Thorstein the shame-faced pseudonym wrote:
"Do you know any "capitalists"? You certainly must, for it is >
impossible to ascertain from a supply-side textbook that those who >
endorse those policies have as their goal the deepening of poverty.
(I > am sceptical that such a thing as a supply-side textbook
actually exists > and is used in economics courses.) From what I
know of the (bogus) > theory by reading about it, advocates of
supply-side "economics" have as > their goal, they *intend* to
create, a policy environment which would > facilitate maximal
economic growth. I've never heard a supply-sider say > that they
want as many people outside of Wall Street and certain parts > of
Connecticut to be as poor as possible."
No, the idea was, if I remember the halcyon early days of Thatcher
and Joseph etc., that the richer the rich became, the more would
'trickledown' to the poor. I don't know quite how this was planned to
happen, with tax cuts and breaks to stimulate money to make money
(but without redistribution), with deregulation of labour markets, to
prompt employers to employ more people (but by lowering wages,
destroying unions' bargaining power), by freeing financial markets, to
make money more dynamic and mobile (but, ultimately, making
wealth-creation quite autonomous of manufacturing, trading in goods,
employment etc.), by minimising welfare expenditure, to encourage
initiative (but by failing to invest in jobs, training, education,
public transport, child support etc., in fact reducing the
opportunities for self-improvement, and - most importantly, the morale
and self-regard of this nation).
And in Britain, the poorest have got poorer (it's not just
differentials - it's absolute), and are five times more likely to die
earlier than the wealthier.
He wrote:
Union campaigns are also programs. So what's the difference?
> Unions have a horrible record, too. Some have used force
> illegitimately, like some "capitalists," and union "work rules" more
> often than not decrease efficiency. I'm sure there are many union
> members who do their job well, but there sure the hell are a lot of
> union boys who seem to like to sit on their ass. The time for unions is
> over. Unions, at least in the developed West, should lay over and die.
I think the point of unions was to protect the rights of the
workers. Granted, that isn't always what they did - corruption and
oligarchy is just as rife among organised workers as among emloyers
- but their *purpose* was honourable: to increase human dignity. The
purpose of the employers was not - to increase their own wealth (and
if some should trickledown, well, so much the better, it would expand
their markets).
God! And I'm not even a Marxist. You MUST have irritated me!!
Toodle-oo
"Do you know any "capitalists"? You certainly must, for it is >
impossible to ascertain from a supply-side textbook that those who >
endorse those policies have as their goal the deepening of poverty.
(I > am sceptical that such a thing as a supply-side textbook
actually exists > and is used in economics courses.) From what I
know of the (bogus) > theory by reading about it, advocates of
supply-side "economics" have as > their goal, they *intend* to
create, a policy environment which would > facilitate maximal
economic growth. I've never heard a supply-sider say > that they
want as many people outside of Wall Street and certain parts > of
Connecticut to be as poor as possible."
No, the idea was, if I remember the halcyon early days of Thatcher
and Joseph etc., that the richer the rich became, the more would
'trickledown' to the poor. I don't know quite how this was planned to
happen, with tax cuts and breaks to stimulate money to make money
(but without redistribution), with deregulation of labour markets, to
prompt employers to employ more people (but by lowering wages,
destroying unions' bargaining power), by freeing financial markets, to
make money more dynamic and mobile (but, ultimately, making
wealth-creation quite autonomous of manufacturing, trading in goods,
employment etc.), by minimising welfare expenditure, to encourage
initiative (but by failing to invest in jobs, training, education,
public transport, child support etc., in fact reducing the
opportunities for self-improvement, and - most importantly, the morale
and self-regard of this nation).
And in Britain, the poorest have got poorer (it's not just
differentials - it's absolute), and are five times more likely to die
earlier than the wealthier.
He wrote:
Union campaigns are also programs. So what's the difference?
> Unions have a horrible record, too. Some have used force
> illegitimately, like some "capitalists," and union "work rules" more
> often than not decrease efficiency. I'm sure there are many union
> members who do their job well, but there sure the hell are a lot of
> union boys who seem to like to sit on their ass. The time for unions is
> over. Unions, at least in the developed West, should lay over and die.
I think the point of unions was to protect the rights of the
workers. Granted, that isn't always what they did - corruption and
oligarchy is just as rife among organised workers as among emloyers
- but their *purpose* was honourable: to increase human dignity. The
purpose of the employers was not - to increase their own wealth (and
if some should trickledown, well, so much the better, it would expand
their markets).
God! And I'm not even a Marxist. You MUST have irritated me!!
Toodle-oo