Economics 101 - Evidence Based Decision Making

In the thread about the primaries in the USA, NWR makes this pertinent comment: I'm game if you are.Since most of these off-topic posts seem to concern various misconceptions about basic economics, I think somewhat narrowing the subject to that field of endeavor is appropriate,To begin the discussion I would like to present you with a few observations.The greatest economic rate of growth in the USA occurred between 1945 and 1970. Coincidentally, this was also when the USA had the highest tax rates on the wealthiest individuals, indeed under Eisenhower as high as 91%. Recent developments since 1980 seem to indicate taxing people who actually work for a living at a greater rate than those rich parasites who destroy companies, offshore jobs, lay off workers, and buy politicians like both frequently buy prostitutes results in lower growth.Illegal immigrants appear to be the only people willing to perform the awesome difficulty of actually performing as agricultural laborers. As Georgia and Alabama farmers soon discovered, crackdowns means their produce rots in the field.There are only two USA politicians in recent times that I know of who have the proven ability to balance a budget without legal coercion, Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown. There are likely others, please feel free to educate.That should be enough to get things started.Wherever you think it belongs Admins. Edited by anglagard, : Screwed up title

Not precisely the equivalent, but real damn close.Thanks for the reminder.

After I created this thread primarily so he could vent in the appropriate venue lest he run afoul of the admins?Oh well, it's not like I expected him to allow his beliefs to withstand any scrutiny.Nevertheless this thread stands as a placeholder for the next equivalent.Edited by anglagard, : title

Since I took macroeconomics back in 1988, I have found only one maxim in the entire field always holds true -- the monetarist equation:MV=PQWhereM=amount of money available in a given economy
P=aggregate price of goods
Q=aggregate amount of goods produced
V=velocity of money, aka the amount of times per year a given currency is spent on goods and servicesThe problem with increasing income inequality is:

quote:

---

Well, I think it’s quite simple, he began. If you look at something called ‘velocity of money’you guys know what that is, I presumethat means how much gets spent and turns around. When you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five, 10 percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend 100, or 110 percent of what they earn. As you’ve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money. Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about both fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will get the banks to begin to generate lending again as opposed to speculation. So from an economic point of view, it’s straightforward.

---

source What is amazing is the top 1% would actually be more prosperous if they allowed the other 99% to a share of the profits instead of using their wealth to suppress all others financial well-being by bribing politicians. I guess their love of money is second to their enjoyment at watching others suffer since they pay dearly for this entertainment.What is surprising is the source of the above quote, Asher Edelman, the purported inspiration for Gordon Gekko (I always thought it was Mitt Romney).Anyone is welcome to refute the monetarist equation by providing a single counterexample, just as they can try to refute gravity and thermodynamics and evolution.Good luck, Jews for Hitler. Oh look, there's a Mexican, get em'.Edited by anglagard, : Provide source