What is The Tea Party???

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Friedman was a genius.

Friedman sure looked to Keynesian to bail his gemius out in 2008.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The Chilean Central Bank reached out to Friedman's "Chicago boys" for advice on how to stabilize, resuscitate, reform and nurse the economy back to health. Their policy recommendations were technical and apolitical. They ultimately ignited the Chilean miracle, transforming it into the most successful economy in Latin America.

.

You lying cocksucker....

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

. What has become of Chile? Now, twenty-odd years on, we can see the long term results of "neoliberal" economics: From the beginning of the reforms of the Chicago Boys in 1973 through 1986, there was no economic growth. Real mean salaries, adjusted for inflation, have declined by 10% since 1986 and by 18% from what they were during the Allende years. Median salaries have fared even worse, declining by 30% over the same period, signalling a torrent of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. When Allende was in power, less than 20% of the country lived in absolute poverty; by 1990 40% did. That figure has remained largely constant since. A third of the nation now survives on less than $30 per week. Some miracle indeed.

Enthusiastic supporters of the Pinochet reforms like to point out that since 1986, there has been a 7 percent annual growth rate; what they fail to mention is that this occurred only after 1986, after privatization of the banks was reversed, and collective bargaining rights and minimum wage laws were restored; after jobs-creation programs were instituted and privatization of the principal source of foreign exchange was reversed. And they fail to point out that all of that additional wealth has gone into the pockets of the few; the middle class and poor have seen none of it. The much-ballyhooed privatized Social Security system, which is being held up as a model for the United States to follow, is seriously being considered for re-nationalization, since the public system that runs along side it is producing vastly better results (almost twice the benefits of the private systems). When it was privatized, those who opted to remain in the public system are sure glad now that they did.
Yet the remaining "neoliberal" reforms continue to bite. The reforms are the reason why nearly all of that much ballyhooed annual growth has gone straight into corporate profits that benefit the rich, and less than ever into the pockets of the poor and working classes - note the declining median income as mentioned above. Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys are quite well aware of this, but simply don't care, because social justice is not their concern. All that matters to them is the increase in Gross Domestic Product - evidence of economic growth. The fact that it the increase is going entirely into the pockets of a tiny handful of the rich, suits him just fine. Remember, in his view the wealthy are wealthy because they deserve to be - and the same for the poor. As he often said, fairness was not an issue for him - the theory is apparently more important than the results of the theory - in other words, it was a religion, not a science. Consider that even in the United States, which is hardly a paragon of equitable wealth distribution, 60% of economic output goes into wages, and 40% into corporate profits. Yet in Chile, those numbers are exactly reversed. Chile now rates as the seventh worst nation in the world for equality of wealth distribution - tied with Kenya and Zimbabwe. Nearly all of the wealth being generated by the 7% growth rate is going straight into the pockets of a tiny number of the elite - and the only construction boom in the country in the last fifteen years has been going on in the very richest suburbs of Santiago.

[lustylad]

Where do you dig up this stuff, tranny boy? Your bonehead author makes my jaw drop. First he claims that following the coup there was “no economic growth” in Chile until 1986. Then he changes his mind and says “all that matters to (Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys) is the increase in Gross Domestic Product – evidence of economic growth”. So there was plenty of growth, it all went to the rich. Which is it, tranny boy? The guy loses all credibility when he says 40% of US economic output goes “into corporate profits”. Last time I looked it was more like 10%. Oh well, he is only off by a factor of four! Looks like your author is the lying cocksucker. He doesn't want to talk about how Allende's policies completely wrecked the Chilean economy. Better to lie and smear the non-Marxist technocrats who cleaned up the mess.

[Yssup Rider]

Not only is he an authority on Chile (Riiiight) by IBJunior is quite the vulgarian as well.

Word of advice: when you call someone a "fag-boy," you can't follow up with "Tranny boy" throughout the post. That's just poor form, Junior!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Friedman sure looked to Keynesian to bail his gemius out in 2008.

1. Who is Keynesian?

2. What is a gemius?

3. Friedman died in 2006. Was he (or his "gemius") bailed out of the grave in 2008?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by lustylad

1. Who is Keynesian?

2. What is a gemius?

3. Friedman died in 2006. Was he (or his "gemius") bailed out of the grave in 2008?

puzzled by WTF?....its ubiquitous, he even puzzles himself so he rarely revisits these sort of queries

[want2c]

What is the Democrat or Republican party? The only answer that comes to mind is. The Democrats stand for hating Republicans. The Republicans stand for hating Democrats.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

puzzled by WTF?....its ubiquitous, he even puzzles himself so he rarely revisits these sort of queries

I'll leave it to you to revisit queer-ies!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Where do you dig up this stuff, tranny boy? Your bonehead author makes my jaw drop. First he claims that following the coup there was “no economic growth” in Chile until 1986. .

And read what you failed to mention....maybe because you didn't know or were to stupid to understand that in 1986 they reversed many many many of the 'Chicago boys' policies'. Which only stopped the slide. Not reversed it.

Originally Posted by WTF

Enthusiastic supporters of the Pinochet reforms like to point out that since 1986, there has been a 7 percent annual growth rate; what they fail to mention is that this occurred only after 1986, after privatization of the banks was reversed, and collective bargaining rights and minimum wage laws were restored; after jobs-creation programs were instituted and privatization of the principal source of foreign exchange was reversed. .

Originally Posted by lustylad

He doesn't want to talk about how Allende's policies completely wrecked the Chilean economy. Better to lie and smear the non-Marxist technocrats who cleaned up the mess.

You mean the one's who went in and slaughtered its citizens? Attacked the democratic elected President and locked up dissent? That is how you want to win...through the barrel of a gun?

Originally Posted by WTF

What has become of Chile? Now, twenty-odd years on, we can see the long term results of "neoliberal" economics: From the beginning of the reforms of the Chicago Boys in 1973 through 1986, there was no economic growth. Real mean salaries, adjusted for inflation, have declined by 10% since 1986 and by 18% from what they were during the Allende years. Median salaries have fared even worse, declining by 30% over the same period, signalling a torrent of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. When Allende was in power, less than 20% of the country lived in absolute poverty; by 1990 40% did. That figure has remained largely constant since. A third of the nation now survives on less than $30 per week. Some miracle indeed.






. .

The proof that this is wtf you get with the 'Chicago Boys' policy is in the pudding. First in Chile and now here in this country....the middle class has shrunk with the rise of Milton's economic bullshit.


All one has to do is look at the results.


A huge wealth gap. First in Chile and now becoming a problem in this country.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

puzzled by WTF?....its ubiquitous, he even puzzles himself so he rarely revisits these sort of queries

It's an easy puzzle to solve once you realize he has poor reading comprehension, an inability to draw logical conclusions and a "tiny toolbox."

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

It's an easy puzzle to solve once you realize he has poor reading comprehension, an inability to draw logical conclusions and a "tiny toolbox."

What is your fascination with my tool? Is it logical to conclude that your lusting after another man's tool is kinda weird on a hooker board? Did you think this is a homo board? I could understand your confusion if you've stumbled across more than one of JD Cornhole gay rants about Tea Patries with a bunch of other guys dressed in drag.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by WTF

What is your fascination with my tool? Is it logical to conclude that your lusting after another man's tool is kinda weird on a hooker board? Did you think this is a homo board? I could understand your confusion if you've stumbled across more than one of JD Cornhole gay rants about Tea Patries with a bunch of other guys dressed in drag.

It is hard for the right to stay on topic till their mind turns to junk.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

It is hard for the right to stay on topic till their mind turns to junk.

Spoken like a true "independent".

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Spoken like a true "independent".

If the shoe fits wear it.

[HoustonMilfDebbie]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Debby, you do understand that Corporations are not living things. They do not pay taxes.

My Business is a Corporation. The taxes "it" pays are part of the billing rate to the customer. If the State decides to up the rate, I simply pass it on to those who buy the products and labor that we sell.

The people that buy their products pay the taxes, the Corporation is simply the middle man. If you go up on those taxes, then the Corporation will simply charge the people who buy the products more.

By the way. Do you agree with this slogan....."from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

You probably do, because many of the ideas you post about follow this creed to the letter.

The cost of living has already increased much faster than salaries, if you are lucky to get and keep a good paying job. I used to be a legal secretary and the jobs available now pay half of what I made over 10 years ago! Families are forced be two income families; as a matter of fact, it's a necessity for most of them.

Also, I am not referring to smaller coprorations such as yours. I am referring to the major multi-national corporations that are running the White House, such as GE, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Koch Brothers, and others. From what I hear GE did not pay any taxes last year, yet made record profits. Incorporations are great for smaller companies and do offer a lot of protection from lawsuits and the like. I used to file them when I was a legal secretary. Did you ever watch the video called "The Corporation"?