science class.
Back to ancient history and taxes -- you're wrong on that as well. Taxes are as old as civilization itself, literally.
The FDIC has completely and to society's painful awareness...taken finance out of the free market. It creates a new Orwellian financial disposition that banks...cannot go...bankrupt. Talk about the meaning of words.
The so-called reality of the FDIC wasn't real...until FDR and this country did fine without it until him.
To the extent that Lincoln's successors failed to stick to a national industrial bank and a single federal (treasury) currency, caused the country to revert back to corrupt state banks and simply reflects the inherent corruption of totally private banking and their corrupt design of issuing their own currencies.
Your generics are another man's mystery...often deliberate. For example, GDP includes financial transactions which is neither production or necessarily a beneficial aspect of the economy. We can show a higher GDP simply through higher debt.
As for the casual capitalist sycophantic, if the economy is so successful over the last say 100 years since the fed's creation, why has debt service gone from 6% of national wealth (1960) to 30% of national wealth ? (2010)
Why can't I buy a typical single family home and pay for it in about 6 years as it was back in the late 1800's ? Why has my rent gone from $12-$15 a month for a typical row house...a fraction of my WEEKLY pay to almost 1/2 of my monthly income ? Using medians as far as we can go back, the American worker has been getting poorer and poorer and further in debt since the formation of the fed.
I and many others believe the GDP number is a deliberate attempt to suggest that the bigger the number including banking and merely financial transactions, the higher economic growth which of course is not true at all.
Profits yes, but not economic growth. In fact, higher profits does not signal economic growth at all. Is all of that in my econ 101 class ? Does econ 101 explain why the fortune 1000 has not created 1 net new job in over 50 years ?
Does econ 101 explain why armed with the greatest technological breakthrough of the 20 century, the airline industry still in about 100 years...yes, STILL has not made a dime ?
Does econ 101 explain why we've had 2000% inflation since the fed ?
Please, enough of as I say, the jargon and the footnotes. I look at history and what has actually happened. Not some grandiose theories from some fancy text book.
|
|
|
|
