Summations Only

CS writes of me: The irony. It burns.Which causes the same burning feeling a poor Bedouin of the Sahara feels. (Known widely as the "trickle-eastern" theory.)

quote:

---

Situational irony . . . Being "shot with one's own gun", or "hoisted with one's own petard" are popular formulations of the basic idea of situational irony.

​

Irony - Wikipedia

---

Stupid.

Priceless.

Is consumerism viable forever? For example, what will happen when the earth's finite resources are depleted? Do you think conservatism can ever be a viable type of economic system? Sure, for very small societies/villages, but what of big capitalistic societies? The earth will be hitting 8 billion soon. What kind of economic society will earth have at 16 billion?Or can consumerism push into space? It's a big universe, probably a lot of room for new Coca Cola marketing territory.

Hmm. To me, this graph to seems to show, since the Reagan years, the middle class (making about 40K) has pretty much stagnated (nearly flat lined). It would seem to demonstrate a failed trickle down economics.

Well, if deregulation of the financial sector is an example of trickle-down policy, then I think trickle down economics can also be applied to many other actions. From the Reagan administration openly facilitating illegal labor practices. To Clinton who pushed NAFTA. To Obama who successfully pushed through three Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama (originally negotiated by Bush Jr. in 2007). Like Bush, Clinton, and the immoral-simpleton Jr., Obama cited false data from corporate lobbyists claiming these deals create jobs. However evidence has shown that NAFTA have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs. These policies continue to guarantee that the middle and lower class's wages would stagnate despite record profits for the rich.

quote:

---

Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine), a long-time critic of the trade deals, bluntly blamed Obama for caving into what he called Washington elites."
"Panama simply isn't a significant market opportunity for U.S. exports, and this FTA won't do anything to reduce our 9 percent unemployment," he said of the Panama free trade agreement. "But the big companies and the big banks want it, so President Obama is going to give in to the Washington elites, once again."
http://thehill.com/...es-colombia-fta-with-scant-dem-support

---

I don't believe I stated that you did. Indeed. And you must admit, the sales pitch has worked and worked and worked beyond their greatest imagination. Many (MANY) americans continue to vote against their best interests, yes?

"missteps"?I read this three times. Perhaps I am just misreading it and, at best, the sloppy usage shouldn't be bothering me so much, but . . .If you are in the middle or lower economic class, and your home is now under foreclosure, I don't think you would call the deliberate financial deregulation to benefit the wealthy as a mere "misstep" of congress. And, if you are in the higher class (much higher class) like CEO of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Lloyd Craig Blankfein, who made millions in profits and bonuses in deliberate financial deregulation to benefit the wealthy, I also wouldn't use the mere term "misstep".As you yourself wrote:

quote:

---

In my early posts in this thread I wrote a great deal about the ability of the rich to influence legislation for their own benefit.

---

Thus, I think using the word "misstep" is, at the least, not very accurate. I should think "Grand Theft" a more accurate term.

aka the rich 1%ers. (Curiously you left out the part where the rich CEOS got BONUSES.) "the government", curiously you didn't use a more accurate term, aka the taxpayers, aka the 99%ers. They paid the bill.The Glass—Steagall Act (enacted in 1933) was repealed in 1999 with expected results. For the rich to rob the poor.Also, I've read some articles saying it MAY have NOT been essential to bail them out. At the very least, the bailout should have waited for the situation to prove itself. Instead there was a mad rush to pay the CEOs crazy bonus money. Just like Bush Jr.'s mad rush to invade Iraq before the weapons inspectors could prove there weren't any WMD. (Grrr)Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : Added "ALSO..."

I know this is off-topic, but I thought my recent post was unusually coincidental to this recent news . . .

quote:

---

Jones, an adviser to a bold venture that aims to extract gold, platinum and rocket fuel from the barren space rocks

---

quote:

---

Asteroid Mining May Yield Precious Metals, Cosmic Riches, Planetary Resources Adviser Predicts

​

HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost

---

Sorry for the interruption, please carry on.

Percy, how do you maintain both positions in your head? "the company takes on all the risk"? "ALL"? Are you kidding?Buffalo NY is one of the smallest NFL franchise teams. The owner wants $200+ of TAXPAYER money for another 15 years or he is pulling the team outta Buffalo. Jacksonville, Cinncinnatti, Tampa Bay, St Louis, Baltimore; TAXPAYERS recently paid 85%.Oil corporations get massive tax breaks on top of massive profits. Year after year.Deregulations are a gift to corporations. We just addressed the financial institutions loan bailout. That included bonuses for CEOs. All loans over $# are gauranteed by the government. Risk?The auto manufacturers bailout by the TAXPAYER two years ago? "Hey america, we can produce crappy cars that catch on fire, no problem if nobody buys them, TAXPAYERS will bail us out."ALL of the pentagon vendors. We might as well pay blacksmiths the same zillion dollar contracts with TAXPAYER money.We addressed the topic of nuclear facilities recently in the forum. Contracts stipulate that the corporation's responsibility will be capped if tragedy happens and the taxpayers will foot the excess costs. How is that "taking on the risks"?I previously mentioned many ideas come from universities and government agencies that business take advantage. From the lowly velcro invention to high tech machinery. Product development, courtesy of taxpayer support. Where is the risk from simply taking "free" ideas from TAXPAYER supported initiatives?Drug companies have a government supported monopoly on prices. Where is the free market and its associated "risks" here?Health insurance companies now have a mandatory usage stipulation from the government. Where is the risk?Farming subsidies? Where is the risk to NOT growing something in return for subsidies? "the company takes on all the risk"? Just wow. What country are you living in?

I think you already addressed the simple mechanics of how "capitalism" actually works . . . If you concede that employees are taxpayers, then are you not already conceding that employees risk their "capital".(I noted Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. did NOT go bankrupt)Edited by dronester, : added Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Percy, I'd like you to reconcile this hypothesis: with this actuality: Until you can, I'll beleive that "trickle down economics" is a misnomer used to fool taxpayers for what one gets from influenced legislation.