Trickle down economics and the airlines

[Smacktard]

Chile in the 70s

China....now.

Iraq... the US Occupied

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine



The problem with your post is you seperate gov't from the economic polices that implement them.....

Not quite. In Chile, Pinochet was a Marxist. He did not rise to power thru a rise in corporate control of the country. China is a Socialist Republic, state run corporations came after the fact as the Communist form of government took place in the 50's. The communists rose to power and built state run corporations to exert further power on the masses. And Iraq, well not sure yet, but nothing close to a country run by corporations.

The original post suggested that CEOs and the rich were making money off the backs of the rest of us and that trickledown economics have failed. The tenet of trickledown economics is that tax breaks to the rich and corporations will eventually work their way down. The Republicans are the party of trickle down economics, the Democrats are the party of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, ie socialism.

It wasn't a stretch to then ask for the two types of government that best embody these principals, Socialism versus a corporate Plutocracy. In nearly EVERY case in history, socialism has been marked with corruption, genocide, control of the masses. There aren't many, if any, examples of a corporate Plutocracy.

So the point was; the CEOs and evil wealthy that control our major corporations seldom get so powerful that they control society and rule government, but socialist policies have failed throughout the history of mankind. We are on the verge of losing what this country was built on; the effort of the individual, all in the name of the collective good. I think what has worked against the trickledown economic policies are the brief lapses we have made into social engineering, ie The Community Reinvestment Act. Why go down the road we know will not work?

 

[Dan Roman]

I don't think it as simple as trickle down not working. Trickle up by giving someone something they didn't earn by hard work didn't work so well either.

Your right that it isn't simple. We could go back and forth all day cherry picking whatever we think supports any position you want to take. Talking about money is especially emotional for some.
I just think it's a good idea to try and spur the economy by putting more money in the pockets of the consumers and not trying to make a few very rich and hope they will create jobs. There is a LOT of greed and self serving behavior in the upper income brackets. The whole world is paying for it.

 

[JumpJetter]

The whole world is paying for it.

Dude, THE WHOLE WORLD IS PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO BORROWED MORE THAN THEY COULD AFFORD AND DEFAULTED ON IT. Not rich CEOs stealing from the poor. Do you really believe that?

 

[Dan Roman]

OK I'll give you that one! You are right. BUT.... there is enough blame to go around in a lot of places. I am pissed off about the bailout and the fact that it rewards the people who screwed up. Both those that over extended themselves and Corporate America with the blessing of our Govt.
That said I think the bailout probably had to happen.
I still like the concept that the working class of the country should drive the economy and not the people making millions.
Just like SWA. They are successful because the middle class (employees) was rewarded and fueled their success, not because Herb was paid more than other CEO's. As a Result, Herb still got rich because SWA's workers fueled their success. Bot he did not get his millions at the expense of the employee's ala UAL, AMR etc. It trickled up, not down

 

[N1kawotg]

Food for thought. As pilots- we are unionized for better QOL and pay. We fight hard for even the smallest raise like COLA, yet to my disbelief some pilots on this board that fight so hard for a buck raise are willing to vote for an instant pay cut-I'm not talking those making over 250,000. Obama is going to raise capital gains tax- whether you make a dollar or over 250,000. So as you fight for a better contract year after year- people on this board are willing to vote for a decrease in purchasing power that will wipe the raises and savings worked so hard for? Am I missing something?

 

[cybourg10]

I believe the trickle down economic theory is the best for a nation IF those at the control do not corrupt the system. Since no human being is free from the temptations of corruption and greed the system will always have "cloggs" in it. It is not socialism for Obama to tax a little more at the top and give the ones likes us at the bottom a little bit more of a break. We might need a little more regulation so that the "Tiltons" of the world are not able to get away with robery at the highest level. For those of you that do not like socialism it is my advice that you find another country because you have been living under a socialist government your whole life except you probably have not made enough money to experience all the benefits. I would love a free market economy and trickle down economics but when humans are involved they can not be completly trusted. Rich people will always have the advantage, that is why we need to vote some people into office that are not so easily tempted by cash and if you think your party is the only answer you are kidding yourself. Bush never knew what is was like to actually work for a living without having your Dad call up the Saudis for a massive bailout, he never really earned anything without using his last name and that is why he never has or will understand why this trickle down system does not work because people like him are part of the problem not the solution.

 

[cybourg10]

Food for thought. As pilots- we are unionized for better QOL and pay. We fight hard for even the smallest raise like COLA, yet to my disbelief some pilots on this board that fight so hard for a buck raise are willing to vote for an instant pay cut-I'm not talking those making over 250,000. Obama is going to raise capital gains tax- whether you make a dollar or over 250,000. So as you fight for a better contract year after year- people on this board are willing to vote for a decrease in purchasing power that will wipe the raises and savings worked so hard for? Am I missing something?

I don't vote based on who is going to take more money out of my pocket, I vote on who will do a better job with that money they take.

 

[DrewBlows]

When gas prices went sky high, I cut my lawn guys who where costing me $80 bucks a month. Now that they are lower (lower taxes serve the same purpose) I'm considering hiring them back, thus a portion of the income my company pays me, is flowing through my household to another household. What is so difficult to understand here?

Last time I checked you can't buy groceries with "consideration". Your example might have merit if you actually hired the mowers back.

 

[Smacktard]

There is a LOT of greed and self serving behavior in the upper income brackets. The whole world is paying for it.

Greed and self serving behavior did cause the problem, only it wasn't the upper income brackets, it was the lower, middle and upper income brackets. Increasing taxes on the the rich will not solve the problem and, if history is any indication, will make things worse. But it's a feel good solution and that's what we're all about, symbolism over substance...

 

[Dizel8]

I think we should go the flat tax route or the sales tax route.

The redistribution of wealth is what comes out of a horses rear, I have no problem with taxes, but I do have a problem when I am forced to pay more than my fair share.

 

[olympus593]

Not quite. In Chile, Pinochet was a Marxist. He did not rise to power thru a rise in corporate control of the country. China is a Socialist Republic, state run corporations came after the fact as the Communist form of government took place in the 50's. The communists rose to power and built state run corporations to exert further power on the masses. And Iraq, well not sure yet, but nothing close to a country run by corporations.

The original post suggested that CEOs and the rich were making money off the backs of the rest of us and that trickledown economics have failed. The tenet of trickledown economics is that tax breaks to the rich and corporations will eventually work their way down. The Republicans are the party of trickle down economics, the Democrats are the party of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, ie socialism.

It wasn't a stretch to then ask for the two types of government that best embody these principals, Socialism versus a corporate Plutocracy. In nearly EVERY case in history, socialism has been marked with corruption, genocide, control of the masses. There aren't many, if any, examples of a corporate Plutocracy.

So the point was; the CEOs and evil wealthy that control our major corporations seldom get so powerful that they control society and rule government, but socialist policies have failed throughout the history of mankind. We are on the verge of losing what this country was built on; the effort of the individual, all in the name of the collective good. I think what has worked against the trickledown economic policies are the brief lapses we have made into social engineering, ie The Community Reinvestment Act. Why go down the road we know will not work?

Pinochet a Marxist? That show us how much you know, he was an extreme rightwing nuts that tortured, killed and jailed anybody on the left of him.Thank you for playing and making yourself look like an A-S-S.

 

[Smacktard]

Pinochet a Marxist? That show us how much you know, he was an extreme rightwing nuts that tortured, killed and jailed anybody on the left of him.Thank you for playing and making yourself look like an A-S-S.

I stand corrected, I was reading about the 1970 election of Salvador Allende, the Marxist, who was removed from office by Pinochet in 1973. Pinochet was anything but the example Rez was using, ie to say Chile was run by corporate entities. Pinochet was a military officer turned dictator. Thru the use of the military, Pinochet privatized state controlled industries. And so my point; to use Chile as an example of what could happen here because of the rich getting richer and corporations becoming all powerful is absurd.

 

[Dude]

The American people are to blame for our mess! The blame stops there, brother. If folks would refuse to put up with this $hit, then it would stop; but no, we continue to buy their products, re-elect them, and listen to their BS. Fire your politicians, don't shop at stores that behave unethically, and keep your money in your pocket . Do this and it stops. Do it not and the cycle continues. Corruption is not a monster that cannot be killed. When stupid, ignorant, and complacent citizens refuse to vote and hold ELECTED officials accountable, then they are complicit. I wrote a letter to my senator explaining to him/staffer that I would steadfastly work to elect someone else and campaign on their behalf if he voted for the bailout. Well, I voted early and he didn't get mine. That's how these issues get solved. Threaten to fire them and then do it. As far as corporate greed, don't give them your money, even if it's inconvenient.

Simple folk do not drive the economy. Businesses do. Businesses manufacture products that people buy and businesses hire people to facilitate the manufacturing process. After products are made, another company has to transport and distribute the product. After that, the retailer has to hire people to sell it to you. The viability of the economy depends on the evil rich people that create the jobs so that I/you can have money to put into the economy.

 

[Soverytired]

That's a stupid statement. I guess spending 10 years walking the streets of the ghettos of Chicago helping disparate people take control of their lives (by getting jobs and religion, not government assistance) doesn't count?

Nooo. Never run anything. What have you done for your country besides sell your soul to Mesa Mr So Very Tired?

Really? Well, if it's any consolation, I stole it. (Rudy talking about Bidden in 2007) But I thought it was kinda funny.

1. Presumably, you meant "desperate", not "disparate" people. I suppose the case could be made for either. He's helped many "disparate" groups of people . . . indicted slum lords, shady "community groups", an unrepentant terrorist, and black liberation theology religious groups.

But I'm guessing you meant "desperate", although I'm puzzled as to why you would think the most left-leaning member of the US Senate is a champion of the poor by steering them to their own efforts rather than never-ending government aid. His record, his platform, and his speeches quite clearly state the opposite.

2. You like sacrifice for one's country? Like that's some sort of qualification for high office (given the current topic)? BO cannot even begin to come close to the personal sacrifices JM gave for his country. To even try is laughable. There are other qualifiers for high office, but to tout BO's "sacrifice" against REAL sacrifice is simply pathetic.

As for me, my conscience is clear. I've done (and do) plenty, but how would you verify my claims? I didn't "sell out" for Mesa . . . I worked hard and paid a butt-load in dues to almighty ALPA, including some special assessment checks paid without hesitation to striking Comair pilots. Then I parlayed that experience to something better.

May you do the same. If you ever reach a career position that literally takes you decades of hard work and sacrifice to get where you truly want to be, please send the fruits of your hard labor to the federal treasury on your own.

As for me, I'm less than thrilled at the prospect of working for decades to get where I am today only to have the federal government point a gun at my head and coerce me into "spreading my wealth around" by giving it to a bureaucrat in D.C. That's going to mean far less of it going back into my actual local community, where I'd rather put it.

Cheers. Nice Avatar, BTW. Probably one the the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube. She has great, uh, eyes.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I stand corrected, I was reading about the 1970 election of Salvador Allende, the Marxist, who was removed from office by Pinochet in 1973. Pinochet was anything but the example Rez was using, ie to say Chile was run by corporate entities. Pinochet was a military officer turned dictator. Thru the use of the military, Pinochet privatized state controlled industries. And so my point; to use Chile as an example of what could happen here because of the rich getting richer and corporations becoming all powerful is absurd.

Wrong again!

You failed to address the use of military to install economic polices. This is what happened in Chile. Milton Friedman the father of the Chicago boys trained many South American students in the ways of laizze faire captialism. When Pinochet took power it was his economic polices that he implemented that creates haves and have nots. The poverty increased. Pinochet used terror and torture to squach and efforts to oppose him.. including democracy itself....

Same thing in Iraq. The US sized control of that country and installed the corporatist agenda via Paul Bremer and the CPA. The goal was a flat tax and 100% of profits from Iraqi companies could leave the country. When out of work Iraqi men grew angry because contractors brought foreign labor the US responded by using torture to control the Iraqis. This was all for the corporate agenda.

Coalition Provisional Authority, Order 37: Tax Strategy for 2003

Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, signed this order that instituted a 15% flat tax for individuals and corporations in Iraq.


Coalition Provisional Authority, Order 39: Foreign Investment

This destructive CPA order permitted foreign firms to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets, allowed investors to take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country without being taxed.
​

Get education. You've got about 13 days.