Do Republicans think it helps to have such radical spokespeople?

[suv_guy_19]

I read the charter. Paying particular attention to Section 7, what do you think? What are the principals of fundamental justice as they apply to requiring a person to explain his private relationships, in order to own a gun? Does owning a gun apply as a means of retaining "security of the person"?

 

Have confidence in your own judgement, and don't wait for someone else's opinion. Either way (for or against), you are entitled to (and should) have your own. You are always entitled to change your mind later.

 

 

It's difficult for me to have an opinion, if only because the Canadian Constitution is more than written word, but also codified traditions. Many of the courts decisions are made on more than the words that you see.

 

What do I think? I think the question may go a bit far, but then, I don't know the reasoning behind it. Also, because you don't need to answer the question, it may not be an infringement.

[RangerM]

It's difficult for me to have an opinion, if only because the Canadian Constitution is more than written word, but also codified traditions. Many of the courts decisions are made on more than the words that you see.

Then what is the purpose of having the Constitution, if the courts aren't bound by it? What is a law if it's not codified?

What do I think? I think the question may go a bit far, but then, I don't know the reasoning behind it. Also, because you don't need to answer the question, it may not be an infringement.

Regardless of the reasoning, I see it as dependent upon whether or not you believe the right to "security of the person" includes the ability to defend oneself with a gun.

[suv_guy_19]

Then what is the purpose of having the Constitution, if the courts aren't bound by it? What is a law if it's not codified?

 

I misspoke. The Canadian Constitution, like the constitutions of all Commonwealth Realms, is made up of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions. The Charter is simple to read....it was designed that way. It isn't simple to interpret. That's just a byproduct of our system.

 

Regardless of the reasoning, I see it as dependent upon whether or not you believe the right to "security of the person" includes the ability to defend oneself

 

It does...with reasonable force.

 

with a gun.

 

There are limits to self defense. You can't shoot someone for stealing from you for example. It usually doesn't under our law.

[RangerM]

It does...with reasonable force.

 

There are limits to self defense. You can't shoot someone for stealing from you for example. It usually doesn't under our law.

No real disagreement there, except that I believe you're confusing someone stealing from you with defending your life. State laws vary in the U.S. regarding this, but the right to defend one's life (with deadly force, including a gun) is considered a fundamental right.

 

Would this right extend to the means?

Edited April 21, 2009 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

but the right to defend one's life (with deadly force, including a gun) is considered a fundamental right.

 

Here, the law says that one has the right to use reasonable force....you can't shoot someone for punching you would maybe be a better example.

[RangerM]

Here, the law says that one has the right to use reasonable force....you can't shoot someone for punching you would maybe be a better example.

Many (but not all) States, have an equivalent principal in that you must believe that your life is in immedate danger. Even if the intruder has only broken in your home, some allow the use of deadly force, without the need for you to attempt retreat.

[suv_guy_19]

The difference really lies in the fact that:

 

1. Guns are a right in one country, and a privilege in the other,

 

and

 

2. In the US, the states are responsible for Criminal Law, where in the Canada, the federal government is responsible for Criminal Law.

[xr7g428]

show me numbers.

 

Have you ever taken calculus? If not, I am not going to be able to make this example is such away that you will be convinced. If you have, you may see the applicability.

 

When a marketing company sets the price on a product. They develop a demand curve. The function that describes the curve may take in to account many factors, but the purpose of the curve is to determine the quantity of units that would sell at a given price. In order to optimize profits, the area under the curve (total aggregate demand) must be optimized. The idea is that you want to sell as may units as possible up to the point that the last unit only produces incremental revenue equal to incremental cost. For example, if the price per unit is to low, then the number of sales will decline faster than the profits from a high price. If the price is too low, the per unit selling cost will rise faster than profits.

 

The serious math behind supply side economics stipulated that the area under the curve was not optimized: taxes that were too high resulted in large expenditures to minimize taxes. These efforts include attempts to influence the legislature to write in special "deductions", and counter efforts like the alternative minimum tax. I think the concept of supply siders to optimize the area under the curve has been rendered unmeasurable by the continuing attempt s to jigger the system.

 

The other part of supply side economics that have not mentioned is the easing of inflation that increasing the supply of products brought about in a race between too many dollars, and too few goods. I do not think back too fondly of the 20% inflation rates during the Carter years.

[Ron W.]

1. Guns are a right in one country, and a privilege in the other

 

 

But any body can have a hammer

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-ZIkCTGoE4...mer_with_sound/

[suv_guy_19]

But any body can have a hammer

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-ZIkCTGoE4...mer_with_sound/

 

lol...anyone can have a gun too...it's just a bit harder in one country than the other.

[Roadtrip]

First, you must have allot of time on your hands? Secondly, I only wished you could have stayed on topic. You cite the stock market and Cato as evidence substantiating your claims, but pray tell, what does the S&P 500 have anything at all to do with this argument?

 

Here's what it has to do with this argument: You claimed that investment (you didn't say investment in what) had gone down by 0.9 percent as a result of Reagan's policies. Not knowing what you meant by investment, I chose to use the market capitalization of the companies that compose the S&P 500 index, since it is a very broad measure of investment. You would know why if you had read my post. To reiterate:

The S&P 500 index can be used as a gauge for investment, since it reflects 75 percent of all U.S. stock market capitalization, as well as the 500 largest U.S. companies in the 10 most important sectors in the U.S. economy -

and capitalization of equities in these companies represents ownership and therefore investment in them

. In 1989, the year Reagan left office, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 was $2.326 trillion; today, the market cap of the S&P 500 is $7.555 trillion (in constant dollars). That's an increase in market capitalization - investment - of 325 percent over the past 30 years.

If you can find a broader measure of investment than this, I'm curious to know what it is.

 

Supply theory is based on the premise that if you cut taxes then the money saved will be re-invested creating more wealth and ultimately the money lost on taxes will be recouped via more growth. A smaller percentage but a bigger pie - sort of speak.

 

That's pretty good! But it's only partially correct. Again, if you actually read my post, the part where I quoted my macroeconomics textbook - and you implored me to consult my macroeconomics textbook - you would have also discovered this little tidbit:

The author describes supply-side theory as just another name for the

long-run framework with which economists use to analyze the economy

(and suggest policy), as opposed to the short-run framework, which addresses the demand side of the economy. To quote:

"Because supply is so important in the long run, policies that affect production—such as incentives that promote work, capital accumulation, and technological change—are key."

(p. 153.).

So supply-side economic theory is not just about tax cuts (although it's an important component of it); it's also about policies - such as regulatory policies and the promotion of free trade - that foster long-term growth and capital formation (which ultimately result in the creation of long-term, lasting jobs).

 

On the other hand, demand-side policy focuses on short-run, or short-term fixes to economic problems, such as economic stimulus packages, interest-rate cuts, etc.

 

A famous quote from John Maynard Keynes, one of history's foremost advocates of demand-side theory is: "In the long run, we're all dead." That doesn't exactly sound like a comforting reason to justify to one's grandkids Obama's budget proposal, which will add an estimated $9 trillion to the budget deficit in the next 10 years: "Don't worry, honey darlin': I'm gonna die, and you're gonna die soon enough, too."

 

What's ironic about liberals who deplore supply-side economic theory is that they unknowingly advocate it with their "green technology" initiatives, such as wind and solar power, saying this is a "long-term" project. We hear this ad nauseum when they talk of long-term investment in such technologies, even though they admit it won't provide a return in the short run. (Keynes would probably be throwing up at this proposal.)

 

But the enviros still have their heads up their asses with their opposition to long-term investment in nuclear energy.

 

Next, Cato is filled with former Reagan officials, if I am not mistaken; a key Reagan official was the director of Cato for this publication. Regardless, it's a libertarian organization, hardly a reference for nonbiased research.

OK. You got me there. Let's assume the CATO Institute is full of a bunch of former Reagan officials, and therefore, any numbers they present are biased and do not represent the truth. Never mind the fact that you didn't produce any numbers or data to refute the numbers or data I cited from the CATO Institute; let's try a different approach, which is sort of an interactive approach designed for the economically inclined:

 

There is a wonderful Web site, called "Measuring Worth." It is a completely non-biased source for economic data going back hundreds of years, and it also includes data from the UK and Japan. Here's the link: http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/#

 

From this Web site, I found similar data that correlates with what the CATO Institute found:

In the eight-year period before Reagan's presidency, from 1973 to 1980, real GDP growth was 2.50 percent annually.

 

During Reagan's presidency, from 1981 to 1988, real GDP growth was 3.52 percent annually.

 

During the eight-year period following Reagan's presidency, real GDP growth was 2.55 annually.

(I think part of the reason for Reagan's success as a leader was his optimism - as opposed to Carter's negativism: "We are in a period of malaise.")

 

Maybe a better measure is GDP per capita:

During the pre-Reagan eight-year period of 1973 to 1980, per-capita GDP rose from $20,484 to $22,666, an increase of 10.65 percent, or an average of 1.33 percent annually.

 

During Reagan's two terms, GDP per capita rose from $23,007 to $27,514, an increase of 19.59 percent, or 2.45 percent annually.

 

The eight years after Reagan's presidency produced GDP per-capita growth of $28,221 to $30,881, with a total gain of 9.43 percent, or 1.18 percent per year.

This is real data gleaned from a non-biased source. And GDP growth is the most relevant measure of the economy - which even leftist economists will admit.

 

You're critical of my lack of facts in my argument, ok; I'll go along with that, at least facts not presented. Alan Binder was the economists I was referring too, his work and many others have shown that the premise failed.

 

Never mind your lack of facts; you could start by refining your grammatical skills if you intend to make a cogent argument. And if you were really cognizant of your reading audience, you would identify which premise it is that failed - and why.

 

A meta-analysis was done and it came out to a 0.9% decline.

 

A meta-analysis of what? A 0.9 percent decline of what? During what time-frame? Who conducted this meta-analysis? What were the parameters, conditions, sampling error, sampling method, and level of confidence?

 

In light of 40 percent declines in peoples' investments over the last 18 months, I'm really curious why a 0.9 percent decline of anything is something we should be concerned about.

 

I would post it but I don't have access to my school's library for another two weeks. Like yourself, I could post a boatload of descriptive papers, but that's only an opinion. I am not going to waste my time finding facts, for who needs them?

 

I thrive on facts; evidently, you don't.

 

The bottom line is Reagan took the country from a seven hundred million deficit towards three trillion. He had to borrow money at home and abroad to pay for the cuts and his expansionary policies. Under his watch we went from the largest lending nation to the largest debtor nation. How much more proof is required?

 

This is one of the great debates of Reagan's legacy: that his deficit spending financed the end of the Cold War - and whether it was worth it. Fiscally, it's hard to say. Personally, I have two friends who work in my company who are from the formerly Soviet-ruled Romania and Poland, who now have jobs in the U.S. - and they couldn't be happier with their new-found freedom. Their freedom is something you probably take for granted. In fact, the Romanian guy, whose nickname is "Steel," gave me a lecture on why Romanians supported the Americans' efforts in the Vietnam War. The Romanians had had their belly full of Soviet oppression/expansionism, and they eventually overtook their government. The consequences were not pretty.

 

It was one of Reagan’s great flaws. He had a keen mind, but he tended to discard anything that didn’t fit his philosophical views.

 

You call it a flaw; I call it an attribute to his character. Reagan demonstrated unwaivering values throughout his presidency, and he never compromised those values.

 

 

He later admitted the debt was his biggest regret of his presidency. He knew it was a failure, as did everyone else.

 

Oh, my God, this is terrible! "Everyone" includes me and the Popsicle vendor strolling up the street. I didn't know "it" was a failure (whatever "it" is). I'll be sure to ask the Popsicle vendor for his opinion. Did Reagan actually admit this? And if so, what of it? Cite a source? I'll never sleep again...

Edited April 21, 2009 by Roadtrip

[retro-man]

From this Web site, I found similar data that correlates with what the CATO Institute found:

In the eight-year period before Reagan's presidency, from 1973 to 1980, real GDP growth was 2.50 percent annually.

 

During Reagan's presidency, from 1981 to 1988, real GDP growth was 3.52 percent annually.

 

During the eight-year period following Reagan's presidency, real GDP growth was 2.55 annually.

(I think part of the reason for Reagan's success as a leader was his optimism - as opposed to Carter's negativism: "We are in a period of malaise.")

 

Maybe a better measure is GDP per capita:

During the pre-Reagan eight-year period of 1973 to 1980, per-capita GDP rose from $20,484 to $22,666, an increase of 10.65 percent, or an average of 1.33 percent annually.

 

During Reagan's two terms, GDP per capita rose from $23,007 to $27,514, an increase of 19.59 percent, or 2.45 percent annually.

 

The eight years after Reagan's presidency produced GDP per-capita growth of $28,221 to $30,881, with a total gain of 9.43 percent, or 1.18 percent per year.

This is real data gleaned from a non-biased source. And GDP growth is the most relevant measure of the economy - which even leftist economists will admit.

1.) That's a great website - I've used it myself before. Let's widen the timeframe a little and look at some 27 year periods:

1933 - 1960: The New Deal and WWII periods - Real GDP growth of 5.21% / yr

1963 - 1980: The Great Society and waning days of the New Deal, including the Carter "Malaise" years - real GDP growth of 3.42% / yr

1980 - 2007: The Reagan Revolution - the heyday of supply side economics - real GDP growth of 3.02% / yr

 

2.) I find it ironic that you narrow the timeframe to the 8 years of Reagan's presidency alone. I find this ironic for a couple of reasons: a.) The conservative view on here often seems to be that the economic calamity set in motion in the last years of 'W's administration is actually the lingering effects of the New Deal and the Great Society (and throw in Clinton for good measure) come home to roost - that Bush is not responsible for economic troubles that started during his presidency. By this logic, we should credit Carter (or Johnson or Kennedy) for the economic successes of the Reagan years. Which way will you have it - is the President responsible for what happens on his watch, or not? b.) The "Reagan Revolution" colored the political and social climate of every presidency since - and forced even Clinton well to the right of Nixon and Ford. Supply side (or, as the elder Bush called it "voodoo") economics reigned supreme for the 28 years since Reagan. Looking at the statistics above, from your own website, they weren't that great of a 28 years.

 

3.) Per capita GDP is not a good measure of general well-being, because it does not reflect the redistribution of wealth towards the top during the last 28 years. The income of the top 1% has soared dramatically - giving a misleadingly strong average, while incomes of the vast majority of people have stagnated or declined as they put up with steadily eroding benefits, a declining sense of security and stability, and sent their spouses off to work in a losing bid to make up the difference. Census and DOL statistics bear this out. The 28 years since Reagan have been disastrous for the American middle class.

 

Henry Ford realized that the way to build long-term prosperity was to pay workers a wage on which they could afford his products - in other words, demand side. Henry Ford, more than anybody, created our American middle class. Posters on a Ford enthusiast site, of all people, should understand this. You cannot build long term prosperity by beggaring (or buggering) your middle class.

Edited April 21, 2009 by retro-man

[Mark B. Morrow]

1.) That's a great website - I've used it myself before. Let's widen the timeframe a little and look at some 27 year periods:

1933 - 1960: The New Deal and WWII periods - Real GDP growth of 5.21% / yr

1963 - 1980: The Great Society and waning days of the New Deal, including the Carter "Malaise" years - real GDP growth of 3.42% / yr

1980 - 2007: The Reagan Revolution - the heyday of supply side economics - real GDP growth of 3.02% / yr

 

2.) I find it ironic that you narrow the timeframe to the 8 years of Reagan's presidency alone. I find this ironic for a couple of reasons: a.) The conservative view on here often seems to be that the economic calamity set in motion in the last years of 'W's administration is actually the lingering effects of the New Deal and the Great Society (and throw in Clinton for good measure) come home to roost - that Bush is not responsible for economic troubles that started during his presidency. By this logic, we should credit Carter (or Johnson or Kennedy) for the economic successes of the Reagan years. Which way will you have it - is the President responsible for what happens on his watch, or not? b.) The "Reagan Revolution" colored the political and social climate of every presidency since - and forced even Clinton well to the right of Nixon and Ford. Supply side (or, as the elder Bush called it "voodoo") economics reigned supreme for the 28 years since Reagan. Looking at the statistics above, from your own website, they weren't that great of a 28 years.

 

3.) Per capita GDP is not a good measure of general well-being, because it does not reflect the redistribution of wealth towards the top during the last 28 years. The income of the top 1% has soared dramatically - giving a misleadingly strong average, while incomes of the vast majority of people have stagnated or declined as they put up with steadily eroding benefits, a declining sense of security and stability, and sent their spouses off to work in a losing bid to make up the difference. Census and DOL statistics bear this out. The 28 years since Reagan have been disastrous for the American middle class.

 

Henry Ford realized that the way to build long-term prosperity was to pay workers a wage on which they could afford his products - in other words, demand side. Henry Ford, more than anybody, created our American middle class. Posters on a Ford enthusiast site, of all people, should understand this. You cannot build long term prosperity by beggaring (or buggering) your middle class.

 

Thanks Retroman. This is one of the smartest things ever said on this forum.

 

We need to replace Reaganism with Fordism. Build the middle class and the rich will do just fine. Build the rich and wait for the benefit to "Trickle Down" and the middle class will suffer. Eventually the rich will feel it too, since you can't run a consumer economy on the purchases of 2% of the population. Supply side may have had some success when there was no other place but the U.S. to invest the money. It doesn't work now because the investment doesn't stay here to create American jobs. It goes overseas or worse to scams like Madoff.

 

Henry Ford's plan works because the spending of millions of middle class workers can and does drive the economy.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[RangerM]

Ok, let's raise the wage of every worker in America, deal?

 

Follow up question......

 

Who pays for it?

[retro-man]

People building stuff - creating real material prosperity - pay for it. (People getting rich off of financial Ponzi schemes don't.) That's who pays for everything. Let them live here in this country. They ought to have their labor and its fruits. Like Robert Reich says" "Quit blaming people for living beyond their means. Give them the means!" Investor-driven globalization has deprived them (us) of the means. When labor is off-shored, look who gets rich. "adding shareholder value": my favorite phrase. Killing the goose that laid the golden eggs is more like it.

Edited April 21, 2009 by retro-man

[RaZor]

Ok, let's raise the wage of every worker in America, deal?

 

Follow up question......

 

Who pays for it?

Oh come on, you are an intelligent person . . . who "paid" for the redistribution of "wealth" to the top for the last 28 years?

 

Many other business owners that I know are finally seeing the light that their own livelihood is severely dependent on the economic health of the middle class - otherwise, their businesses are in serious jeopardy. Even ones that do not "sell" directly to the public (rather bus to bus) are beginning to see that sooner or later the middle class IS their indirect consumer.

 

Haven't figured that out yet, eh?

[RangerM]

People building stuff - creating real material prosperity - pay for it. (People getting rich off of financial Ponzi schemes don't.) They ought to have their labor and its fruits. Like Robert Reich says" "Quit blaming people for living beyond their means. Give them the means!"

 

I can agree with your sentiment, Retro. But I don't see how you've really answered the question.

 

Specifically, if you suddenly multiply everyone's income by 1.25, have you also not increased the cost of everything by a similar factor? Everything produced (if you go back in the chain of assembly far enough) comes down to the labor costs. A car is 10% labor (per a Pioneer post I read), but the cost of its components are X% labor, and the labor cost of the components to make those components is X%, and so on. Go back far enough and you will eventually get back to a point where the cost of labor is the bulk of the cost, would you not?

 

If everything (wages and the cost of goods) all increase by the same factor, then how is the man at the bottom better off than he was before?

 

Sure, there will be a lag time between the increase in those wages and the cost of goods, but eventually the dog is going to catch his tail.

 

Oh come on, you are an intelligent person . . . who "paid" for the redistribution of "wealth" to the top for the last 28 years?

 

Many other business owners that I know are finally seeing the light that their own livelihood is severely dependent on the economic health of the middle class - otherwise, their businesses are in serious jeopardy. Even ones that do not "sell" directly to the public (rather bus to bus) are beginning to see that sooner or later the middle class IS their indirect consumer.

 

Haven't figured that out yet, eh?

 

Ok. Assuming you've read what I wrote to Retro (above), what is keeping you from increasing the amount of money you pay your workers? I'm certainly not going to stop you from paying your workers $50/hour, nor am I going to stop the "other business owners" you know.

 

So what is keeping them from doing it?

Edited April 21, 2009 by RangerM

[retro-man]

Specifically, if you suddenly multiply everyone's income by 1.25, have you also not increased the cost of everything by a similar factor? Everything produced (if you go back in the chain of assembly far enough) comes down to the labor costs. A car is 10% labor (per a Pioneer post I read), but the cost of its components are X% labor, and the labor cost of the components to make those components is X%, and so on. Go back far enough and you will eventually get back to a point where the cost of labor is the bulk of the cost, would you not?

 

If everything (wages and the cost of goods) all increase by the same factor, then how is the man at the bottom better off than he was before?

I agree with your analysis that it all boils down to labor (as you evidently agree with my assertion that this is the root of all real wealth). At the very least, I am talking about the dreaded 'R' word: re-distribution within our own economy - let those who earn it keep more of it. And the dreaded 'P' word - protectionism within the world economy - protect the system from exposure to failed models. Our economy is built not just on the industry (industriousness) of our ordinary people, but on collective culturally inherited organizational skills (some of which in their genius, unfortunately tend toward globalization, and thus our own eventual decline). Quit taking our individuals and pitting them willy-nilly against the economies of less successful (or even failed) cultures for their livelihood (I am talking about economies with zero labor or environmental standards) and expecting us not to be diminished by it. That is not a realistic expectation.

[grbeck]

PA's deregulation hasn't taken effect yet. It will be interesting (and hopefully not too expensive) to see what will happen once the deregulation is fully in effect.

 

It is being implemented by companies on an individual basis. Some companies have already phased in deregulated rates. At this point, the increases for those companies that have removed rate caps have not been that great.

 

Interestingly, one of the big proponents of deregulation and letting rates rise is the new Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary, John Hanger. He is the former head of PennFuture, an organization that has long advocated very strict environmental regulations. He is anything but a pro-utility Republican.

 

His argument is that higher rates will encourage the conservation of electricity and lessen the need for the construction of new generation sources.

[grbeck]

1.) That's a great website - I've used it myself before. Let's widen the timeframe a little and look at some 27 year periods:

1933 - 1960: The New Deal and WWII periods - Real GDP growth of 5.21% / yr

1963 - 1980: The Great Society and waning days of the New Deal, including the Carter "Malaise" years - real GDP growth of 3.42% / yr

1980 - 2007: The Reagan Revolution - the heyday of supply side economics - real GDP growth of 3.02% / yr

 

The interesting fact is that the best growth occurred when there was essentially no foreign competition (or, up until 1960), because we had either bombed our competitors to rubble, or they had bled their economies dry (Great Britain, for example). When Japan and Europe came back, our firms no longer had a monopoly on key markets. And they were forced to invest more in improving production processes than in wages and salaries. As one executive said, "We simply gave in to the unions because there was no real competition. After all, our major competitors were unionized, too. We passed the costs on to the customer."

 

Look no further than the steel and auto industries to see that dynamic in action.

 

2.) I find it ironic that you narrow the timeframe to the 8 years of Reagan's presidency alone. I find this ironic for a couple of reasons: a.) The conservative view on here often seems to be that the economic calamity set in motion in the last years of 'W's administration is actually the lingering effects of the New Deal and the Great Society (and throw in Clinton for good measure) come home to roost - that Bush is not responsible for economic troubles that started during his presidency. By this logic, we should credit Carter (or Johnson or Kennedy) for the economic successes of the Reagan years. Which way will you have it - is the President responsible for what happens on his watch, or not? b.) The "Reagan Revolution" colored the political and social climate of every presidency since - and forced even Clinton well to the right of Nixon and Ford. Supply side (or, as the elder Bush called it "voodoo") economics reigned supreme for the 28 years since Reagan. Looking at the statistics above, from your own website, they weren't that great of a 28 years.

 

Bush is not ENTIRELY to blame. He isn't blameless, either.

 

The common left-wing view on this site seems to be that we adopted brand-new government spending and monetary policies on January 21, 2001. That is hardly accurate.

 

3.) Per capita GDP is not a good measure of general well-being, because it does not reflect the redistribution of wealth towards the top during the last 28 years. The income of the top 1% has soared dramatically - giving a misleadingly strong average, while incomes of the vast majority of people have stagnated or declined as they put up with steadily eroding benefits, a declining sense of security and stability, and sent their spouses off to work in a losing bid to make up the difference. Census and DOL statistics bear this out. The 28 years since Reagan have been disastrous for the American middle class.

 

The distribution of wealth is meaningless without considering the prices of various goods and services, and the ability of people to purchase them. What is far more important is that the price of necessities - food and clothing - have DROPPED as a percentage of income since 1960. Now, even poor people are fat - it's to the point where we associate obesity with poverty (especially among women).

 

Second, the price of many goods may have risen in raw dollars, and some even in inflation-adjusted dollars, but they last longer. Cars are cleaner and safer than they were in 1960, and most can last 200,000 miles with proper maintenace. A 1960 car was used up by 100,000 miles. Tires can last 60,000 miles. They used to wear out at 20,000 miles (and blow out more frequently, too.) So you have to purchase them less often, thus saving money over the long run.

 

A flat-screen television costs LESS in real dollars than its inferior 1960 counterpart. Same with virtually every consumer electronic product (if they were even available in 1960).

 

Sorry, but I see no proof that anyone is living less well today than we did in 1979 (and I was old enough to pay attention at that time). I doubt that we are living worse than people were in 1960. My parents certainly don't think so.

 

Henry Ford realized that the way to build long-term prosperity was to pay workers a wage on which they could afford his products - in other words, demand side. Henry Ford, more than anybody, created our American middle class. Posters on a Ford enthusiast site, of all people, should understand this. You cannot build long term prosperity by beggaring (or buggering) your middle class.

 

Henry Ford instituted his higher wages to reduce the ruinous turnover at his plants. It was approaching 50 percent, and it was almost impossible to keep the lines running. That was the real reason he instituted his $5-a-day wage. Also note that not everyone was eligible - workers had to submit to home inspections by his personnel to prove that they were worthy of this higher wage, and wouldn't waste it on booze, gambling dens and prostitutes.

 

Second, his real contribution to the creation of America's middle class was in driving down the price of his cars so that everyone could afford them. Farmers and lower-middle class people could now afford them, thus widening their opportunities and social sphere.

 

The workers at his plant certainly appreciated the higher wages, but they weren't enough to constitute a new middle class (after all, not all Ford employees were eligible). He helped create it by putting the Model T within the reach of people who could not otherwise afford cars. When he had this market to himself, he could afford to pay higher wages and cut prices. What's interesting is to look at what happened to his policies when he was faced with competition from Chevrolet, Plymouth, the Willys Whippet and Hudson-Essex. Then it wasn't so easy anymore...

Edited April 21, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

I agree with your analysis that it all boils down to labor (as you evidently agree with my assertion that this is the root of all real wealth). At the very least, I am talking about the dreaded 'R' word: re-distribution within our own economy - let those who earn it keep more of it. And the dreaded 'P' word - protectionism within the world economy - protect the system from exposure to failed models. Our economy is built not just on the industry (industriousness) of our ordinary people, but on collective culturally inherited organizational skills (some of which in their genius, unfortunately tend toward globalization, and thus our own eventual decline). Quit taking our individuals and pitting them willy-nilly against the economies of less successful (or even failed) cultures for their livelihood (I am talking about economies with zero labor or environmental standards) and expecting us not to be diminished by it. That is not a realistic expectation.

 

Our chief competitors are still Japan and Europe (specifically, Germany.) They don't use slave labor, and they have enacted environmental protections, too.

[Trimdingman]

To-day, most labor in the big three is out-sourced. In Henry Ford's day, everybody worked directly for Ford. They made their own steel. They even owned rubber tree plantations in Brazil for tires. To-day, the Ford employee is such a small proportion of the automotive workforce that he is almost token. They keep him so that they can put him under a magnifying glass any time they need to deflect criticism from themselves.

[methos]

Here's what it has to do with this argument: You claimed that investment (you didn't say investment in what) had gone down by 0.9 percent as a result of Reagan's policies. Not knowing what you meant by investment, I chose to use the market capitalization of the companies that compose the S&P 500 index, since it is a very broad measure of investment. You would know why if you had read my post. To reiterate:

The S&P 500 index can be used as a gauge for investment, since it reflects 75 percent of all U.S. stock market capitalization, as well as the 500 largest U.S. companies in the 10 most important sectors in the U.S. economy -

and capitalization of equities in these companies represents ownership and therefore investment in them

. In 1989, the year Reagan left office, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 was $2.326 trillion; today, the market cap of the S&P 500 is $7.555 trillion (in constant dollars). That's an increase in market capitalization - investment - of 325 percent over the past 30 years.

If you can find a broader measure of investment than this, I'm curious to know what it is.

 

 

 

That's pretty good! But it's only partially correct. Again, if you actually read my post, the part where I quoted my macroeconomics textbook - and you implored me to consult my macroeconomics textbook - you would have also discovered this little tidbit:

The author describes supply-side theory as just another name for the

long-run framework with which economists use to analyze the economy

(and suggest policy), as opposed to the short-run framework, which addresses the demand side of the economy. To quote:

"Because supply is so important in the long run, policies that affect production—such as incentives that promote work, capital accumulation, and technological change—are key."

(p. 153.).

So supply-side economic theory is not just about tax cuts (although it's an important component of it); it's also about policies - such as regulatory policies and the promotion of free trade - that foster long-term growth and capital formation (which ultimately result in the creation of long-term, lasting jobs).

 

On the other hand, demand-side policy focuses on short-run, or short-term fixes to economic problems, such as economic stimulus packages, interest-rate cuts, etc.

 

A famous quote from John Maynard Keynes, one of history's foremost advocates of demand-side theory is: "In the long run, we're all dead." That doesn't exactly sound like a comforting reason to justify to one's grandkids Obama's budget proposal, which will add an estimated $9 trillion to the budget deficit in the next 10 years: "Don't worry, honey darlin': I'm gonna die, and you're gonna die soon enough, too."

 

What's ironic about liberals who deplore supply-side economic theory is that they unknowingly advocate it with their "green technology" initiatives, such as wind and solar power, saying this is a "long-term" project. We hear this ad nauseum when they talk of long-term investment in such technologies, even though they admit it won't provide a return in the short run. (Keynes would probably be throwing up at this proposal.)

 

But the enviros still have their heads up their asses with their opposition to long-term investment in nuclear energy.

 

 

OK. You got me there. Let's assume the CATO Institute is full of a bunch of former Reagan officials, and therefore, any numbers they present are biased and do not represent the truth. Never mind the fact that you didn't produce any numbers or data to refute the numbers or data I cited from the CATO Institute; let's try a different approach, which is sort of an interactive approach designed for the economically inclined:

 

There is a wonderful Web site, called "Measuring Worth." It is a completely non-biased source for economic data going back hundreds of years, and it also includes data from the UK and Japan. Here's the link: http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/#

 

From this Web site, I found similar data that correlates with what the CATO Institute found:

In the eight-year period before Reagan's presidency, from 1973 to 1980, real GDP growth was 2.50 percent annually.

 

During Reagan's presidency, from 1981 to 1988, real GDP growth was 3.52 percent annually.

 

During the eight-year period following Reagan's presidency, real GDP growth was 2.55 annually.

(I think part of the reason for Reagan's success as a leader was his optimism - as opposed to Carter's negativism: "We are in a period of malaise.")

 

Maybe a better measure is GDP per capita:

During the pre-Reagan eight-year period of 1973 to 1980, per-capita GDP rose from $20,484 to $22,666, an increase of 10.65 percent, or an average of 1.33 percent annually.

 

During Reagan's two terms, GDP per capita rose from $23,007 to $27,514, an increase of 19.59 percent, or 2.45 percent annually.

 

The eight years after Reagan's presidency produced GDP per-capita growth of $28,221 to $30,881, with a total gain of 9.43 percent, or 1.18 percent per year.

This is real data gleaned from a non-biased source. And GDP growth is the most relevant measure of the economy - which even leftist economists will admit.

 

 

 

Never mind your lack of facts; you could start by refining your grammatical skills if you intend to make a cogent argument. And if you were really cognizant of your reading audience, you would identify which premise it is that failed - and why.

 

 

 

A meta-analysis of what? A 0.9 percent decline of what? During what time-frame? Who conducted this meta-analysis? What were the parameters, conditions, sampling error, sampling method, and level of confidence?

 

In light of 40 percent declines in peoples' investments over the last 18 months, I'm really curious why a 0.9 percent decline of anything is something we should be concerned about.

 

 

 

I thrive on facts; evidently, you don't.

 

 

 

This is one of the great debates of Reagan's legacy: that his deficit spending financed the end of the Cold War - and whether it was worth it. Fiscally, it's hard to say. Personally, I have two friends who work in my company who are from the formerly Soviet-ruled Romania and Poland, who now have jobs in the U.S. - and they couldn't be happier with their new-found freedom. Their freedom is something you probably take for granted. In fact, the Romanian guy, whose nickname is "Steel," gave me a lecture on why Romanians supported the Americans' efforts in the Vietnam War. The Romanians had had their belly full of Soviet oppression/expansionism, and they eventually overtook their government. The consequences were not pretty.

 

 

 

You call it a flaw; I call it an attribute to his character. Reagan demonstrated unwaivering values throughout his presidency, and he never compromised those values.

 

 

 

 

Oh, my God, this is terrible! "Everyone" includes me and the Popsicle vendor strolling up the street. I didn't know "it" was a failure (whatever "it" is). I'll be sure to ask the Popsicle vendor for his opinion. Did Reagan actually admit this? And if so, what of it? Cite a source? I'll never sleep again...

 

Wow, that's incredible, you start off by stating you have no idea of what I am referring to regarding what is actually the "supply" of supply-side economics and end up educating me at the end with what you think it is, go figure?

 

In the end, none of what you said has ANY bearing on the argument at hand. All the while you're quibbling about my grammar and the lack of cogency in my argument, again go figure?

 

You like facts? That's great, I do as well. But what I really like is facts that are pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

I have not posted any facts because I have none to post, now. I don't have access to my school library until next week. I could post endless articles and some descriptive papers but it means nothing unless I can post real numbers. What I did try to do was post relevant material until I get such access. Such as the CBO budget proposal and the fact that they tried creating a more dynamic model to measure the curve better, which it failed. I will post all the data by Thursday of next week – sooner if I get the chance.

[napfirst]

Wow, that's incredible, you start off by stating you have no idea of what I am referring to regarding what is actually the "supply" of supply-side economics and end up educating me at the end with what you think it is, go figure?

 

In the end, none of what you said has ANY bearing on the argument at hand. All the while you're quibbling about my grammar and the lack of cogency in my argument, again go figure?

 

You like facts? That's great, I do as well. But what I really like is facts that are pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

I have not posted any facts because I have none to post, now. I don't have access to my school library until next week. I could post endless articles and some descriptive papers but it means nothing unless I can post real numbers. What I did try to do was post relevant material until I get such access. Such as the CBO budget proposal and the fact that they tried creating a more dynamic model to measure the curve better, which it failed. I will post all the data by Thursday of next week – sooner if I get the chance.

We all know you're not one to let the facts get in your way......

[V8 Ford]

1.) That's a great website - I've used it myself before. Let's widen the timeframe a little and look at some 27 year periods:

1933 - 1960: The New Deal and WWII periods - Real GDP growth of 5.21% / yr

1963 - 1980: The Great Society and waning days of the New Deal, including the Carter "Malaise" years - real GDP growth of 3.42% / yr

1980 - 2007: The Reagan Revolution - the heyday of supply side economics - real GDP growth of 3.02% / yr

...

(shortened for post length reasons, and I don't like disecting long, well written posts unless I only want to mention part of it)

In response to a couple of assertions on economic principals

Demand side determines only short term output. Supply side is technology, resources, facilities. That changes long run output. Demand side doesn't, it only affects short run output. This is macroeconomics in a nutshell, and it is exploited by both parties to their economic goals.

 

GDP per capita absolutely correlates to economic wellbeing (like everything else, in the longrun). If you don't believe me, compare standard of living in China to the US and GDP per capita between the two countries, or compare the 1850's US and present US.

Also, income distribution is irrelevant to wellbeing (unless your Utility function depends on keeping up with the Jones). Wellbeing is an aboslute quantity, not a relative quality. If you want to talk about income distribution and what's right, I can't argue with that.

 

edit: (stupid opera posted when I hit tab, I'll continue my responce in another post)

Edited April 22, 2009 by V8 Ford