investments in secondary markets like the stock market and bond markets is very different from investments in new business and productive capacity. LOL conflationments

How do you grow the economy without demand? How does buying stock in a company increase the demand for their products. What happens if you open a factory building a product their is no demand for?

As has been pointed out numerous times, 2010s Kansas.

What?

Bah bah, I get that it is a long shot since you seem to be quite a novice when it comes to basic economics, but do you understand what the concept of “velocity of money” is?

If not you should read about it

Why should I have to defend what is held as true by the majority of economists. As long as liberals point to the overwhelming majority of scientists saying global warming is real as proof that it is a fact I am going to point to the overwhelming majority of economists that say trickle down works as proof of a fact.

Please google supply side economics.

I'll give you a little teaser: On the barren island where 100 people were fishing with sharp sticks (this was talked about yesterday ITT) there was never a demand for nets until our hero made a few.

8 years and one state is not proof an economic theory doesn't work. Next are we going to start looking at how one time a small pocket pair beat aces as proof that aces suck? Take a look at countries and compare how pro or anti-business their laws are over 100 years and get back to me.

I do. Please continue.

All you have to do is give us one example of when it did work to shut us up. If it's so popular it should be easy. I know it was all the rage in the 80's with Regan and that it didn't work then.

You mean trickle down economics, which we're already waiting for you to prove works since it hasn't yet.

You got any comment on this Bah?

He did more for the environment than any president in my lifetime, and he did it pretty much singlehandedly. He expanded off-shore drilling to assist with economic growth, and try to help the poor/blacks you claim he hurt with the offshore drilling policy.

I don't have enough knowledge to get into this, but I will acquire some. I know he increased troops temporarily, but then he brought them way down. He did order a lot of strikes. During that period I was routinely in and out of mental hospitals, so I sometimes had difficulty staying current on news, or comprehending it.



This is just untrue. He never promised universal healthcare during his campaign. He outlined his healthcare plan at great length, and it always involved a buy in for all but the poorest of Americans. It was one of the reasons I was uncertain about supporting him vs Hilary, who actually did have a universal coverage plan as part of her platform.

HOWEVER, if not for the Supreme Court deciding that states don't have to follow federal law, the ACA would have revolutionized life for the working poor across the country. Unfortunately, only states that adopted the Medicaid expansion reaped the benefits. That is not Obama's fault. And most of the extra millions of people that ARE covered are the poorer ones.



Not nearly enough heads rolled here. I completely agree. The absence of significant financial reform is the thing I am most angry at the Democratic party about. That said, I'm not sure how more heads rolling would have actually "helped" the poor, or how the lack of that happening "hurt" them.

As far as the bailout, I think something along those lines HAD to happen, but the American people got outplayed. The financial sector took what it needed and we didn't demand enough quid pro quo. I don't define it as hurting the poor/blacks, though.

This is ridiculous.



Nope. Just didn't brag about it.

Vox

I think he could have done a lot more, and would have if the Democratic party weren't a bunch of moral cowards and, yes, in some cases bought and paid for. But I will always be grateful that when he realized that he couldn't work with Congress after the 2014 elections, he decided **** them and started doing a lot within the confines of the Executive Branch.

On a personal note, a lot of people would consider me poor based on my income and living situation. I don't because I'm blessed with a lot of advantages that aren't available to people who grew up in poverty. But as I've struggled over the last few years I've had to do things like sell my TV, disconnect my internet, rent a room in a shared house, make decisions between being able to buy prescription cat food for my geriatric cat or antipsychotic medication for myself, and even give up driving and contemplate selling my only car.

The ACA is the only reason I MAY not have to file bankruptcy, because the literal months that I spent in mental facilities were mostly paid for. And when I worked on the front lines of enrolling people in healthcare, I met a lot of people who would qualify as poor that were going to have access to healthcare for the first time in their lives. Don't discount that and act like it's no big deal. It's a huge deal.

saying he did more for the environment than any president in your lifetime is meaningless. all the presidents in your lifetime may be looked back on by future generations as unbelievably criminal and idiotic in their treatment of the planet... assuming there are future generations to look back.

drone strikes increased like crazy under obama. and it became openly legal for him to execute anyone he considered a threat. 20 years ago it was considered crazy to give the president authority to execute anyone he wanted with no oversight. now it's the law of the land.

you admitted you were a little unclear on the war on terror. i'll admit i'm a little unclear on healthcare. you're probably right that he didn't campaign for universal healthcare. he should have. i think he advocated for it when he was a senator. and maybe you're right that i shouldn't dismiss aca, but i'm so angry about it that i do dismiss it. it's infuriating to me that we don't have universal healthcare. it's what the people want. it's what other countries have. we are far and away the wealthiest country in the world.

and why didn't he campaign for universal healthcare? the only reason i can think of is deference to corporate interests. health insurance companies want to bleed us dry. people want universal healthcare. obama sided with insurance companies. maybe you think aca was all that was possible, so obama settled for that. i don't believe that. we can get universal healthcare if we had political leaders who would say no to health insurance lobby.

i have a hard time believing you don't understand how it hurts poor people to fail to prosecute people who steal our money. do you want me to explain it to you? or do you realize now it helps when they are prosecuted, and it hurts when they aren't?

hope my tone didn't come off as too hostile

No, after I typed that of course it made sense. But I don't hold Obama personally responsible for that. Maybe I should.

sometimes i have an extreme reaction to obama. we are so desperate for hope and change and he exploited that. to me, that is especially despicable.

so many people were so full of hope

Today in the POG Politics thread: Filthy learns that most sheeple are dumb. And that politicians gonna politician.

News at 11.

Iran deal, Iraq draw-down, Cuban rapprochement, Paris agreement


none of these things would be close to a Cheney-led Bush administration but in fact were exactly opposite tacks

Like, Obama had a lot of flaws, including his support of criminal financiers and reckless bombings, but let's not over-exaggerate.

bahbah, in addition to refusing to address this tax debate in empirical terms, you further have avoided every opportunity to respond to the theoretical assertion that DEMAND drives the economy

your only refuge is a hypothetical fisherman's island that you have artificed whole-cloth to suit your conclusions

This.

Obama was very, very disappointing in a number of ways. But to suggest that he was just as bad as Bush on literally anything is just wrong, to say nothing of the clown that currently occupies the WH. There is a significant difference.

Why do you say reagonomics didn't work? How much better would the economy have done without it?

If argue every time we cut taxes it works because you have no way of knowing how things would have gone if we didn't cut taxes.

I am still waiting on evidence that trickle down doesn't work. 8 years on one state is a ridiculous example.

Demand doesn't drive the economy. Supply does. The fisherman's island attempts to simplify things because we live in an economy that is so complicated. However, just because our economy is complicated doesn't mean the very basic laws of economics should be ignored.

It's way better than your non-examples of trickle down working.