5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible
response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late
1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years
emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible
response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the
late
1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty
years
emphasize the
Jan Coffey wrote:
So get on board with the majority in forign policy and focus on the facts of
a history we have with econmoics.
Who will do this?
Hmmm, why get on board a sinking ship?
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
Doug
___
At 11:32 PM 7/20/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has
been in place seventy years,
In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more
progressive taxation, and the
On Sunday 2003-07-20 18:54, Kevin Tarr wrote:
From: Trent Shipley
In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they
require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems
stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a
combination of
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides
the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow
growth.
Do you have any data to support this? Because the data I've seen shows
exactly the
On Monday 2003-07-21 03:57, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides
the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow
growth.
Do you have any data to support
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between
rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods.
There you go. That is exactly what needs to be expressed and isn't. At least
not as loud as it should. Instead
On Sunday 2003-07-20 14:36, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
trickle down: more money to the rich
The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is
that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of
additional income; in
From: Trent Shipley
In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require
legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with
huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social
atomization (probably a result of
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:36:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to
the poor than the rich.
Yes, and if you look at GDP growth, it is greater with trickle up than
trickle down.
The counter argument is that a person with
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has
been in place seventy years,
In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more
progressive taxation, and the Republicans toward less progressive
12 matches
Mail list logo
