When have conservative economic policies ever worked?

[OneOfTheseDays]

I'm specifically talking about the two main tenants of conservative economic philosophy in the last few decades:

1.) Trickle down economics. Give tax cuts to the rich and corporations, it will trickle down to the common man.
2.) Limited regulations across the board

I hear a lot about how this is what we need to bring back jobs in this country, but have yet to see any modern society prosper with either of these two tenants as the backbone of their economic philosophy. In fact, it appears the facts dictate the exact opposite of this.

But I'm willing to believe I'm wrong, Conservatives here's your chance. Prove me wrong.

 

[Kadarin]

Depends on what you mean by "worked". If you happen to be super wealthy, then it's very likely that conservative economic policies have worked spectacularly over the last decade.

 

[Anarchist420]

With a few exceptions like patents and slavery, they worked from the time Jackson issued his specie circular until Pierce signed monetary bureaucrazy into law. Things really broke down after Buchanan signed the first Morrill Bill into law.

Laissez-faire hasn't been tried anywhere near as much since.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If you aren't trolling I suggest you read The Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum.

 

[a777pilot]

When have conservative economic policies ever worked?

Every time they are tried.

 

[techs]

If you aren't trolling I suggest you read The Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum.

wiki:
The Forum is best known for its annual meeting in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland. The meeting brings together some 2,500 top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals and journalists to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world, including health and the environment

Uh, NO.
I don't want to hear what corporate executives think is good economic policy. For corporations good economic policy makes the most money for their investors and pays the least money to its employees. They don't give a rats ass about anything else. Perhaps the part where they are a forum of "entrepeneurs" should have given you a clue as what their agenda is?

And for you to use this is trolling of epic proportions!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Still waiting...

 

[gingermeggs]

Depends on what you mean by "worked". If you happen to be super wealthy, then it's very likely that conservative economic policies have worked spectacularly over the last decade.

That would be kin to US Marines listening to Tokyo Rose in WW2 and believing her!!!!
Yes, Rose we need Austerity not taxes on the rich!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose

 

[Matt1970]

Seeing as how GDP doubles every 8 years now instead of 12, something worked. You don't think that only 1/4 of the workforce having a college degree and 1/4 of the workforce not even graduating High School have a factor on what triackled down to who?

Now, when has a higher tax rate on the upper class ever worked? Up untill the 80's we had a 70% upper tax rate and even as high as 90% yet we still ran deficits and had homeless and people living below the poverty line.

 

[CoachB]

Hmmmm.....look who makes up the "World Economic Forum".

Forum Members are companies that are driving the world economy forward. The typical Member company is a global enterprise with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover, although this varies by industry and region.

In addition, these enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country (generally based on turnover in US$ millions; for financial institutions the criteria is based on assets) and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region.

The Forum’s 1,000 Member companies are at the heart of all our activities and their support is essential to helping us find truly sustainable solutions to improve the state of the world.

Think there may be a bit of conservative bias in their "report"?

 

[Anarchist420]

Still waiting...

For what? I gave you a more rational and precise answer than anyone else did. You seem to be just as clueless as "conservatives" like a777pilot and Matt1970 who are nearly as anti-market[1] as you are.

[1] War is anti-market. They don't support the ultra pro-market Dr. Paul but rather they support Romney, the latter of whom is anti-market (and not just because he supports warfare state redistribution of wealth).

 

[gingermeggs]

A system that obscures the most rational solutions is the biggest failure of choice possible- Time to CHANGE THE SYSTEM!


this guy nails whats happening...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJlXhYigqAQ


People need to learn to "Play the ball", not "Play the Man"


Democratic work places is the key, now is this neo-imperialism!



The Juxtapose words, they have created to peddle the scam- Trust, Share, Securities....................

Also talks about the false communist countries China and the ex-soviet union- failing to apply the basis of Marxism, the Control of labor production.


American labor is the best in the world!
Why did it have its wings pulled off? you ask yourself this- who the fuck offshored all the jobs?


Those who are to busy start at the 45min mark.

 

[bononos]

I'm specifically talking about the two main tenants of conservative economic philosophy in the last few decades:

1.) Trickle down economics. Give tax cuts to the rich and corporations, it will trickle down to the common man.
2.) Limited regulations across the board

.....

Conservative economics if it can be conflated with the rise of globalization, Washington consensus free market economics or neoliberal economics have pretty much been a disaster everywhere it is introduced or rather forced upon by the WTO-IMF-WB triumvirate under structural adjustment policies

From Latin America to Africa to East European countries(after the end of the cold war) the disastrous effects of free market structural adjustments are very stark and real. Americans by contrast are largely unaware of this and by and large believe that free market economics saved those regions from even worse ruin.

By comparison the successful western democracies incl the US and Asian tigers never implemented conservative economic policies. They wisely used protectionism to build up their industrial base and before espousing the 'free market' mantra.

 

[Anarchist420]

rather forced upon by the WTO-IMF-WB triumvirate under structural adjustment policies

If it's done via a treaty, then it's not free market. Managed trade treaties are neo-liberal, but they're not free market. There is a difference.

 

[Phokus]

If it's done via a treaty, then it's not free market. Managed trade treaties are neo-liberal, but they're not free market. There is a difference.

Neo-Liberalism is very free market actually and very free trade. The IMF basically goes into 3rd world countries and tells the governments to open up trade, reduce deficits, and sell off public assets to private enterprise.

The funny thing is, when neo-liberalism was tried in Africa/South America, you had dismal results that didn't really pull people out of poverty. Contrast that with mercantilism/neo-mercantilism/industrial policy/American school of economics etc., you had wealth exploding everywhere. Examples include: The US Circa 1800's to 1940's, most western European countries, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and China now.

This book gives some insight on this:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans...=ha+joon+chang

 

[Anarchist420]

The IMF basically goes into 3rd world countries and tells the governments to open up trade, reduce deficits, and sell off public assets to private enterprise.

Were the results any good in those countries before? What policies did they have? Has NK had good results from economic communism?

Also be sure to keep in mind that the IMF is a creation of several govts.

Examples include: The US Circa 1800's to 1940's,

Actually, there was a lot of poverty in the mercantilist Gilded Age because public policies were, in fact, pro-business. The common men kept voting for men who said they favored Jacksonian economics (not neoliberal) until Lincoln.

 

[Phokus]

Were the results any good in those countries before? What policies did they have? Has NK had good results from economic communism?

NK is an autarky. A (neo) Mercantilist/Industrial policy is a 3rd way in between true free trade and an autarky country like NK. It's not a black and white world.

Also be sure to keep in mind that the IMF is a creation of several govts.

And? They promote less deficits, freer trade, and less state run industries. Things libertarians can cheer for.

Actually, there was a lot of poverty in the mercantilist Gilded Age because public policies were, in fact, pro-business. The common men kept voting for men who said they favored Jacksonian economics (not neoliberal) until Lincoln.

Mercantilim isn't guaranteed to work, but it has a much better track record than free trade in getting countries out of poverty.

 

[woodie1]

Seems like the current economic policies are doing a great job. Everyone who wants a job has one, wages are at historic highs, people are so financially secure that with record low interest rates houses are selling like hot cakes - if you can find one for sale .....

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

With a few exceptions like patents and slavery, they worked from the time Jackson issued his specie circular until Pierce signed monetary bureaucrazy into law. Things really broke down after Buchanan signed the first Morrill Bill into law.

Laissez-faire hasn't been tried anywhere near as much since.

What would "worked" mean from your point of view?

 

[JKing106]

Depends on what you mean by "worked". If you happen to be super wealthy, then it's very likely that conservative economic policies have worked spectacularly over the last decade.

Damn, beat me to it.

+1

 

[JKing106]

Every time they are tried.

Damn right. Folks got richer'n shit sellin' all those bombs, bullets, missiles, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, no bid contracts, hiring mercenaries...

Damn, I love 'Murica. We go no problem supporting industries that exist solely to kill other people. It's beautiful, man...

 

[Veliko]

Seeing as how GDP doubles every 8 years now instead of 12, something worked. You don't think that only 1/4 of the workforce having a college degree and 1/4 of the workforce not even graduating High School have a factor on what triackled down to who?

GDP increases don't mean a thing, when the vast, vast majority of it stays with such a tiny amount of people.

 

[sandorski]

Seeing as how GDP doubles every 8 years now instead of 12, something worked. You don't think that only 1/4 of the workforce having a college degree and 1/4 of the workforce not even graduating High School have a factor on what triackled down to who?

Now, when has a higher tax rate on the upper class ever worked? Up untill the 80's we had a 70% upper tax rate and even as high as 90% yet we still ran deficits and had homeless and people living below the poverty line.

GDP is growing at 9%? :\

At current US GDP growth(approx 2%), it will take 36 years for the US GDP to double.

 

[bononos]

Were the results any good in those countries before? What policies did they have? Has NK had good results from economic communism?

Also be sure to keep in mind that the IMF is a creation of several govts.
Actually, there was a lot of poverty in the mercantilist Gilded Age because public policies were, in fact, pro-business. The common men kept voting for men who said they favored Jacksonian economics (not neoliberal) until Lincoln.

Chang argued that the 'poor' economic policies of those so called backward regions gave better returns than they were in the decades of free market capitalism. The economic policies of those countries who 'made it' are crudely characterized as capitalist but they are not, their govt actively supported an industrial policy to beef up their economy. No one is saying communism is the answer so your NK example is moot.

The powers that be decreed that the IMF will be headed by a European and WB will be led by an American. Any big decision or hot issues by the IMF will always need an ok by America and is basically an appendage of the Treasury. The IMF/WB pushed financial liberalization which is a Wall Street agenda across emerging economies in Asia which caused the Asian crisis.

 

[Matt1970]

GDP is growing at 9%? :\

At current US GDP growth(approx 2%), it will take 36 years for the US GDP to double.

Current growth since 2008, check it out before though.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...011lcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History