USA are bad now, wait till after the US elections

[Monty Cantsin]

Something wicked this way comes
By Michael Roberts



The US presidential election campaign is off and running. As I write Bush has officially launched his campaign for re-election. According to him, the choice before the electorate is between two 'visions' of America. His is that people get the choice for opportunity, enterprise and wealth, while the Democrats will just get the government to take all your money through taxes and choose for you.

It's the usual straw man set up by the neo-conservatives both in the US and the UK. The more right-wing of capitalist analysts argue that lower taxes will mean faster economic growth and prosperity even though public services are decimated as spending is cut back to balance the state budget. The less right-wing argue that lower taxes may not be enough to kick-start an ailing capitalist economy and the government may have to spend too. And anyway without some public services, the whole thing will fall apart.

The irony is that Bush has the barefaced cheek to argue that his campaign is built round smaller government, when his administration has never spent so much. The days of the Reagan administration in the 1980s are remembered for driving up spending on defence, space etc., and so creating loads of unproductive jobs and government deficits and debt that had to be painfully pulled back under George W's father, the elder Bush. Being a war leader in Gulf War No 1 did not save him from defeat by the so-called 'big government' Clinton. Again, ironically, Clinton introduced a very tight government spending policy cutting back on all sorts of social programmes. Only some economic growth in the great hi-tech bubble years of the late 1990s got the government's accounts back in line.

Under Bush Junior, taxes have been cut while spending on arms and Iraq has rocketed 35% in real terms! Most of the tax cuts have been in reducing taxes on stockholders dividend payments, in lower corporation tax and in tax rates for higher income earners. The rich have never had it so good since Reagan and inequalities of wealth and income in the US have reached record extremes.

The result has been a sharp increase in the government deficit. Whereas in the last year of Clinton, the government ran a small surplus of 1% of GDP, in four years Bush has turned that into a record deficit of 5% of GDP – and that does not count the spending of $160bn on the military campaign and occupation of Iraq. None of this spending has been on useful social projects, but only on 'homeland security', new tanks, planes and missiles.

All this spending has stopped the US economy slipping into a major economic recession, up to now. Economic growth is around 3%. But that has not translated into jobs for the unemployed. Under Bush 2.5m jobs have disappeared – mainly manufacturing jobs but also some service jobs as US corporation switch services abroad to cheaper places like India. And wages for the average worker who does have a job have stopped rising as employers pressure employees into accepting wage freezes and cuts in health and social benefits with the threat of redundancy.

But here is the reality. It may be true that if the likely Democrat presidential candidate, Senator Kerry, had been in the White House, the US may have stopped short of invading Iraq. That adventure was clearly the product of the insane arrogance of the neo-conservatives in power. But defence spending would have been raised (Clinton had already started to end the 'peace dividend' that followed the fall of the Soviet Union). Pax Americana made it inevitable that US armed forces would have to be everywhere (from Bosnia to Korea) to defend the New World Order.

It may also be true that Kerry and the Democrats would not have cut taxes quite so much. But they would have done nothing to stem the wholesale destruction of manufacturing jobs after 9/11. And all the same economic forces that have driven up the US trade deficit by 40% and the dollar down by 20% would have operated.

The US economy is living on borrowed time (literally). Household borrowing is up 42% since Bush came into office, corporate debt is up 20% and unemployment is up 45%. Even the stock market is still down 20%. The Democrats would not have changed a jot to those statistics.

And everybody knows that once the election is over, the government debt (now at $7trn, or 70% of GDP, more than 20% points higher than in the Euro area) and deficits are going to be cut by draconian attacks on social spending programmes. The US runs a huge deficit on its social security fund – in other words it does not raise enough social insurance contributions to match its payout of benefits mainly to the old, the sick and the unemployed. And of course, there will be no cutbacks in defence and homeland security spending by either Bush or Kerry. Assuming that the Medicare plan just introduced by the Republicans is not touched, then everything else must go – transport, education, help for poor regions, environment etc. Given that the individual state governments like California also have dire finances, the cuts in social spending are set to be huge and the tax rises significant.

The future for Americans over the next four years is higher taxes and less public services, let alone what happens to jobs and wages. Very interestingly, it is exactly the same future for Britons. It is probably only 15 months to a general election in Britain, so that by the summer of 2005, we could have the same two leaders that went to war in Iraq back in office or just possibly a completely new set.

Either way, taxes are set to rise and public spending to fall. The Blair government has just announced that is it is going to double the spending of MI5 over the next parliament. So defence is clearly not going to be the fall guy in any spending cuts. And Gordon Brown will shortly announce in his March budget that he won't make cuts in any planned spending on the NHS or education before 2007. So that means everything else is under threat.

In its first two years of office, New Labour rigidly followed the budget plans of the Tories under Major and ruthlessly cut back on spending on the NHS, education, roads etc. Tony Blair told us that the days of 'tax and spend' under Labour were over. New Labour stood for low taxes and low spending, just like capitalist governments everywhere and just like the Democrat administration under Clinton.

Of course, what Tony had forgotten was that if you did not spend on health services, education and transport, then your country would become sicker, less skilful and unable to efficiently get around to sell things or services. How did he think we had a health service or schools in the first place? It was by raising taxes and spending money.

Of course, you could adopt the myths and ideology of the neo-conservatives and argue that schooling, education, prisons, housing, roads, rail etc., should all be run by private companies and people should buy their services from these companies direct. From Thatcher to Blair, from Reagan to Bush, that is where the ideology of capitalism would like to go. But the reality was that it does not work. Capitalism cannot deliver a decent education system, a proper health service or fast and effective transport for the mass of people. Eventually, even the blinkered New Labour government began to realise this.

As Britain's public services began to fall apart, they decided to reverse that policy in education and health. Spending on schools and hospitals is now rising at over 5% a year in real terms. And government spending as a share of GDP will hit 42% this year, back at the same level before Thatcher came to power in 1979. This has been paid for by a whole battery of tax measures introduced by Labour. Sure, income tax rates particularly for the rich, have been held down, but social insurance has jumped sharply and there are taxes on air travel, house buying, insurance, etc.

But it is still not enough. The UK capitalist economy is not creating enough new value to justify any more increased spending. Government spending is up 8.4% this year but tax revenues are up only 5.5%. The government is now running a rising deficit on its budget.

The Tories' answer to this dilemma was announced by the new shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin along with his new Transylvanian immigrant leader: they will cut public spending and lower taxes. This is where we came in! Back to the policy of Bush.

But where does that leave Messrs Blair and Brown? Either taxes will have to be raised or spending on transport, social services, environment etc will have to slashed. We shall probably get both once the general election is over, in say May 2005.

Either side of the transatlantic pond, over the next few years, the average working household is set to pay heavily for the tanks, planes and bombs used in Iraq and around the world to preserve 'our way of life'. Of course, if you don't have a job, you may not pay taxes, you'll just pay in not having any sort of a 'way of life'.

February 2004

See also:

WMGs (Weapons of Mass Growth) – will never be found By Michael Roberts. (January 12, 2004)
Euphoria and the bursting bubble By Michael Roberts (October 28, 2003).
The Cancun summit - The WTO on the edge of the abyss By Luis Enrique Barrios (September 19, 2003)
Cancun fiasco reveals real nature of WTO By Mick Brooks (September 22, 2003).
Sunny summer optimism By Michael Roberts (August 2003)
The world economy after Iraq By Michael Roberts (April 27, 2003)
The beginning of the end of the US empire? By Michael Roberts (February 28, 2003).
Stiglitz blows the gaff Mick Brooks reviews Joseph Stiglitz's book 'Globalization and its discontents' (February 3, 2003)
World economy 2003: hope and reality by Michael Roberts (December 29, 2002).
Deflation and depression by Michael Roberts (October 23, 2002)

[Hoppe]

Capitalism cannot deliver a decent education system, a proper health service or fast and effective transport for the mass of people

:lol:

Capitalism can provide clothes for people as well as food (when was the last famine in the Western world?) but not these things. In all countries most of these sectors are runned by the goverment and in most cases the governments do a pathetic job.

And no effective transport? Every workingclass UK citizen can fly to the mainland for peanuts.

[Monty Cantsin]

What about the great famine in Ireland it was man made it was because of free market economics. But sounds to me like your form England and a capitalist so why should you care persecution of nations and races all over the world is common practice. You know survival of the fittest so who cares right.

[shyguywannadie]

Public transport in the UK is terrible, nothing is ever on time and its expensive, mainland Europe is pretty good though.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:49 AM
What about the great famine in Ireland it was man made it was because of free market economics. But sounds to me like your form England and a capitalist so why should you care persecution of nations and races all over the world is common practice. You know survival of the fittest so who cares right.
What, the great famine in 1845? :rolleyes: Who is persecuting races these days?

Ah, survival of the fittest is so overrated. Humans are not iguanas.

[Osman Ghazi]

Humans are not iguanas.

Nice. That's deep.

[SittingBull47]

haha ^

Why bother with the US elections. I mean, i can't vote yet (next year) but I definitely would not vote for either party. It's like choosing your cop to beat you brutally.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Capitalism can provide clothes for people as well as food


Sure it "can" but unfortunately for the majority of the world it DOESN'T.



(when was the last famine in the Western world?)


I hate kids who don't think clearly. Let's just pick one son, one that will probably get your wee little balls twisted.

The CURRENT famine in the rest of the world is RIGHT IN THE USA where over 30 million Yanks live UNDER THE POVERTY LINE (an individual must make less than 2 thousand dollars a YEAR to qualify, this does not include the millions of homeless that do not participate in the national census)

Now, I will try to use layman's terms here as much as possible so you will understand kid,

In Ethiopia in the 70's and 80's 5.8 million people were dependent on food relief to avoid starvation due to famine. I'm sure you are too young to remember the eightees, but this event in ethiopia was considered to be SO HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT DUE TO THE SHEER NUMBERS (5.8 million) that it was nationally televised THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE GLOBE in an attempt to give aid to these starving people. We even had to sit through too many shitty rock concerts put on by fat, rich, white "rockers" and let me tell you this kid, that was enough to make me want to fly to fucking Ethiopia just so I could give a sandwich to some kid in an attempt to shut Bob Dylan up.

Getting the point yet son? Let's look at the numbers again, in the USA 30 million Yanks cannot afford to purchase enough food and are dependent upon food relief efforts of local churches and welfare programmes to survive.

In what the world considers to be one of the most DEVASTATING famines of the 20th century, 5.8 million Ethiopians could not afford to purchase enough food and were dependent upon food relief efforts of the majority of the globe.

Goodness.....why are these descriptions so similar? I mean, NO ONE STARVES IN THE GOOD OLE' USA.....right?


5.8 million starving people in Ethiopia......Devastating Famine....


30 million starving people in the USA......An ignorable statistic....


Grow up kid.







And no effective transport? Every workingclass UK citizen can fly to the mainland for peanuts


Pay attention to the point of the post.





Sources;

US Federal Census Data

Library of Congress

Ethiopian Federal Government

[Hoppe]

Sure it "can" but unfortunately for the majority of the world it DOESN'T

Fortunately you're the shining light Comrade Raf. Let's see, 40 years ago South-Korea was poor and North-Korea was poor, now it's different. What's the cause of this difference?

Very funny that you immediately start about the third-world because you have no example of famines in western capitalist countries. Oh yes, those people in the US making less than 20k (???), but still own cars, houses, microwaves etc.
[

In Ethiopia in the 70's and 80's 5.8 million people were dependent on food relief to avoid starvation due to famine. I'm sure you are too young to remember the eightees, but this event in ethiopia was considered to be SO HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT DUE TO THE SHEER NUMBERS (5.8 million) that it was nationally televised THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE GLOBE in an attempt to give aid to these starving people. We even had to sit through too many shitty rock concerts put on by fat, rich, white "rockers" and let me tell you this kid, that was enough to make me want to fly to fucking Ethiopia just so I could give a sandwich to some kid in an attempt to shut Bob Dylan up.

Oh blabla. You can hardly call Ethiopia a capitalist nation, and definatily not part of the western world. I think you should read a bit better.

But ok, why does Ethiopia still have famines? Clearly not only because of the preposterous agricultural policies of the EU.


Pay attention to the point of the post

What, are you directing me to biased sources?

[Monty Cantsin]

"Oh yes, those people in the US making less than 20k (???), but still own cars, houses, microwaves etc."
he didnt say20k he said 2k.

"Fortunately you're the shining light Comrade Raf. Let's see, 40 years ago South-Korea was poor and North-Korea was poor, now it's different. What's the cause of this difference?"

whats the cause of the difference in the north the US sent bombs and in the south the US sent capital goods to rebuild the economy.


"What, the great famine in 1845?"

yes thats the one and it started because of market forces left to their own in a capitalist country.

"Ah, survival of the fittest is so overrated."

well thats one of capitalism major foundation.

[Hoppe]

whats the cause of the difference in the north the US sent bombs and in the south the US sent capital goods to rebuild the economy.

That's a good reason......The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, I don't see famine there.


yes thats the one and it started because of market forces left to their own in a capitalist country.

Pfff, and those terrible famines during the Dark Ages......Do you have a more recent example?


well thats one of capitalism major foundation

No, it's the major foundation in biology, or are we humans simply subjected to the environment?

Damn, now I have to throw away my book on Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage. :unsure:

[Osman Ghazi]

Well I guess the major difference is that the South got major Western aid whereas the North didn't even get aid from the rest of the Communist world. Also, the North has always had incompetent leaders and unfortunatley, in that version of communism, these incompetent leaders also had most of the power.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Very funny that you immediately start about the third-world because you have no example of famines in western capitalist countries. Oh yes, those people in the US making less than 20k (???), but still own cars, houses, microwaves etc


Oh blabla. You can hardly call Ethiopia a capitalist nation, and definatily not part of the western world. I think you should read a bit better.




What, are you daft? The post points out famine IN THE USA which is a WESTERN COUNTRY.

Allow me to present a portion of my previous post:



I know examples like this can confuse young lads like yourself, however I suggest you read the post VERY SLOWLY and perhaps take some crib notes to review at a later date when you are ready to make another post.


But ok, why does Ethiopia still have famines

Check a history book.

I'll give you a little hint.....When your GDP is 89% agriculture and it does not rain for a LONG, LONG time, it's called a..........????????

Please form your answer in the form of a question son.


P.S.

Here is another one of those "biased" sources....I reckon this source simply "made up" the material on the site (as well as collaborating with other global news agencies to make sure theie "stories jived" in case the fuzz questioned them individually.)

PAY ATTENTION KID! (http://www.careinternational.org.uk/cares_work/where/ethiopia/stories/coping_with_drought.htm)

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 5 2004, 02:00 PM
Well I guess the major difference is that the South got major Western aid whereas the North didn't even get aid from the rest of the Communist world. Also, the North has always had incompetent leaders and unfortunatley, in that version of communism, these incompetent leaders also had most of the power.
Oh yes, Look at latin american countries receive millions in aid and those countries are still poor(and I am talking about the aid not the loans that they never pay, like CUBa , they have not paid theyre loans since the 1990's and know does anything about it so dont blame loans on the reason why latin america is poor)
Cuba received billions each year in aid and they have put it to good use, right? no.

A country does not prosper because it receives free money, it prospers because it lets bussiness suc cedand not tries to kill it. Look at Taiwan and Hong kong, and south korea. Now look at vietnam, north korea and China.

And all those countries mentioned by euripidies are not capitalist, by far they are not capitalist.

[Hoppe]

What, are you daft? The post points out famine IN THE USA which is a WESTERN COUNTRY.

Allow me to present a portion of my previous post:

I know examples like this can confuse young lads like yourself, however I suggest you read the post VERY SLOWLY and perhaps take some crib notes to review at a later date when you are ready to make another post

30 million people starving from lack of food in the US is simply BS. I know it might sound appealing to you if some bureau reports nice statistics about people living under the poverty line but your twist is fallacious.


Check a history book.

I'll give you a little hint.....When your GDP is 89% agriculture and it does not rain for a LONG, LONG time, it's called a..........????????

Please form your answer in the form of a question son.


Only 10 percent of South-Africa is suitable for agriculture, no real problems there. Zimbabwe was very succesful until Mugabe started his socialistic policies of agricultural change, so again blablabla.

Officials from the World Food Program have reported that Ethiopia had in those years a surplus of food in many of the 591 regions, yet had a inadequate infrastructure to bring the food to the regions where it was needed. However thanks to all the years of donating food by the western countries most of the economic activity was crushed and the situation is worse than ever. But this is perhaps just another example of western imperialism?

[Vinny Rafarino]

30 million people starving from lack of food in the US is simply BS. I know it might sound appealing to you if some bureau reports nice statistics about people living under the poverty line but your twist is fallacious.


Good grief kid. You think the US actually INFLATES the amount of STARVING PEOPLE IN IT'S COUNTRY? Goodness kid, you do realise how stupid you sound right now yes? Why can't you be a man and admit you are wrong rather then pull these absurd remarks out of your silly arse? Grow some fucking balls kid.



Only 10 percent of South-Africa is suitable for agriculture, no real problems there. Zimbabwe was very succesful until Mugabe started his socialistic policies of agricultural change, so again blablabla.


This is PURE BABBLE. It does not even remotely pertain to the discussion.




Officials from the World Food Program have reported that Ethiopia had in those years a surplus of food in many of the 591 regions, yet had a inadequate infrastructure to bring the food to the regions where it was needed. However thanks to all the years of donating food by the western countries most of the economic activity was crushed and the situation is worse than ever. But this is perhaps just another example of western imperialism?


God, you can't even answer the question correctly when I hold your little hand just like mummy does and lead you to the school bus. Do yourself a favour and drop out of school, you are more suited for dirt farming or spot welding.

This conversation is now over. I have tried to explain things to you as if you were a little boy yet you still cannot grasp even the easiest concepts. Good luck with that trade school class is broom pushing.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2004, 04:45 PM

30 million people starving from lack of food in the US is simply BS. I know it might sound appealing to you if some bureau reports nice statistics about people living under the poverty line but your twist is fallacious.


Good grief kid. You think the US actually INFLATES the amount of STARVING PEOPLE IN IT'S COUNTRY? Goodness kid, you do realise how stupid you sound right now yes? Why can't you be a man and admit you are wrong rather then pull these absurd remarks out of your silly arse? Grow some fucking balls kid.



There are not 30 million people starving in the USA, okay, that is BS, can you imagine how many would of died already. Stop saying they are starving to death, they are not. When you starve to death you actually dont hoave a job, a house, a car a tv. So dotn twist the facts moron.

[Hoppe]

Good grief kid. You think the US actually INFLATES the amount of STARVING PEOPLE IN IT'S COUNTRY? Goodness kid, you do realise how stupid you sound right now yes? Why can't you be a man and admit you are wrong rather then pull these absurd remarks out of your silly arse? Grow some fucking balls kid.

I don't know what they do but that doesn't matter much.


This is PURE BABBLE. It does not even remotely pertain to the discussion.

Yes it does. Other countries that have similar difficult environments don't seem to have any problems at all in producing enough food for their inhabitants.


God, you can't even answer the question correctly when I hold your little hand just like mummy does and lead you to the school bus. Do yourself a favour and drop out of school, you are more suited for dirt farming or spot welding.

It's not as balck and white as you might think RAF. Try to be a bit more open-minded.


This conversation is now over. I have tried to explain things to you as if you were a little boy yet you still cannot grasp even the easiest concepts. Good luck with that trade school class is broom pushing.

Ah darn, I was hoping to learn more from your infinite wisdom.

[Morpheus]

Let's see, 40 years ago South-Korea was poor and North-Korea was poor, now it's different. What's the cause of this difference?

I love it when capitalists use this example. SOUTH KOREA INDUSTRIALIZED THROUGH A SERIES OF FIVE-YEAR PLANS. You remember how the USSR industrialized? A series of five-year plans! Just about every country that industrialized since Japan did it through state planning. The South is richer than the North because it makes big bucks building death machines for the American empire. The North is isolated and has recieved less foreign support. Compare this to Latin America, which implemented a much more free market policy then South Korea and recieved similar support from the US, but is far poorer. Those Latin American countries never implemented five-year plans.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:21 PM

Let's see, 40 years ago South-Korea was poor and North-Korea was poor, now it's different. What's the cause of this difference?

I love it when capitalists use this example. SOUTH KOREA INDUSTRIALIZED THROUGH A SERIES OF FIVE-YEAR PLANS. You remember how the USSR industrialized? A series of five-year plans! Just about every country that industrialized since Japan did it through state planning. The South is richer than the North because it makes big bucks building death machines for the American empire. The North is isolated and has recieved less foreign support. Compare this to Latin America, which implemented a much more free market policy then South Korea and recieved similar support from the US, but is far poorer. Those Latin American countries never implemented five-year plans.
Yes Latin America has 4 or 5 year plans everytime a new president gets there. Its just the wrong five year plan.
And the USSR industrialized through those forced work(death) camps where millions died industrializing the USSR.

The USA never had a 5 year plan, and they turned out okay :lol: :lol: .

What you cant deny is that South Korea and Taiwan have had a much more free-market oriented policies than Vietnam and North korea and look at the results.

[HankMorgan]

I'll add this here since it really isn't worth its own thread.

US government's Bureau of Labor Statistics history of unemployement rates. (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000) Please look at the history of the US unemployment rates.

In 1996 the economy was doing so well we should re-elect that man, Bill Clinton. Look at how low the unemployment rate was in Jan and Feb of 1996. Why the economy was briskly creating jobs and unemployment was down to 5.6% in January 1996 and only 5.5% in February. That's a fantastic performance for a president.

Now look at how well President Bush is doing in 2004. Just awful I tell you. We're in the middle of a jobless recovery. The unemployment rate for January 2004 is up to a shameful 5.6% and it didn't improve in February. The unemployment rate is stuck all the way up at 5.6%.

That's an apples to apples comparison from a web site with a .gov domain name. The spin coming from the Democrats and being helped along by the media is what's truly awful in the United States. Listening to the news one would conclude there is rampant unemployment. It's just NOT true. At the same point in their presidencies, Clinton and Bush have the same unemployment rates.

The third quarter 2003 GDP growth rate was 8.1% which was a near record. To find a faster rate of GDP growth we have to go all the way back to President Reagan's first term. The fourth quarter 2004 GDP growth rate was a still faster than average 4.1%.

If the economy is the overriding issue and if it was doing well enough in 1996 to re-elect that man, Bill Clinton, then the current President Bush is even more deserving of re-election. This is true because the economy is in better shape now than it was in 1996.

[Exploited Class]

http://www.che-lives.com/tori/hey.gif

I went back a bit further, the difference here is that Clinton walked into a job where the unemployment rate was at 7.3 /7.4 from Bush/Reagan, within 4 years he cut it in half and by the end of his second term it was 3.9%.

Bush took over with a 3.9% unemployment rate and almost doubled it.


Clinton and Bush have the same unemployment rates.
The difference being one brought down a previously high unemployment rate from when they took office and the other increasing a low unemployment rate when they took office.


The third quarter 2003 GDP growth rate was 8.1%
What did that require? Only like the lowest rates issued by Greenspan's board in the last 50 years. Remember, when Clinton took office, Greenspan had to keep raising term rates, almost every quarter. In order to cool off the growth and fight off inflation.

The 8.1% was nothing. If it had been something, we would have seen rates go up immediatly, but it was just a blip and the economists and myself knew it was nothing. It has been how long since that 8.1% and have we seen rates go up yet? No, we haven't, in fact we are more likely to head into stagflation by April or May. If Chairman Greenspan had thought for even a second that, that 8.1% was sustainable and not just a quirck, he would have immediatly raised rates to stay off an inflation.

http://www.hsh.com/images/federal_funds-graph.gif
Since June of '03 we've been at 1%, they haven't budged. That is how bad the economy is.

When Clinton took office, they were at 3.75%, when he left we are looking at 5.50%. When Bush took office, 5.50% now 1%.

Never mind the stock market, which is overvalued currently.
With the dollar becoming so weak, you can take about 14 cents off of ever dollar from the 10595 of the DJI and come out with a rough real value of the market. That goes also for all the other major US markets, including the S&P 500.

In fact you should look to what investors are really starting to invest in right now. They are investing in defense of a weak market with high inflation. Little growth and high inflation is stagflation, keynen said it wasn't possible the 70s proved his ass wrong. Investors are turning to protected inflation bonds, in greater numbers constantly. That market has seen incredible growth since the 8.1% GDP.

http://chart.yahoo.com/c/5y/g/gmiix.gif
Best 1-Yr Total Return (2002): 14.20%

Worst 1-Yr Total Return (1999): 2.70%

And that is what you want to see on these, for a healthy economy, low, bad, horrible returns.

http://chart.yahoo.com/c/2y/f/fiptx.gif
There wasn't even a market for it till Bush became president. If you go here, http://finance.yahoo.com/l?s=inflation&t=M&m=US you'll see how many of these inflation trusted bonds didn't even exist till recently.

Odd considering how inflation almost always carries over with growth, yet Clinton had tons of growth and was able to manage inflation so well that there never was a question to invest in that type of market. Yet Bush with almost no growth to his name is able to make a market for inflation protection investors.

So to sum up, to hold on to his 1 quarter growth out of 13 quarters so far, when the federal reserve does nothing, is slightly pathetic. If it had been something, there might have been job growth or a raise of the federal reserve rates, yet none of this happened. There was no change from that growth, therefore nobody benefitted from it, no new jobs, no pick up in the market at all.

Not only did it not help people get jobs, it didn't aid the people that had them. Layoffs still occured and the average mean income didn't increase. The productivity only slightly decreased, meaning people were no longer getting worked to the bone. We went from a record 7.2 to a very high 5.1%. Essentially, everybody under Bush has worked harder and recieved less.

[Morpheus]

Yes Latin America has 4 or 5 year plans everytime a new president gets there.

Latin America, except for Cuba, has never had the kind of 5-year plans like those in South Korea or the USSR.


The USA never had a 5 year plan, and they turned out okay :lol: :lol:

The US had extensive state intervention in the economy to get it to industrialize.


And the USSR industrialized through those forced work(death) camps where millions died industrializing the USSR.

The US, England and others also slaughtered millions while industrializing. All countries that industrialized have historically done that. And you have a double standard: according to the UN over ten million people have died since the fall of the USSR as a result of their "free market" reforms. That's about as many as Stalin killed. When Stalin kills millions, it's grounds to support capitalism but when capitalists kill millions you say nothing.


What you cant deny is that South Korea and Taiwan have had a much more free-market oriented policies than Vietnam and North korea and look at the results.

What you cant deny is that South Korea and Taiwan have had a much less free-market oriented policies than Latin America and look at the results.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:00 AM

Yes Latin America has 4 or 5 year plans everytime a new president gets there.

Latin America, except for Cuba, has never had the kind of 5-year plans like those in South Korea or the USSR.


The USA never had a 5 year plan, and they turned out okay :lol: :lol:

The US had extensive state intervention in the economy to get it to industrialize.


And the USSR industrialized through those forced work(death) camps where millions died industrializing the USSR.

The US, England and others also slaughtered millions while industrializing. All countries that industrialized have historically done that. And you have a double standard: according to the UN over ten million people have died since the fall of the USSR as a result of their "free market" reforms. That's about as many as Stalin killed. When Stalin kills millions, it's grounds to support capitalism but when capitalists kill millions you say nothing.




Yes they have, I think El salvador has one and it has actually worked and been implemented. El salvador had one of the most growing economies in Latin America the last 2 years. Other countries also have had these plans, except they never work or are not implemented correctly.

When did the USA have "extensive" intervention in the economy to industrialize? definelty not in the 1800's, and look at what happened the USA by 1900 was one of if not the most powerfull nation. At least economically speaking.

The USA slaughtered millions industrializing? who? Indians maybe, but I doubt that the # killed is nowhere near what Stalin did.And Russia has a "free market" by name, but what little they have (it is full of regualtions) cant work when you have corrupt politcians. And dont forget what a piece of crap the USSR left, also the corrupted gov. officials of the USSR and also the mob, where ready to take over big bussinesses when the USSR fell, so the whole system of corruption stayed the same.




What you cant deny is that South Korea and Taiwan have had a much more free-market oriented policies than Vietnam and North korea and look at the results.
What you cant deny is that South Korea and Taiwan have had a much less free-market oriented policies than Latin America and look at the results.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, I see your so well informed, Hong Kong is considered to be the most or one of the most economically free country and they certainly are better of then China,North Korea, vietnam etc.

And taiwan and South korea are more free than most latin american countries and over the last 10 years have a better "free-market" rating than almost every country in latin america, except Chile.
Signapure is also another good example of how free-market policies are better.
Ireland is another example, they have implemented more free-market policies and I think they have had a growing gdp rate of about 6%(just over 6%), well abouve the EU average , there GDP per capita is $29,792
, that is also above the EU average.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/.../countries.html (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html)

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:42 AM
In 1996 the economy was doing so well we should re-elect that man, Bill Clinton. Look at how low the unemployment rate was in Jan and Feb of 1996. Why the economy was briskly creating jobs and unemployment was down to 5.6% in January 1996 and only 5.5% in February. That's a fantastic performance for a president.

I'm sure the artificially inflated technology boom that we were coming out of had nothing to do with the numbers. You act like there is some magic economy calculator in the White House and Clinton's numbers were better than Bush's. Please, the .com boom was falling in on itself when Bush took the office. This is typical, assbackwards, lefty logic.

I bet you really believe Gore invented the internet :rolleyes:

[Osman Ghazi]

'Free-Market' policies aren't necessarily bad, for the country that implements them anyway. If you have enough infrastucture, then it works pretty well. If, like Latin America, you lack the necessary amount of infrastructure, it doesn't work out so great.

Example: Country A has an economy that is much better than Country B. They sign a free trade agreement.
Country A experiences rapid growth because suddenly products manufactured in their country are cheaper than products manufactured in Country B and so they have a nice big foreign market to sell to. Country B on the other hand, experiences a decline in their economy because they lose the domestic market for their products and their businesses go bankrupt.

So, to recap, free trade is good if you are already rich.
If you are not rich however, it is a deathtrap and can never be anything else.

Edit: Why aren't you restricted Hank? Not that I want you imprisoned in OI or anything but you have to admit that it is kind of odd.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 9 2004, 11:59 PM
'Free-Market' policies aren't necessarily bad, for the country that implements them anyway. If you have enough infrastucture, then it works pretty well. If, like Latin America, you lack the necessary amount of infrastructure, it doesn't work out so great.

Example: Country A has an economy that is much better than Country B. They sign a free trade agreement.
Country A experiences rapid growth because suddenly products manufactured in their country are cheaper than products manufactured in Country B and so they have a nice big foreign market to sell to. Country B on the other hand, experiences a decline in their economy because they lose the domestic market for their products and their businesses go bankrupt.

So, to recap, free trade is good if you are already rich.
If you are not rich however, it is a deathtrap and can never be anything else.

Edit: Why aren't you restricted Hank? Not that I want you imprisoned in OI or anything but you have to admit that it is kind of odd.
what, then why did it work in Chile, why is it working in El salvador, why did it work in Hong kong, signapure, south korea and taiwan?

[Morpheus]

Chile: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC11.html
Hong Kong: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC12.html

Even the CIA admits that 48% of people in El Salvador live below the poverty line. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/es.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/es.html)

South Korea industrialized through a command economy.

Capitalist methodology: Find countries that are prosperous. Declare that they practice "free markets" regardless of the actual degree of state intervention. Find countries that are not prosperous. Declare that they are "socialist." If a country passes from one group to the other, immediately change your evaluation of it. Argentina is a good example. When they were prosperous the capitalists claim this was an example of a "free market" and proof that it's the best way to go. When the economy imploded and a depression came about they switched their story, now they said it was "socialist" and failed because it had "too much state intervention."

[Hoppe]

South Korea industrialized through a command economy.


But your command economy doesn't work in the workers paradise north, so clearly the must have done something entirely different.


Capitalist methodology: Find countries that are prosperous. Declare that they practice "free markets" regardless of the actual degree of state intervention.

Yes, we're not that creative. It's the same as shouting that the USSR was state-capitalist etc etc.

[Morpheus]

your command economy doesn't work in the workers paradise north, so clearly the must have done something entirely different.

It's not "my" command economy. I don't advocate centralized planning, nor do I advocate market capitalism. Just because a system is efficient at producing lots of things doesn't mean it's compatable with liberty & equality. Today the main reason some countries are poor & others rich is imperialism. South Korea recieved lots of aid from the US and made lots of money building weapons for the US. North Korea is isolated (partly due to the actions of foreigners, partly by design) and didn't recieve the kind of aid the south did.

[Hoppe]

Today the main reason some countries are poor & others rich is imperialism. South Korea recieved lots of aid from the US and made lots of money building weapons for the US. North Korea is isolated (partly due to the actions of foreigners, partly by design) and didn't recieve the kind of aid the south did.

I urge you to go to your local library for a copy of de Soto's The Mystery of Capital. That should clear things up.

[Chewillneverdie]

Hoppe, as for famine in the US read grapes of wrath, although fictional that shit happened, I know I fucking live in Oklahoma, you can see the effects of it. ugh Kerrys running, goddamit, thats such shit. Well another year i go Nader lol

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Every vote for Nader means a vote for Bush! Go on, try to get every liberal out of the Democratic camp while there is still time!

C'mon, be realistic, voting for Nader will accomplish nothing and only ensure that Bush wins the re-election. Vote for Kerry in '04.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:33 AM
Every vote for Nader means a vote for Bush! Go on, try to get every liberal out of the Democratic camp while there is still time!

C'mon, be realistic, voting for Nader will accomplish nothing and only ensure that Bush wins the re-election. Vote for Kerry in '04.
We all know that democrats are better then the republicans but I think everyone should vote 3rd party, then maybe you can get some real change!!!!