Tax the rich until their freakin eyes bleed - by: MinistryOfTruth

[kpete]

"...remember, when rich people tell you about Free Trade and Economic Freedom, they mean the better to eat you with

Tax the rich until their freakin eyes bleed
by: MinistryOfTruth

Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 19:04:07 PM CDT

This is why it was so important to put profit over safety, which resulted in the deaths of 29 miners at a Massey coal mine and hundreds and hundreds of safety code violations before that.

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship was paid $17.8 million last year, "a $6.8 million raise over 2008 and almost double his compensation package in 2007. Blankenship also has a deferred compensation package valued at $27.2 million at the end of last year."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/19/april-19-2010/

The graph below proves that "Trickle Down" supply side economics ala President Reagan is pure bullsh*t. When the rich get richer everyone else gets poorer, and since the super rich are now richer than ever we should tax the hell out of them.



In my honest opinion, we need new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, and we need them starting YESTERDAY. We need to take away the incentive for the CEO/shareholder class to rob the hell out of the working class for profit. Until we do that, the exploitation of the working class will continue unabated and the death spiral of what used to be the middle class will get worse and worse.

Taxed Enough Already? Though Fox News viewers don't know it, 95% of us got income tax CUTS. I think that is great, but I don't think that is enough. If you REALLY want to take the incentive to rob investors or skirt safety regulations away from the CEO class of the super rich tax them until their freakin eyes bleed. If they are going to scream socialist at you no matter what you do you might as well. It's not like the super rich could freak out any more than they already are. It seems to me that the super rich have WAY too much money to lobby Congress with when they aren't outsourcing your job and pulling down HUGE salaries while crashing the economy into the ground.

more:
http://www.progressiveelectorate.com/diary/2352/tax-the-rich-until-their-freakin-eyes-bleed

[snot]

1. K&R'd, and a question:

Source for the graph?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. 91% Top Tax Rate Under Republican President Eisenhower

And Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

And the nation's economy did just fine. The Middle Class expanded. All was well.

[femrap]

151. No wonder

they liked Ike!!!! And he knew all about that Military-Industrial AND Congressional Complex...but he did leave the 'congressional' part out of his speech.

435 Congressional Districts and every one of them has a Part of the War Machine.

[Ozymanithrax]

183. I know the number is accurate, but what loopholes existed at the time in the tax structure?

Any idea?

[MannyGoldstein]

188. All Told, The Wealthiest Americans Paid 50% in Federal Taxes Back Then

After factoring in the lower capital gains tax and so forth.

That's gone from 50% down to 17% today!

[Warpy]

3. I wish I could recommend this multiple times

I'd be up all night clicking away.

Higher taxes on the wealthy have always correlated well with a healthy economy overall. Remember, any of the rich who paid attention to what they were doing after the Depression still managed to get richer with a 90% top marginal rate. Think about that.

In the meantime, there was work for anyone who wanted it, and that work paid enough for people to live on, pay their bills, and save a little. Minimum wage was set as the lowest wage a family of four could live on with a "thrifty" lifestyle. Now it won't even buy a single person poverty, it's still below the poverty line.

Lowering taxes on the richest has degraded every single thing this country was once proud of, from infrastructure to government service.

Enough. Tax the bastards until they're crying real tears this time and make it a constitutional amendment and make absolutely all school textbooks teach why it's done this way. Make it impossible for another slick talking snake oil salesman to do this to the country, ever again.

Or bring on the guillotine and confiscate all their ill gotten gains, pay back the debt they ran up, and make sure their children know poverty so they'll know that's what we want to avoid.

[Xenotime]

125. Brilliant!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[conscious evolution]

132. +1

[Naturyl]

143. +1000 this post (n/t)

[progressiveinaction]

224. Do you consider Obama rich?

And if so, why should we make Sasha and Malia "know poverty"? Have they committed any crime? Should they not be free to make their own way through life and let their decisions determine if they "know poverty"?

I'm all for increasing taxes on the rich, but wishing poverty on children makes no sense to me, especially coming from a progressive, democratic site.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

4. Even total confiscation will last the govt about 15 mins, tops.

So I can't see much point to this. In fact most of them would simply leave if you instituted high rates of taxation.

[Hannah Bell]

7. garbage.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

8. Add it up yourself.

How many billionaires do you have? How many millionaires?

How much do you spend in Iraq alone each and every day?

Not even total confiscation would solve your financial problems, much less mere taxation.

The US now deals in trillions of dollars, but so far there isn't even one trillionaire.

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. Should we allow thugs who create nothing to steal 5 billion, more than 250,000 teachers make!!!!!

[ZeitgeistObserver]

20. Movie stars, and sports stars make more than teachers

and doctors. Are they stealing?

I agree that Wall St needs an overhaul, but then most countries have a 'financial sector' that needs an overhaul.

[AnArmyVeteran]

33. When a thug sitting behind a computer taking money from others, it is STEALING...

I don't begrudge people who successful. But for someone to make 5 billion in one year while producing NOTHING for society is WRONG and it should be illegal. An illegal farm worker picking fruit produces more for society in one hour than ALL of Wall Street does in their entire lifetimes. That farm worker produces something of substance we all need to survive. The Wall Street thug produces absolutely NOTHING. Not only that, he takes from others who are productive.

Do you believe one person should be able to steal 5 billion through loopholes in the law and make more than 250,000 hard working PRODUCTIVE people in society? I consider a system that allows someone like those Wall Street thugs to make billions a year to be evil. It should and must be changed. We need to go back to the 90% tax rate so we could recoup some of the money stolen by white collar criminals and use that money to hire productive members of society like firefighters, nurse, teachers and police officers.

The whole reason Wall Street is in existence is because it is a cesspool of conmen making fortunes by producing absolutely NOTHING. Wall Street could be wiped out tomorrow and no one would miss it. It is NOT NEEDED. It's a billion times worse than all the gangs and mobs that terrorized the country from the 20s to the 50s. It needs to be eliminated, just like the mob was.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

41. No, it's a job like any other.

A job America is happy to have in boom times.

[fascisthunter]

198. that's what sociopaths call it.. a "job"

[AnArmyVeteran]

34. CLOSE DOWN WALL STREET... They are nothing but criminals...

[Hannah Bell]

21. 1% of the population owns or control 90% of the productive assets of the planet.

add it up yourself.

[AnArmyVeteran]

But the 99% of the people at the bottom are the REAL PRODUCERS...

The top 1% produces almost nothing. The middle class and poor create and produce. The top 1% just takes and steals. They take all of the fruits of the labors of those who are doing the hard work to keep our country productive.

[AnArmyVeteran]

38. The rich are pretty useless... and without the money they stole they couldn't tie their shoes...

[ZeitgeistObserver]

40. That's just ideology.

And if you're happy with ideology, fine.

Try to confiscate all the money from the rich, and they'll be gone.

[abelenkpe]

140. JJ Rawlings did that in Ghana

Funny, the country didn't shrivel up and die.

Where will the rich go? It's a global economic crisis. They have no where to run and this sad used excuse for allowing bullies to continue to bully those who do the actual work just because they were born into wealth has lost it's ability to sway anyone but the most gullible.

[femrap]

154. As history has shown,

if the rich don't pay their fair share, they end up gone....DEAD! It's bloody and ugly.

A number of rich folks know this and are more than willing to pay higher taxes. Hell, it's been on '60 Minutes.'

[nebenaube]

158. not if they don't have passports... n/t

[lonestarnot]

9. Not!

Tax tax tax the fuckers!

[ZeitgeistObserver]

14. Counter-productive anger.

that won't solve anything.

In Canada where I live, we have progressive taxation. The more you make, the more you pay. But attacking the 'rich' as a group was long ago discarded as a dangerous idea for the country.

[Hannah Bell]

23. lol. dangerous for the rich.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

28. No, they'll just leave.

Along with their companies and fortunes and jobs.

[Hannah Bell]

52. they going to fly their land, plant & equipment to bermuda?

sure they are.

those locusts aren't going anywhere. i wish they would, though.

like to hell.

i'm thinking of a word, starts with "t"

can you guess what it is?

i know you can.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

56. All they need to take is the money.

Enjoy the empty buildings.

Tribbles?

Truffles?

Troubadors?

[Hannah Bell]

65. The money's useless if you can't buy land, buildings, & equipment with it, sucker.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

71. Easily available anywhere.

[Hannah Bell]

74. So's money. Should we choose to, we can print as much as we like of the stuff and fund

an internal economy.

In fact, money's a damn sight more freely available than arable land, clean water, and mineral & timber resources.

All of which are in short supply on the French Riviera.

As are big guns.

Your billionaires' "money" is just some protons in a computer transaction.

Completely meaningless unless most people agree to assign meaning to it.

Control of resources & bodies = "money".

[ZeitgeistObserver]

78. Yes hyper- inflation is a wonderful thing. Try it.

When people are billionaires, they don't need land or mineral and timber resources.

They can live very nicely on just the interest from their investments.

[Hannah Bell]

84. lol. you don't know what "inflation" is, or what "investments" are, apparently.

apparently money just grows itself, without reference to anything real, like land, food, minerals, timber, or labor.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

85. Hyper inflation is well defined.

And trust me, you don't want to live through it.

Land, minerals, timber, labor are all great things when you're starting out to build a factory.

Billionaires are long past that point.

[Hannah Bell]

88. god, you're clueless. printing money doesn't = "hyperinflation".

first clue: every government on the planet does it daily.

second clue: what is the computer you're typing on made of, air? what kind of packaging did it come in? what kind of truck brought it to your house? what did the driver have for lunch?


billionaires suck of a portion of the monetized value of each of those transactions, and more.

they are, in the very truest sense of the world, parasites.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

89. Yes, it does actually. Ask Germany.

Or Zimbabwe.

Billionaires are billionaires. They are already wealthy. They don't need the US, and they don't need you.

They can live well anywhere.

A sad fact of life.

[Hannah Bell]

92. could you be any more trite & clueless? germany's hyperinflation had nothing

to do with "printing money," & neither does zimbabwe's.

they had to do with financial attack on their currencies by other powers.

it's one of the negative aspects of "free trade".

easily solved by disconnecting from that system & financing an internal economy by printing a new money supply. something you can do if you have lots of land, resources, and labor.

your billionaires could sink into the deepest pits of hell & not a soul would miss them.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

94. You are wasting your time, and mine.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and neither does anyone else.

I'm off to bed. Economic nonsense is a non-starter, and it's all you've come up with.

If you want to ruin your country with this kind of ignorance, it's your choice.

[Hannah Bell]

97. lol. good riddance, mr. billionaire.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

98. 'Night.

Rest assured that's something you'll never be.

[Hannah Bell]

100. no need to extend the goodbyes, mr. billionaire. toddle off to bed, now.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

102. i guess you know the causes of the german hyperinflation better than Hjalmar Schacht.

how kind of you to grace us with your wisdom.

[BzaDem]

105. If you are saying German hyperinflation had nothing to do with printing money

you should probably stop commenting on the subject entirely. The fewer people misled by this BS, the better.

[BzaDem]

104. Germany's and Zimbabwe's hyperinflation had nothing to do with printing money? REALLY?

If you didn't graduate from high school, then I apologize and mean no offense to you. But if you did, you should use your reading skills and pick up a history book.

What garbage.

[Hannah Bell]

106. you only think it's "garbage" because the only story you've ever heard is about "printing money".

strange that *hyper*-inflation is a rather rare phenomenon associated mainly with wars, if "printing money" is its major cause.

(as opposed to regular inflation, which has been constant since the 1880s - also, i suppose, caused by "printing money"....

-- at least in the US, except for the brief respite of deflation during the Depression (possibly caused by "burning money"?)



how did schacht end the german hyperinflation?

oh, yeah, by "printing different money".

and more importantly, by ending the internal & external currency speculation ("betting against the mark with borrowed marks")which had tanked the international value of the old mark.

worked just fine, even though there was *even more money* in circulation.

By November 30, 1923, there were 500 million Rentenmarks in circulation, which increased to 1000 million by January 1, 1924, and again to 1,800 million Rentenmarks by July 1924. Meanwhile, the old paper Marks continued in circulation. The total paper Marks increased to 1,211 quintillion in July 1924 and continued to fall in value to one third of their conversion value in Rentenmarks.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic.



here's another hint: think about the swift run-up in oil prices at the end of the bush admin. you can call that one variation on "hyperinflation".

and it wasn't about "printing money".

[BzaDem]

108. I have a different question. What do you think happens when you print money?

Let's say that the Fed decided to double the amount of M2 and distributed it to a variety of companies and people. What do you think would happen to the consumer price index? I'm trying to determine how simplistic I need to go to explain this.

And another question (relating to hyperinflation): You say that Schacht ended hyperinflation by "printing different money." Do you understand the difference between a currency that is backed by underlying assets, and a currency that is not backed by anything (or various states in between)?

[Hannah Bell]

110. tell me why prices went *down* in germany when schacht printed rentenmarks & kept the old marks

in circulation too.

& tell me the difference between "hyperinflation" & regular old garden-variety inflation.

then tell me why prior to about 1880 or so regular creeping inflation wasn't a feature of american life.

tell me why land prices suddenly soar in places like e.g. aspen, despite no universal "money-printing".

tell me why oil prices doubled, tripled & quadrupled in a matter of months at the end of the bush admin.

none of it's about anything so (to use your word) "simplistic" as printing money, & neither was the german hyperinflation.

ps: since 2000, m2 has nearly doubled. us gdp didn't double in that time. (2000 gdp = 9 Trillion v. 14.4 trillion)

why aren't we in "hyperinflation"?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s<1>=M2

[BzaDem]

112. Printing money is a factor that causes inflation. That doesn't mean it's the only variable.

The velocity of money matters as well. It is obviously possible to print money and not cause inflation: just print the money and lock it in a box. There. More money and no inflation.

That's exactly what's happening right now. The Fed is printing money to back purchases of securities. By printing money, I mean increasing bank reserves. But the banks are not lending this money. They are sitting on it (or buying short-term US treasuries with it). So no inflation.

But when you say that we can just print money and create a whole new "internal economy," you are not talking about printing money and locking it in a box. You are talking about printing money and using it. That is a different story, and will obviously cause hyperinflation.

Inflation is the devaluing of money (otherwise known as broad-based price increases). Hyperinflation is a specific type of inflation. When inflation is kept low, people think their money is safe to hold onto in the bank. But when people believe inflation is about to spiral out of control, they immediately go to the store and spend whatever they have on assets that will not devalue so quickly.

What happens whey everyone immediately tries to spend as much money as possible? Prices skyrocket. Everyone notices prices skyrocketing, and try to spend as much as possible before they skyrocket even more. This causes more inflation. And the spiral goes on.

Normal inflation does not cause this spiral, because the value to a person to save their money is far beyond spending it all immediately (since prices are only going to go up a small amount). But when prices go up 100%-10000% every day (or every hour), there is no value to holding onto your money, since it will be worthless in 6 hours. So they spend money as fast as possible, which continues the spiral.

Obviously, speculation can cause prices of certain commodities to change. By definition. No one is arguing otherwise. But the fact that speculation causes prices to change does not mean that printing money does not cause prices to increase. Your logic is backwards. That would be like me saying that doubling my calorie intake won't cause me to get fat, because not exercising will cause me to get fat. Both are a factor.

As for inflation prior to 1880, our currency was backed by hard assets through much of our history. Obviously, money can't just be printed if it is backed by a hard asset. Ther was in excess of 80% inflation during the Civil War, when we printed fiat money not backed by anything. Inflation is much less of a factor with backed currencies.

This, in fact, was what actually stopped German hyperinflation. They ran out of gold to back the mark, so the mark entered a hyperinflationary death spiral. They replacted it with the Rentenmark. But the Rentenmark wasn't like the original mark. It was backed by land and industrial assets. People have less of a reason to fear about their money (and thus spend it immediately) if it is backed by a relatively constant amount of hard assets (and basically no reason to fear if their money is convertable to a constant amount of another hard asset).

PS: You are talking about the doubling of M2 over 10 years. That corresponds to approximately 7% per year increase. No one considers that hyperinflation. So let me rephrase. I am not talking about what happens if you double M2 over 10 years. I am asking: what happens if you double M2 TOMORROW in the way I described? What do you think will happen to prices?

[Hannah Bell]

113. I understand perfectly well what inflation is, no need for the condescending econ 101 definitions,

or the rehash of the textbook story about "prices going up 100% in an hour!"

speculation can also cause the value of *money* to change - because money is a commodity too. get it?

you still haven't explained how the value of the german mark went *down* when schacht threw even *more* marks into circulation...

"By November 30, 1923, there were 500 million Rentenmarks in circulation, which increased to 1000 million by January 1, 1924, and again to 1,800 million Rentenmarks by July 1924. Meanwhile, the old paper Marks continued in circulation. The total paper Marks increased to 1,211 quintillion in July 1924 and continued to fall in value to one third of their conversion value in Rentenmarks.<11>"



As for what would happen if the government distributed a second money supply tomorrow, think about it:

everyone would have double the money they currently do, & there's currently 10% unemployment & something like 70% capacity utilization, & no apparent resource bottleneck.

"what would happen" is nothing so simplistic as "prices would immediately double".


now let me ask you: what happens when the money supply stays the same, but concentrates into fewer & fewer hands & is "invested" in financial assets (rather than productive assets) to produce even *more* money for the same limited number of hands?

[BzaDem]

114. You asked what hyperinflation was. I told you. How is that condescending?

I already explained how the value of money can go down despite printing more money. That was the first part of my post, and that is exactly what is happening today. The Fed increased its balance sheet by more than a factor of 2. But the money is sitting as bank reserves and isn't being spent.

You citing an example of the value of money going down when money is printed does NOT disprove the obvious (and frankly definitional) fact that printing more money that is widely used causes inflation.

It really is by definition. The only way you can argue with it is to argue with dictionary definitions (or the idea of supply and demand). If there is a constant supply of something (say televisions), and people start spending twice as much money on televisions, the price of a television will go up.

Likewise, if there is a constant supply of something (say, the basket of goods that make up the CPI in a short interval of time), and people start spending twice as much money on what's in this basket (due to newly printed money), the CPI will increase. That's the definition of inflation.



As for the second part of your post, you are referring to the output gap. That is somewhat analogous to the situation at the top: printing money and locking it up. People are saving, and not spending. (The velociy of money is low.) In fact, printing some more money right now would not cause a dramatic increase in inflation. Why? Because many would take the new money and put it in the bank or pay off debt (and not cause a proportional increase in the velocity of money).

But what you are proposing is a different animal. If we simply created a new supply of money (or, let's say, we doubled the existing supply), people would no longer have faith in the stability of our currency. A rational person would immediately try to convert the money they no longer have faith in to hard assets (i.e. they would spend as much money as possible). This would cause a massive increase in general prices (inflation), and cause people to be even more afraid that their money will be worthless.

So small increases in the money supply to mitigate the effects of the recession = fine. Large increases in the money supply = devestating. The fundamental difference really has much to do with the psychology of death spirals.

[Hannah Bell]

115. you didn't tell me what hyperinflation is. you gave me the junior high version.

"Inflation is the devaluing of money (otherwise known as broad-based price increases)."

everyone knows this.


"Hyperinflation is a specific type of inflation."

oh, really? what *specific* characteristics does it have? you actually never tell me.


"When inflation is kept low, people think their money is safe to hold onto in the bank. But when people believe inflation is about to spiral out of control, they immediately go to the store and spend whatever they have on assets that will not devalue so quickly."

duh. but there's nothing about *why* they believe it, or about "printing money".


"What happens whey everyone immediately tries to spend as much money as possible?"

like in an economic boom or bubble, you mean?


"Prices skyrocket."

only if the supply of goods remains fixed, don't you mean?


"Everyone notices prices skyrocketing, and try to spend as much as possible before they skyrocket even more. This causes more inflation. And the spiral goes on."

rarely does it go on longer than a year or so. The german hyperinflation proper lasted about a year & 1/2.

[BzaDem]

117. I actually do specifically tell you the characteristics of hyperinflation in the next paragraph.

Hyperinflation is usually characterized by a positive feedback loop. Inflation begets fear which begets inflation which begets fear.

"duh. but there's nothing about *why* they believe it, or about "printing money"."

I assume you understand why a rational person, seeing prices skyrocket by the hour, would immediately try to spend as much money as possible. So I think you are talking about why hyperinflation starts initially. That depends on the situation, just like a massive loss of confidence in banking depends on the situation. In a silly example, if the President (or fed chair) declares to the world that no one should have confidence in the banking system (pre-FDIC), that will immediately cause a bank run and the collapse of all banks.

Likewise, if the government starts printing trillions of dollars in a few days of time, this can spark hyperinflation. Speculation on the currency markets might be the first clear example of it (since foreigners can immediately convert dollars to Euros or some other currency and spend it in their home countries). If the value of the dollar on the foreign exchange market plummets, import prices rise sky high. Eventually, there will be a domestic loss of confidence.

As another example, a steady but significant increase in normal inflation (due to printing money that is spent, or the spending of previously saved printed money) can cause such a loss of confidence. This doesn't usually happen in practice, because the central bank immediately sees what is going on and stops printing (and raises interst rates). In your scenario, where the Fed is actually trying to print massive amounts of money, all bets are off and the situation is no longer comparable.

"like in an economic boom or bubble, you mean?"

There is a huge difference between a normal economic boom and a period of time when people have no confidence in the value of their money. They are not even comparable.

"only if the supply of goods remains fixed, don't you mean?"

Yes, that is correct. In hyperinflation, prices rise so high compared to the supply of goods that the supply of goods can be approximated as constant in any analysis.

"rarely does it go on longer than a year or so. The german hyperinflation proper lasted about a year & 1/2."

Of course this is true. By the simple laws of mathematics, this has to be true. The value of money can only decrease in value exponentially for so long before it is basically zero.

Eventually, hyperinflation stops because people start using a different medium of exchange. In Germany, it was a new currency backed by land and industrial goods. In Zimbabwe, it was stable foreign currency. But in both cases, the original currency is obviously destroyed. This means that everyone's savings and wealth is gone. Now from reading other posts of yours, you might be in favor of this as some sort of ultra-equalizer. But don't pretend the consequences are somehow mitigated because it ends quickly.

[Hannah Bell]

118. "a positive feedback loop" is also characteristic of a speculative bubble.

they are comparable in the run-up in prices.






"a new currency backed by land and industrial goods."

what do you think the old currency was backed by?

it had very little to do with the backing. a country's currency is *always* ultimately backed by its land, resources, & agricultural/industrial production.

it had to do with the fact that rentenmarks couldn't be *borrowed*. that shut down the speculative attack.

[BzaDem]

119. The only reason those charts look at all similar

is because your second chart is on a logarithmic scale, while the first chart is on a linear scale. They are not comparable at all.

"a country's currency is *always* ultimately backed by its land, resources, & agricultural/industrial production."

Not in the way I am using the term backing. When I say "backed by," I mean exchangable. In other words, if a currency is backed by gold, you can go to the government and get x ounces of gold for y dollars at any time.

The Rentenmark was backed by bonds (which themselves were backed by hard assets). That means you could actually convert x Rentenmarks to bonds worth y (backed by hard assets).

The original mark was not backed by hard assets at all. This is a huge difference. If a government hyperinflates its currency into oblivion, no rational person is going to trust that some new currency will have any value in 5 minutes. That is, unless that new currency is backed by assets whose amount cannot be artificially exploded by the government.

[Hannah Bell]

120. they both graph a short-term price change in a commodity. in one,

oil & appreciation against the dollar; in the other, the mark & depreciation against gold.


"When I say "backed by," I mean exchangable: In other words, if a currency is backed by Gold, you can go to the government and get x ounces of gold for y dollars."

and in the case of the us dollar, what can you go to the government & get?

you can get another dollar. or you can go into the marketplace & get a basket of goods. which was precisely the case when germany went off the gold standard in 1914. hyperinflation didn't kick in until after the war.


According to the principal US economist at Versailles, Allyn Young, depreciation of the mark was not the result of "printing money"; "printing money" followed depreciation of the mark in the aftermath of the war.

And speculative attack followed expectations about German reparations payments.


The reason "governments printing too much money" = the party line on hyperinflation is to convince the public the only way to "cure" high inflation is through austerity policies in which the "little people" bear 99% of the pain.

[BzaDem]

122. "and in the case of the us dollar, what can you go to the government & get?"

Nothing. The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is not backed by anything, in the sense that it cannot be exchanged for anything unless another party voluntarily agrees to the exchange. It has not entered into a hyper-inflationary spiral, because the Fed is responsible and people are confident in the value of their money. In a sense, it is backed by the credibility of the Fed built up over the years (certainly not by any hard assets).

"you can go into the marketplace & get a basket of goods"

In a hyper-inflationary spiral, the marketplace won't give you anything for a trillion marks. No one assigns any value to a hyper-inflated currency.

How do you fix this problem? You have the government guarantee that they will exchange a certain amount of hard assets for a certain amount of currency (or you use a foreign currency). With the Rentenmark, regardless of what people are willing to give in the private market, one could go to the government with x Rentenmark and get bonds worth y backed by hard assets. Because the Rentenmark had such backing, people were confident in the value of their money, and it became a stable currency. Without being exchangable, people would have lost all confidence in the Rentenmark just like they lost all confidence in the original mark.

While this analogy is by no means perfect at all, let me put it this way. If you have a good credit score, you will get a good offer for a credit card from a bank. If you then default, your credit score goes south and you can only get a secured card (backed by something) from a bank.

In this case, if the central bank is responsible, a fiat currency (like the U.S. dollar) has value in the marketplace. If a central bank becomes irresponsible (and tries to wantonly print money), the fiat currency will have no value in the marketplace, because no one would have confidence in the value of their money (and any fool that does have confidence will lose it when prices go up 50% in 6 hours). Central bank irresponsibility (in terms of printing huge amounts of money in a very short period of time) is equivalent to the default. Once the default happens, no rational person would assign any value to any currency controlled by that central bank unless the central bank secures the currency with hard assets (by making it exchangable without relying on the market).

You act as if being backed by hard assets (after a hyper-inflationary spiral) is irrelevent. In reality, it is a huge factor (often the primary factor) after such a spiral. Do you have any example where the currency after a hyper-inflationary spiral wasn't exchangable with hard assets (like Germany) or backed by a foreign central bank? Trusting an unbacked currency by a central bank that previously wantonly printed money is like trusting someone with a huge loan that just defaulted on all of their previous loans. You wouldn't get one person to trust it, let alone everyone in the country.

"The reason "governments printing too much money" = the party line on hyperinflation is to convince the public the only way to "cure" high inflation is through austerity policies in which the "little people" bear 99% of the pain."

The reason "governments printing too much money" = the party line on hyperinflation, is because it is true. It is as true as the existence of the force of gravity, and very, very few people deny this at all. One cannot make something from nothing, no matter how many times you say one can. If you want to prevent hyperinflation or reverse inflation, the central bank can either be responsible (stop printing money/raise interest rates), or people can lose all trust in the central bank and only transact in currency backed by hard assets or a foreign central bank.

This is a case where the reasoning behind basic intro economics better explains a phenomenon than a massive "party line" conspiracy. :)

[Hannah Bell]

126. 1) the market did indeed give people "something" for their trillion marks,

as is witnessed in accounts of the period.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tt8ip6gienYC&pg=PA65&dq=hyperinflation+germany+%22victor+klemperer%22&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=hyperinflation%20germany%20%22victor%20klemperer%22&f=false


2) germany wasn't the only country to experience hyperinflation after ww2; all the "losing" countries did, which cuts against the "it was a matter of the currency being backed by hard assets" theory, or the "printing money" theory.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hx62NyAzEu8C&pg=PA109&dq=hyperinflation+speculation&lr=&cd=20#v=onepage&q=hyperinflation%20speculation&f=false

additionally, the "winning" countries also experienced high inflation (of about +100%).


3) "because the Fed is responsible and people are confident in the value of their money."

from whence this "confidence" when no "hard assets" back the currency?

the asset of the biggest military in the world, for starters, & behind that, the productive power of the US economy.



3) my thinking is based on the testimony of conspiracy theorists like hjalmar schacht & allyn jones, and you've studiously avoided responding to my question: if "printing too much money" is the cause of hyperinflation, why did prices stabilize and then fall when schacht put *even more* currency into circulation?

[apocalypsehow]

150. I have read the entire exchange, and you simply don't appear to understand much about economics.

Student loans, Pell grants, etc. are available to those who wish to go to college these days. :thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

164. i have two masters' degrees, & i've understood every word both posters wrote. none of it's anything

beyond econ 201 & standard intro treatments of the german hyperinflation.

but thanks for your opinion.

a currency must be backed by hard assets -- unless people have "confidence" in it, in which case, it need not.

"printing money" causes hyperinflation -- unless you print a new currency & put it into circulation with the old hyperinflated one, in which case, it doesn't.

economic bubbles, booms, exchange rate devaluations, concentration of wealth, debt, reparations, forfeiture of productive assets, speculative attack -- none of these have any affect on the prices at which goods exchange for currencies, or people's behaviors.

it's all about governments "printing money".

because they told you so in high school.

most people don't actually think. they attach themselves to preexistent ideas & call it thinking.

[apocalypsehow]

171. And I'm an astronaut in my spare time, when not busy performing neurosurgery in famous hospitals

around the world... (:eyes:)

By the way, in the course of obtaining your "two masters' (Sic) degrees," did any of the professors take even a wee bit of time to discuss punctuation and/or capitalization? :shrug:

Just curious.

[Hannah Bell]

186. bItE mE

wanker's pedantry
wankers' pedantries
wanker's pedantries

all wankers

[apocalypsehow]

193. That's about what I figured. n/t.

[Hannah Bell]

194. lol. mr. "you can get pell grants to attend college these days," mr "you didn't capitalize rome!'

would never think of making personal comments about annnnnnyone.

he sticks strictly to the issues!

[apocalypsehow]

197. There is a distinction between helping someone as they struggle with the written word, and indulging

in personal attacks. A distinction that eludes you, alas. As I said, about what was to be figured.

[Hannah Bell]

199. alas, the record shows you as firing the first salvo.

thanks for your concern, but i managed to plod through 20 years of schooling without your help.

[apocalypsehow]

205. Making a cogent observation about someone's apparent lack of knowledge regarding history & economics

is scarcely "firing the first salvo." It is making an observation on a discussion board in the middle of a conversation you, in fact, initiated above with another poster.

"i (Sic) managed to plod through 20 years of schooling without your help"

I hope you didn't pay for any of that "schooling" - if so, a refund is due.

[Hannah Bell]

206. here's a cogent comment:

[apocalypsehow]

207. Your concession in this debate via resort to pure *ad hominem* is noted. Have a nice day. n/t.

[Hannah Bell]

208. start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8180029&mesg_id=8185567


note the absence of any substantive comment on the topic in your posts & the exclusive focus on attacking me personally.

[apocalypsehow]

209. Last word!

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

211. Asked & answered in #205 above. Since you obviously either missed it or did not read it, here:

"Making a cogent observation about someone's apparent lack of knowledge regarding history & economics is scarcely "firing the first salvo." It is making an observation on a discussion board in the middle of a conversation you, in fact, initiated above with another poster."

Get it now? :shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

213. i get it.

[apocalypsehow]

216. I continue to appreciate your ongoing concession in this debate via resort to *ad hominem* attack.

Though it changes nothing in terms of how the discussion turned out, it's a quite amusing diversion to witness an online meltdown. You go, girl! B-)

[Hannah Bell]

217. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8180029&mesg_id=8189767


oh, & here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8180029&mesg_id=8185607


like i said, first salvo, exclusively personal, still waiting for any actual comment on the topic under discussion.

[apocalypsehow]

218. ....

Asked & answered in #205 above. Since you obviously either missed it or did not read it, here:

"Making a cogent observation about someone's apparent lack of knowledge regarding history & economics is scarcely "firing the first salvo." It is making an observation on a discussion board in the middle of a conversation you, in fact, initiated above with another poster."

Get it now? :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

219. Your refusal to acknowledge the actual words on the screen in front of you does not change the fact

that they exist: you were provided an "actual comment on the topic under discussion," and replied to those comments with repeated personal attacks.

What is going on now is simply your attempt to get this entire sub-thread deleted by the mods via the tactic of continuous flaming - and I can't say I blame you. Had I made several of the replies you have in this sub-thread, I'd want the mods to delete it, too, out of sheer embarrassment.

[Flatulo]

166. Hannah, with all due respect, I think you're in over your head here. nt

[Hannah Bell]

169. in "over my head"? like "the german hyperinflation was caused by overuse of the printing press,"

which i first read about in jr high school, is some kind of esoteric economics?

pfft.

[NM_hemilover]

223. As entertaining as this has been to read,

It's pretty obvious she either has NO clue, or just likes the attention.

[BzaDem]

109. .

Double post

[lonestarnot]

53. Well wooptie fucking do! What good are they doing anyone but their own rich asses anyway?

Except stealing more every day?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

57. Employing millions of people?

[lonestarnot]

59. Nope not falling for the hostage bullshit.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

61. Fine, don't.

[lonestarnot]

62. Po folk already how to make do with nothing afterall. It will be the richies who suffer when push

comes to shove on their pampered asses.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

63. They'll be gone.

Off living in mansions in the French Riviera, or in Morocco, or in Canada, or anywhere on the planet but the US.

[lonestarnot]

66. And you think the money could not be followed? Hmmmf

And I say good fucking riddens. It's not them it's the money.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

69. Followed? Probably not.

Retrieved? Definitely not.

[Hannah Bell]

68. so what? The US is the least densely populated, most resource-rich developed country on the planet

excepting possibly Canada.

But Canada ain't got near the arable land.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

70. Definitely excepting Canada.

And unless you all plan to go farming, arable land is irrelevant.

[Hannah Bell]

75. Arable land is pretty basic unless you want to eat your "money".

[ZeitgeistObserver]

79. Lots of arable land in the world.

And lots of supermarkets. Billionaires don't garden.

[Hannah Bell]

82. not in developed countries, bubba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density


billionaires don't garden?

you don't know jack.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

83. Yes, in developed countries.

We have no shortage of food in the world. Especially if you're a billionaire.

You don't have to be in the US to eat well.

[Hannah Bell]

86. lol. why would we send you our food?

http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/f5_3.pdf

[ZeitgeistObserver]

87. Other developed countries don't need your food.

Goodness, you'd think no one in the world could survive without the US, in spite of the fact they've done so for centuries.

[Hannah Bell]

90. apparently some of them do, as germany, switzerland, japan, etc.

are less than 100% self-sufficient in food.

they either need it from the US, or from some other country which produces an agricultural surplus.

or they need to convert some of their own land & resources currently being used for other purposes, to agriculture.

yes, greece used to export timber, long ago.

now it doesn't.

yet it still uses wood.

you & the billionaires, however, apparently live on air & need not worry about such mundane things.

you have "investments"!

LOL

[ZeitgeistObserver]

91. The US isn't self-sufficient in food.

That's why countries trade.

[Hannah Bell]

93. ah, but it is. & "countries trade" partly out of need, partly out of desire, & partly because

they're forced to by international financiers & the trade agreements they push through to benefit them.


the us *is* self-sufficient in food. it produces more calories than it consumes, & in all categories of calories.

the rest it trades.

it also imports food, but not because it needs to.

http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/f5_3.pdf


germany, uk, switzerland, japan, hong kong, singapore, & numerous other "rich" countries, however, produce fewer calories than they consume, & must import.

if they couldn't import food, they'd have to convert some amount of housing, forest, factories to agriculture to feed their people at current levels.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

95. Yeah, how are your coffee crops anyway?

No country 'needs' to import anything.

They choose to. Same as the US.

You have a very odd idea of world geography, history, and farming.

[Hannah Bell]

101. not that coffee is one of the major food groups, but just fine:

http://www.hawaiicoffeeassoc.org/

florida & california also have climates that could support coffee.



Oh, & PS, I have an MS in nutrition, & got my degree at an ag school.

So you can blame my "peculiar ideas" on my education.

[femrap]

157. Ah yes...

End World Hunger. Eat the Rich.

Yummy!

[femrap]

156. There is a law that US

taxes are due even if you live outside the country....I believe it is for 10 years.

Now that might be different if the rich give up their citizenship. I'm not sure about that.

One can buy an Austrian citizenship for $400,000.

Why don't you go there?

[Hannah Bell]

77. anyone who holds the productive assets can "employ millions of people".

[ZeitgeistObserver]

80. Well then do it.

[Hannah Bell]

170. sign over the productive assets & i will. as will anyone. because the assets are WORTHLESS unless

you employ people to use them to make stuff & sell it.

it's not like the fuckers are doing anyone some big favor.

they MAKE MONEY by employing people. and when they stop MAKING MONEY by employing people, they STOP EMPLOYING PEOPLE.

they're not philanthropists, even though folks like you do their best to pretend they are.

[Naturyl]

146. Millions of people could employ tthemselves in co-ops.

No rich needed. But nobody knows that because the rich make sure we don't.

[laughingliberal]

196. Well, that was the justification of the trickle downers. Doesnt' seem they lived up to their side of

the deal. Raise their fucking taxes and target cuts to investments that lead to job creation.

[fascisthunter]

200. you mean taking advantage of people by paying peanuts

for their hard work.

[mmonk]

116. They have already taken many of the jobs away.

Its one of the problems with this country. They take their jobs away to exploit cheap labor. Because of the power they weild in US politics, they are able to rape this country through policy. Household incomes in this country are tanking for the average citizen while their companies are paying no income taxes and the CEO's themselves, pay less of their income.

[liberation]

128. The XIX Century called, they want their false libertarian talking points back....

LOL

[laughingliberal]

136. Exactly. You have progressive taxation

We do not. I don't care if we 'attack' them or not. I do care if we restore progressiveness to our tax codes.

[Flatulo]

182. Huh? We sure do have a progressive tax code. It may not

be as progressive as you like, but it is progressive. Maybe I'm just picking nits.

For the record, I believe taxes do need to be raised for those households making more than, say, $250,000. I say this not because the wealthy need to be punished in some way, but because we have bills to pay.

There will always be people who make more money than the mean, and people who will make less. How large the standard deviation has to be to become unhealthy is not clear to me, but we probably need a correction.

[laughingliberal]

185. I think the top rate being 36% is less than progressive

Yeah, I guess you could say, strictly speaking, it's progressive but not very progressive. The reason taxes on the very wealthy needs to be high is it forces reinvestment and donations. The thinking since Reagan was to just cut their taxes and they would all invest and create jobs and prosperity for all. It hasn't worked. The top top have hoarded the money and not invested in anything that helped anyone but themselves.

It's not clear to me how high the taxes on the top should be but I do know the top rate when Reagan took office was 74%. Since we went on the tax cutting binge for the wealthy and raised payroll taxes wages have stagnated/declined and the working and middle classes have lost a lot of ground. The poor fell off the radar screen altogether. The top rate may not need to go back to 74% but it needs to be a hell of a lot higher than 36%.

[Hannah Bell]

22. i was responding to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8180029&mesg_id=8180159

[ZeitgeistObserver]

31. Simple truth.

Even if you took every last cent from every billionaire and millionaire you have, it wouldn't buy you half an hour in Iraq.

[Hannah Bell]

54. i've already shown you're full of shit, mr t.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8180029&mesg_id=8180622

[ZeitgeistObserver]

58. No, you've just ranted.

And the only Mr T I know of was on a TV show years ago, wearing lots of bling.

[femrap]

159. It's

about $2B/wk.

Have you watched 'Cabaret' lately?

[Atticus]

13. An over-the-top exaggeration totally unsupported by any facts or references.

I'd adopt a different style of persuasion.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

16. If you mean mine, it's easily figured out by simple

addition.

[Hannah Bell]

24. please do the addition, oh wise one. cause i get different numbers.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

30. You don't get any numbers, because you aren't adding.

Start with 'how many billionaires do you have?'

[Hannah Bell]

35. Even using your own stupid premise, you're wrong.

2009 federal budget deficit = $407 billion

i can cover that & more by expropriating the 20 richest people in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400

how many billionaires do i know? looks like there's more than 200 in the US alone.

like i said, garbage.

& it ain't the net worth, it's the cash flow.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

37. Hey, play with the stats any way you like.

But total confiscation still buys you half an hour in Iraq at best.

[Hannah Bell]

45. unlike yourself, i actually presented numbers. you're spouting crap.

1 hour of iraq war costs 400 billion?

so 1 day of war costs 9.6 trillion dollars?

and thus one year costs $3504 trillion dollars?

wow, that'll be news to many, since it's several times bigger than the gdp of the entire world (60 trillion)

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=world+gdp&aq=f&aqi=i1g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=ca6b5a4f84435186


you're full of crap.


cost of iraq war since 2001 = $718 billion
per year = 80 billion
per day = .2 billion (219 million)
per hour = .009 billion ($9,125,000)

http://www.costofwar.com/


you're so full of it.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

47. The numbers are easily available;

it's not my problem if you see stealing as the answer to your problems.

400 billion dollars is chicken feed.

What's your deficit again?

[Hannah Bell]

50. yes, & i just linked them, & you're full of it. and everyone can see it, so you may as well slink

off.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

55. No, you have no idea what the numbers are.

You are simply ranting.

There are 403 billionaires in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionaires

The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget#Deficit

The US debt: The most recent increase in the U.S. debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion by H.J.Res. 45 and was signed into law on February 12, 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Good luck at expecting $403 billion to pay off all those trillions.

Chicken feed. But enjoy yourself.

[Hannah Bell]

64. Fine, $1.42 trillion, including $159 billion in TARP, some portion of which has been paid off.

Net worth of US Forbes 400 in 2008 = $1.57 trillion.

so you're still full of it.

Yearly payout on those assets at a conservative 5% = $77 billion, or nearly half of the yearly interest payment on the debt, interest being the main source of growth in the debt.


US GDP 2008 = $14.4 trillion.

Current US debt = $12.8 trillion = 88.8% of GDP

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np


So if I make $50K/yr & buy a $44K house, I'm bankkkkkkruppppt! Oh no! I'll never pay it offffffff!

[ZeitgeistObserver]

67. $403B is a drop in the bucket.

Especially since Iraq is 'off the books'.


But hey, it's your life to waste.

[Hannah Bell]

72. The post you responded to doesn't say anything about $403 billion.

I used *your* number, $1.4 trillion, & the 400 richest people in the US could still pay off the whole thing.

No matter how "off the books" Iraq is, the cost is nowhere near $400 billion an hour.

Because that would make the yearly cost of Iraq *alone* many multiples of world GDP.

Even at $400 billion a *day*, it's still several multiples of world GDP.

You're so full of it.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

73. You aren't reading any of this are you...

There are 403 billionaires in the US.

Therefore confiscation would net you 403 billion dollars.

Chicken feed.

[Hannah Bell]

76. bullshit. bill gates' net worth alone = $57 billion.

net worth of the forbes 400 in 2007 = $1.57 trillion

which is more than enough even to pay off the recession-inflated/TARP-inflated 2009 deficit.

Or, alternatively, to invest at a conservative 5-10% & pay off every years' interest payment on the national debt, interest being the major source of growth in the national debt.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/richest-americans-forbes-lists-richlist07-cx_mm_0920rich_land.html



The 400 richest people in the US own assets equalling 11% of US GDP.

You're so full of it.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

81. A trillion is a thousand billion.

And Iraq alone has cost a trillion.

Fix that with your confiscation.

[Hannah Bell]

99. not yet, buddy. not even after 9 years.

http://www.costofwar.com/


more bullshit from the billionaires' PR man.

[laughingliberal]

138. +1 nt

[Naturyl]

147. Oh, it's "confiscation" now?

Careful, you're outing yourself...

[Starry Messenger]

180. Owned!

I think Heresy lives.

[femrap]

161. Obama put Iraq

ON THE BOOKS. W kept it off.

You won't make 1,000 posts. You're sitting at the Heritage Foundation, aren't you....racking up what? $12 to $14/hour?

[Hannah Bell]

173. nah, he's a billionaire living in canada! & judging from his denigration of the US,

how it's washed up, finished, etc. i have an idea he's neither american nor precisely canadian.

[Atticus]

25. Again, you fail or refuse to define your terms and fail or refuse to add----

just exactly what?

You may have a point,(I don't think so) but you're not making it.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

32. I've been very clear.

You can even add it up yourself. No mystery to it.

Forbes publishes a list of billionaires every year do they not?

[Atticus]

42. One thing is indeed clear: this kind of avoidance and obfuscation is not accidental. nt.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

43. No, in fact it isn't even occurring.

:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

46. he's full of crap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8180029&mesg_id=8180622

[ZeitgeistObserver]

48. It's your ideology and resentment

that's the problem I'm afraid.

[Hannah Bell]

51. byeee

[laughingliberal]

139. Obviously not an accident. nt

[MindandSoul]

167. leave?. . .and go where??? The U.S. tax system is one of the lowest any place!

They might buy a small country in Africa. . .but they could say goodbye to the good life! And unless they give up their U.S. citizenship. . .they would STILL have to pay U.S. taxes!

[defendandprotect]

5. k

[Hannah Bell]

6. k/r

[Mojeoux]

12. Phony Farm Subsidies, Off Shore Tax Havens, Out-Sourcing Production

Just a few of the fat welfare resources for the rich.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. "Till their eyes bleed" +1

[Atticus]

11. THIS---- righteous anger at the excesses of Big Business at the expense of working men and women,

used to be the engine which powered the Democratic Party. The anger is still there but, today, we're supposed to somehow be "more sophisticated" than that.

I'm very unsophisticated.

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. Returning WWII vets got the GI Bill which led to the biggest explosion of middle class wealthy

Returning WWII vets got the GI Bill which led to the biggest explosion of middle class wealthy in the history of mankind. The 90% tax rate didn't slow down one bit of financial progress. Of course, the GI Bill was a socialistic plan but it paid $1,000 on the penny. It created the middle class. And without the educated workforce the GI Bill created, industry would have had NO WORK FORCE to invent and create their products.

If conservatives had their way the GI Bill would have been defeated and we would have minimal to zero growth from the 50s-70s.

Another point. Conservatives blather about high taxes killing creativity, innovation and productivity, but it didn't stop Bill Gates and Steve Jobs from creating their businesses. Conservatives stupidly believe if someone has an idea they first look at the tax rate to see if they will act on their idea. They say if people who have great ideas see a high income tax they do nothing. They sit at home and vegetate. Of course, conservatives are deluded simpletons, but they actually believe the nonsense and lies told to them by every right wing host on the radio or television.

Reaganonmics was a complete failure. Even GHW Bush called Reagan's economic scheme "Voo Doo Economics" and said it would be a disaster.

I agree with the OP, tax the fucking hell out of the top 5% who do nothing with the money they steal and do nothing with it. Conservatives believe the rich lay awake at night worrying about hiring new American workers and building new US factories, when the opposite is true. They FIRE US workers and take their businesses oversees to use slaves.

Conservatives are the most stupid and dishonest morons in the history of the human race.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

19. 'In the history of mankind' is stretching it.

The US wasn't the first country with a middle class after all. You've always had one in fact, but the GI bill was a great idea.

[Atticus]

26. How do you define "middle class" and which other countries had one before the US? nt

[ZeitgeistObserver]

36. There is the upper class and the working class.

Anything between those two is obviously 'middle'.

Rome had a middle class. All the merchants and artisans were neither upper nor lower.

Canada defines class somewhat differently than you do..anyone who works in a factory or is 'blue collar' is working class.

Insurance people, teachers, all 'white collar' is middle class.

Upper middle is doctors, lawyers, computer specialists and so on.

Upper class is old money, old names, that kind of thing.

[AnArmyVeteran]

27. The GI Bill created the biggest middle class in the world and in history.

The middle class wasn't created until the late 40s and on. What other countries had a middle class as big and as productive as the middle class in the United States? I can't think of any other country that could equal the US at that time.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

39. Rome had a middle class So did Greece.

It's a common level of class throughout history.

Only reason the US boomed was because everyone else was devastated by WWII. That was a temporary situation.

[Hannah Bell]

103. rome had nothing like a modern "middle class". nor was "everyone" devastated by ww2.

canada, for example, was not.

australia also was not.

neither was latin america, most of africa, & a good chunk of the middle east.

nor is anything like the us middle class a historical constant.

[AnArmyVeteran]

124. The US had the greatest increase in 'middle class' in history, PERIOD...

All of the wealth accumulated after WWII could not have been possible without government intervention, like the GI Bill which gave industry the people needed to create their products. If not for the socialistic GI Bill our country would be behind 30 years. Conservatives hate socialist programs but they are all benefiting from a socialistic approach to solving problems and creating wealth. Would private enterprises build the highway system? Would they have given free college educations to millions of people? Just the thought of that is laughable. But conservative believe capitalism is the answer to every problem. If conservative ideas had prevailed after WWII our country would be 30 years behind every other country on earth, and the US would look like Somalia, a libertarian paradise with everyone carrying an automatic weapon, no government and Somalia's GNP's biggest contributor, piracy.

LOL, conservatives are sooooo damned ignorant and stupid.

[apocalypsehow]

152. "rome" (Sic) had no middle class? Wow - economics AND history are simply not your strong suit.

At least at this time - Student Loans, Pell grants, etc. Your college education awaits. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

187. and reading evidently isn't yours, as i said nothing like "rome had no middle class"

perhaps the distinction between what i wrote and your version escapes you, as i noted before my post was mysteriously erased.



your remedial reading class awaits you.

[apocalypsehow]

192. "rome (Sic) had nothing like a modern "middle class". " - "i said nothing like "rome had no middle

class"

These two sentences contradict one another, yet both have the same author. A "remedial reading class" seems to be needed for someone, indeed... (:eyes:)

[Hannah Bell]

195. i suggest you enroll in that remedial course posthaste if you see them as contradictory.

[apocalypsehow]

202. They are, of course, directly contradictory. You see this, but it's too late to "edit message."

Now you're just hurling insults, and desperately attempting to get that famous "last word."

Please try again.

[Hannah Bell]

210. don't need to edit anything, as the difference is obvious.

as for last words, why are you still here?

[apocalypsehow]

214. The difference is obvious, to be sure: the two statements contradict one another. They also happen

to have been typed by the same author, curiously enough. Very telling, that.

"as (Sic) for last words, why are you still here?"

Because you continue to reply to me. The second you cease further engagement in a debate you have already lost, I will cease pointing out all the manifest ways in which you lost it. :thumbsup:

[AnArmyVeteran]

215. Don't you remember all those Romans driving cars, using electricity, washing machines, etc...

This post is not targeted at you Hannah, but rather to anyone who disputes the FACT that the American middle class was the biggest and most financially liberated class in history. No other society in history can match the expansion of wealth, invention and creativity of the middle class in the United States following WWII. If it wasn't for the GI Bill and other government intervention into society that middle class would never have been created. At its core was the education benefits given to returning veterans, who then in turn got college degrees and provided employers with the educated workforce it needed to create all of the innovations from the 1940s on. Without government intervention (RUN, IT'S SOCIALISM!!!) the US would be behind the rest of the world by 20-30 years. Private enterprise would NEVER have educated the masses using their money. And private enterprise would NEVER have built the roads, damns, bridges and other public works REQUIRED for private enterprises to even remain in business, let alone succeed. We can thank SOCIALISM for the America's greatness. But conservatives would never admit the obvious, because the truth short circuits their brains and their hatred.

It's laughable to compare the Roman 'middle class' to the American middle class built after WWII. Yes, Rome was very advanced for its time. But it had none of the innovations of the 20th century. No clothes driers, no appliances, no air conditioners, no televisions, and no (fill in all the thousands of technologies enjoyed and created by the American middle class here)

Suppose a tribe 1500 years ago had 100 members in it. And among those 100 were 60 members in the middle who had an adequate amount of possessions and made adequate livings picking vegetables and some hunting. But 30 members were very, very poor and had no huts and no possessions. They would be considered the poorer class. And the remaining 10 members made up the elite and probably were all related to the tribe's leader. So using the term 'middle class' in such a loose, and even non-sensical fashion, you could 'say' that the greatest creation of the middle class occurred 1,500 years ago. But that would be wrong. While some people get mired in minutia they are letting facts and reality will continue on without them.

Conservatives want to go back to that dismal period before government intervention. They want our country to be one without roads, without regulations, without government, and where everyone is carrying an automatic weapon. If conservatives had their way the US would look more like Somalia, a libertarian paradise, with piracy apparently being the biggest contributor to Somalia's gross national product.

I wish someone with a smiggen of common sense and reasoning ability would rise up among the ranks of the tea bagger movement and tell them the truth. But instead of listening to them, they would shout him down instead, while clinging to their ignorance with all their might.

[liberation]

129. Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you...

Rome had a "middle class" LOL. Typical libertarian inability to deal with the complexity of proper historical context.

[laughingliberal]

141. Some will say anything to defend the supply side fiasco. nt

[BzaDem]

107. Just because there was a 90% marginal tax rate doesn't mean anyone paid CLOSE to 90%

There were far more exemptions, deductions, and loopholes back then. No one paid anywhere near 90%. As they lowered the top marginal rate, the gradually closed the loopholes, and eliminated exemptions and deductions. Yes, actual tax rates (after loopholes/exemptions), but not NEARLY as high as you are making it sound like.

[laughingliberal]

144. Which is why Kennedy proposed lowering it to 74% and closing the loopholes

Also, a lot of those exemptions and deductions had to do with forcing either reinvestment or donations both of which helped keep the money circulating. Now, we have no such requirements. We cut their taxes and 'trusted' them to invest so the rest of us could have jobs. How's that been working for us? Time to return to progressive taxation.

[Jefferson23]

17. K&R

[Cresent City Kid]

29. I agree with the new bracket

We need a special one for the top 1%, one more in line with actual income distribution. Talk of taxing the top 10% brings out the parade of small business owners who they say it would hurt. This may be debatable, but they all try to hide behind them. I say call their bluff. Tax the ever-lovin' fuck out of the top 1%, we might not even have to worry about people making $200,000 a year.

[samplegirl]

44. Excellent Post!

K&R

[ZeitgeistObserver]

49. If you want to talk ideology and resentment

instead of facts and figures, I'm outta here.

It's a waste of time talking to brick walls.

Bye.

[liberation]

131. LOL, talk about projection...

... given the OP had actual facts and figures, and you brought..... NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

You seem mighty "concerned" as a Canadian about the welfare of American billionaires. A tad strange, especially coming for a libertarian type.

[femrap]

160. Maybe he's from that liquor family....

I can't remember....starts with a 'B,' I think. They're rather pissy for Canadians.

Most Canadians are nice, heh?

[Hannah Bell]

175. bronfman. but they were originally russian, so that explains it.

[laughingliberal]

145. Finally!

The ghost of Reagan was creeping me out.

[Soulis]

60. K and YAY!

[ZeitgeistObserver]

96. 'Night.

[KG]

111. works for me.

[blindpig]

121. Tax Wealth n/t

[Martin Eden]

123. HELL YEAH

Let's go back to the tax rates we had when "I like Ike" was president and our country wasn't mired in its current "marxist" mess -- when those in the very top bracket paid close to 90%

[inna]

127. K&R

And of course, income taxation is only part of it.

Wealth inequality in the US is even more rampant than income inequality and is at unprecedentent levels, both historically and in comparison with other countries.

It's time to tax wealth, the way it's done in Europe.

[WillyT]

130. Amen To THAT !!! - K & R !!!

:patriot:

:kick:

[TwilightGardener]

133. Yup.

[Little Star]

134. k&r

[Naturyl]

135. K&R. I want PUNITIVE tax rates. Yes, PUNITIVE.

The rich need to be punished for what they have done to this country. Let's go right back to 91% top bracket. Let's make it hurt.

[Speciesamused]

137. YES

have some.

[branders seine]

142. and then tax their spawn and their grandspawn into oblivion.

[DissedByBush]

148. I don't like across-the-board indictments

Going on a recent story here, who has Steve Jobs robbed?

All I can see is that he has created jobs and wealth for a LOT of people.

[femrap]

162. outsourcing

loads of jobs to China. He used to make his laptops in Taiwan, but that DEMOCRACY cost too much in labor so he moved to the Land of No Human Rights....China.

Give me a break. Steve Jobs is just another rich dude who likes to act hip. Ain't buying.

Actions speak louder than words. I wear jeans too. ShIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt.

[laughingliberal]

201. +1 nt

[DissedByBush]

220. Again, who did he rob?

He has crated massive value for a lot of people.

You may think that means only rich execs and "shareholders."

The biggest shareholders are often retirement plans for regular people.

I don't care about your jeans. Have you created so many jobs, created so much wealth, for so many people?

Didn't think so.

Don't lump execs who perform in with the robber barons.

[femrap]

222. He has outsourced jobs

to China...many of your fellow Americans have lost jobs. (And Irish folks as well).

He has created a bunch of jobs for the Chinese. As a result, profit margins have increased.

Go play with your little pieces of green paper...you sound just like W.

[DissedByBush]

225. I believe Apple sold its last US factory before Jobs came back

Jobs created a vast number of jobs at Apple, from the engineers and support staff necessary to support such a product and service lineup, to the employees of all of its retail stores who do get paid above the average for retail electronics position. People who worked there said it was the best retail job out there.

[femrap]

226. Yeah for

Retail!!!! Bring on those Customer Service jobs!

The best retail job is selling shoes at Dillard's on commission....this is what your children and grandchildren have to look forward to!!!!

Yippee! US is #23!

(Oh...and all of those shoes are made in China and they don't last more than 6 months.)

Now where are my pom-poms?????

[DissedByBush]

228. 200 stores

Jobs.

Are there more or fewer Apple jobs since Steve Jobs took over?

I'd say far, far more.

You are bitching about someone who created jobs.

Apple also doesn't go on commission at the stores. You get paid hourly, above average.

[femrap]

229. Yea...we

have an Apple store here with 'Geniuses.' None of them are manufacturing jobs. None of these people make anything. If there is something wrong with your Apple, you can give them $300 and someone will fix it. I don't know where they send it.

And what's your idea of average? Above average for a retail store is what to you?

You must be so young you don't even remember that the US used to make actual 'things.' Like TVs, phones, refrigerators, even computers.

What do we make today? Corn, soy beans, beer (but the beer companies are all owned by foreign interests except Sam Adams...even good ol' Budweiser)....and pron.

All we have are a bunch of retail jobs....whoppee....selling crap made in China.

And Commission isn't so bad....I worked a couple of jobs on it and made the most $$$ of any job. I bet the folks selling womens' shoes on commission at Dillard's make more than Apple retailers.

[DissedByBush]

230. Apple used to make computers in the US

I think that went away in the days of the Pepsi salesman.

In any case, a job's a job.

Yes, our TV when I was a kid was a made-in-the-USA RCA.

[femrap]

232. Yep....

this empire is on its last leg. 'A job is a job.' And now it takes two of them to just about equal one of those good jobs we used to have.

Oh well. Interesting times. We'll just have to have a nice BIG war soon...that'll do the trick.

[scarletlib]

149. Ditto that!

[salguine]

153. If by "tax" you mean "behead", then I'm with ya!

[femrap]

163. Thank you so much.....

I so needed to hear that! :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[salguine]

177. I'm serious. These people are malignant tumor, and

they will not stop, and they're killing us. The only thing to do is the same thing you do for a malignant tumor in any human body.

[Blue_Tires]

168. bookmarked

[spanone]

172. everyone should be taxed fairly imho

[brooklynite]

176. This is bigotry...

I'm rich. I earn 6 figures; my wife earns 7. We give a lot of money to Democratic candidates, and progressive causes. We give a lot to charity (including providing matching grants to the DU fund for Feeding America). But apparently that doesn't matter, because everyone who's financially successful must be evil, money-grubbing plutocrat.

When I studied Political Science, I learned that taxes were collected to pay for the programs that a democratically elected government chose to implement. Apparently, I was wrong; according to the folks here, taxes are supposed to be punitive, because every wealthy person is an evil conservative who doesn't deserve a penny.

Since I won't have any money left after your taxation, I trust you'll be stepping in next December when DU asks for a contribution.

[BlueJazz]

181. I don't believe we are talking about people like yourself and your wife.

I really don't consider you "The rich"....just (ok..not "Just") upper middle class. I make a good sum but I am far below what some of the scum I know make. Yes, I call them Scum because they even look down on people like you (and me) as "The little people".

[brooklynite]

184. Here's what I got out of this thread.....

Tax the rich until their freakin eyes bleed
The rich are pretty useless... and without the money they stole they couldn't tie their shoes...
Well wooptie fucking do! What good are they doing anyone but their own rich asses anyway?
There is the upper class and the working class.
K&R. I want PUNITIVE tax rates. Yes, PUNITIVE. Naturyl
and then tax their spawn and their grandspawn into oblivion
If by "tax" you mean "behead", then I'm with ya!
I'm serious. These people are malignant tumor

and, no, I'm not upper middle class.

[blindpig]

203. Sure you are.

Considering the income that you indicated you can't be anything but.

Admittedly, some of the folks around here get it wrong, it ain't 'rich, greedy people' that are the problem, it is a system that allows such income disparity and the concomitant social power which encourages misanthropic behavior that is the problem.

So sorry it makes you uncomfortable.

[onpatrol98]

178. I don't like the current tax system...

I don't make six figures. But, I certainly wouldn't mind it. I could do more for my children and the causes I believe in.

I make enough to think April 15th stinks.

Taxes should be fair. Everyone should pay their fair share. And, the current system isn't fair.

Joe Biden was right.

Everyone needs to have some skin the game. If we want to continue the services that our government provides, we're going to have to bring in more revenue.

And, it simply isn't possible to get it all from one group of people.

[Lagomorph]

179. The stimulus is just that...

...trickle down economics, except on a larger scale than anything Reagan imagined.

[mainer]

189. This is the kind of thread that makes moderates run away screaming

... from the Democratic party

No other civilized country taxes people till their eyes bleed. Even socialist countries allow wealthy people to keep their wealth.

[Hannah Bell]

190. only under peculiarly "liberal" definitions of socialism.

modern welfare states aren't socialist, except in the delusional fantasies of chatboard libs.

[mainer]

191. I have no idea what you're talking about

Sweden? Switzerland? The Netherlands? All of these have wealthy people.

Which countries are socialist in your opinion? Are there any?

[Hannah Bell]

221. i have no idea what *you're* talking about when you talk about "socialist" countries letting

billionaires keep their wealth, either.

since socialism = socialized production.

on that basis, where do these billions in individual wealth come from?

[laughingliberal]

204. Moderate Democrats = Reagan Democrats

who should have left his supply side crap in the Republican party when they decided to 'come home.'

[fascisthunter]

212. sure it does... I don't think most people give a damn about billionaires

[AnArmyVeteran]

Without the poor, the rich would be poor too.

The rich depend on poor people all around them doing everything for them. Their money would be useless if others were not there to do their bidding or to build them toys to play with. ALL productivity comes from the poor.

[AnArmyVeteran]

227. Without the poor, the rich would be poor too.

The rich depend on poor people all around them doing everything for them. Their money would be useless if others were not there to do their bidding or to build them toys to play with. ALL productivity comes from the poor.

[kentuck]

231. If the horses don't shit, the sparrows don't eat?

But who feeds the horses?