How capitalism works?

[evince]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics




Keynesian economics (/ˈkeɪnziən/ KAYN-zee-ən; sometimes Keynesianism, named after British economist John Maynard Keynes) are the various macroeconomic theories and models of how aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) strongly influences economic output and inflation.[1] In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy. Instead, it is influenced by a host of factors – sometimes behaving erratically – affecting production, employment, and inflation.[2]

Keynesian economists generally argue that aggregate demand is volatile and unstable and that, consequently, a market economy often experiences inefficient macroeconomic outcomes – a recession, when demand is low, or inflation, when demand is high. Further, they argue that these economic fluctuations can be mitigated by economic policy responses coordinated between government and central bank. In particular, fiscal policy actions (taken by the government) and monetary policy actions (taken by the central bank), can help stabilize economic output, inflation, and unemployment over the business cycle.[3] Keynesian economists generally advocate a regulated market economy – predominantly private sector, but with an active role for government intervention during recessions and depressions.[4]

Keynesian economics developed during and after the Great Depression from the ideas presented by Keynes in his 1936 book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.[5] Keynes' approach was a stark contrast to the aggregate supply-focused classical economics that preceded his book. Interpreting Keynes's work is a contentious topic, and several schools of economic thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics, as part of the neoclassical synthesis, served as the standard macroeconomic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973). It was developed in part to attempt to explain the Great Depression and to help economists understand future crises. It lost some influence following the oil shock and resulting stagflation of the 1970s.[6] Keynesian economics was later redeveloped as New Keynesian economics, becoming part of the contemporary new neoclassical synthesis, that forms current-day mainstream macroeconomics.[7] The advent of the financial crisis of 2007–2008 sparked renewed interest in Keynesian policies by governments around the world.[8]

These are the economic ideas that the Democratic Party deploy when they have the power

 

[evince]

It is an UTTER FUCKING LIE to say they do the same things



An utter fucking lie

 

[evince]

That is a large share of the current Republican vote. I think it is mostly because of social issues since the parties differ little on economics.

The working class used to be a major part of the Democratic New Deal coalition but I think Democrats have alienated many of them by calling them a "basket of deplorables," red neck, and "uneducated" (rather than without college degrees). Whether we think that is an accurate description is irrelevant to whether it has alienated them and lost their votes.

You can see this attitude among JPP posters.

An utter fucking lie

 

[Althea]

The anthem is kinda good



The other stuff is crap with cardboard characters and unreal plot outcomes


She was a loser

Actually, she was a winner. The Fountainhead was made into a movie that increased book sales. She was quite successful in life until cigarette smoking finally caught up with her.

Her novels were fantasy, based on her ideals borne out of escaping Commnunism at a fairly young age. Her views were not unlike Florida Cubans who are staunch Republicans solely due to not understanding that Republicans lie about Socialism in order to garner votes. Anything that represents their past life under Communism is automatically shunned. 'Govt. is always bad' permeated Rand's fantasies.


Her vocabulary was vast, and her characters complex.

That doesn't mean that her ideas should be crafted into public policy, the way quite a few Republicans who never read 'Shrugged' believe.

 

[evince]

the parties differ little on economics.




An utter fucking lie

 

[evince]

Actually, she was a winner. The Fountainhead was made into a movie that increased book sales. She was quite successful in life until cigarette smoking finally caught up with her.

Her novels were fantasy, based on her ideals borne out of escaping Commnunism at a fairly young age. Her views were not unlike Florida Cubans who are staunch Republicans solely due to not understanding that Republicans lie about Socialism in order to garner votes. Anything that represents their past life under Communism is automatically shunned. 'Govt. is always bad' permeated Rand's fantasies.


Her vocabulary was vast, and her characters complex.

That doesn't mean that her ideas should be crafted into public policy, the way quite a few Republicans who never read 'Shrugged' believe.

Some people read trash


Her shit was trash


It was painful to read it was so phony

 

[Althea]

And that some are not PREVENTED from doing it

Baby/bathwater for sure. There are myriad issues with the laws that protect the uber wealthy, but that doesn't mean that our kids should not benefit from our hard work

 

[Althea]

The legally and ethically part is not on the inheritors but rather on the benefactors.

Correct. So ill gotten gains should be heavily taxed before they are passed on to heirs.

 

[Althea]

Some people read trash


Her shit was trash


It was painful to read it was so phony

And still, romance novels make millions of dollars

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Correct. So ill gotten gains should be heavily taxed before they are passed on to heirs.

You're probably right in a right and wrong world, but this isn't one,
and I would have been royally fucked so I needed a way around it.

As it is, my legitimate Italian businessman grandfather had too many grandchildren for any of us to live as he did.
I'm not complaining, but you know what I mean. I don't speak to most of my cousins. Once our parents passed, we went separate ways.
So much for the "Family," Grandfather.
No empire, big or modest, lasts forever, and America itself will be no different.
Neither will humanity itself, for that matter.

 

[evince]

And still, romance novels make millions of dollars

Yes trash sells

 

[evince]

Baby/bathwater for sure. There are myriad issues with the laws that protect the uber wealthy, but that doesn't mean that our kids should not benefit from our hard work

Our current system prevents some from building generational wealth


It has done so for a long time

 

[Althea]

You're probably right in a right and wrong world, but this isn't one,
and I would have been royally fucked so I needed a way around it.

As it is, my legitimate Italian businessman grandfather had too many grandchildren for any of us to live as he did.
I'm not complaining, but you know what I mean. I don't speak to most of my cousins. Once our parents passed, we went separate ways.
So much for the "Family," Grandfather.
No empire, big or modest, lasts forever, and America itself will be no different.
Neither will humanity itself, for that matter.

Each state treats estate taxes differently, and I believe the first million is tax free on the national level.

Further, property sales are protected from cap. gains via regulations that alter basis from the day/dollar amount property was first purchased, to value of the property at the time of death. That saves tons on capital gains taxation.

Further, there are a variety of schemes via 'gifts' (just ask trump) that can be employed years before the death of the benefactor.

I think we can agree that most estates don't even approach the level of wealth that most of us complain about.

 

[Althea]

Our current system prevents some from building generational wealth


It has done so for a long time

It prevents some from building any wealth, which would trickle down generations.

 

[Flash]

The Democratic Party does not use the same economic ideas as the Republican Party

YOU LIED

Their talk differs, but the end results are the same. The federal budget changes little between administrations. One reason is that 70% of the budget is fixed with mandatory spending.

 

[evince]

And still, romance novels make millions of dollars

And Mafia type crap


Just because something makes Money doesn’t mean it’s good

 

[Flash]

An utter fucking lie

Point out the specific errors.

Are you always so angry, bitter and full of hate?

 

[evince]

Their talk differs, but the end results are the same. The federal budget changes little between administrations. One reason is that 70% of the budget is fixed with mandatory spending.

That is not true


You are saying the crap people say when they know very little about what is actually being done and what worked



The Republican Party UNDOES much of what Democrats due once the Republicans Get the power to do so



Study up on the actual facts

 

[Althea]

Their talk differs, but the end results are the same. The federal budget changes little between administrations. One reason is that 70% of the budget is fixed with mandatory spending.

That's because results depend on bipartisan legislating.

Democrats typically want to tax those who ship our dollars overseas, and starve our economy for good paying jobs.

 

[evince]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/amp/



The tax bill speeding through Congress is being sold – by its advocates – as so good for the economy, that it will boost growth and offset any losses from the cuts. Those of you who were around in the 1980s might be feeling a sense of deja vu, especially when you recall what Ronald Reagan had to say back in 1981.

“We presented a complete program of reduction in tax rates. Again, our purpose was to provide incentive for the individual, incentives for business to encourage production and hiring of the unemployed, and to free up money for investment.”

I revisited the 1980s in a recent conversation with NPR’s Morning Edition. You can listen here. Here’s the gist of what I had to say.

Q. Did the 1981 Reagan tax cut spur enough economic growth that it paid for itself?

A. When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.